ArticlePloS one2026
Implementation of the Trigger Checklist and assertive outreach to reduce drug-related harm in the Emergency Department: A realist evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug-related harm is a major global public health concern, with opioids implicated in over 70% of drug-related deaths. Scotland reports the highest drug-related mortality rate in Europe, with remote and rural communities facing additional barriers to accessing harm reduction and treatment services. Assertive outreach is increasingly recognised as a key strategy to engage individuals at risk who are disconnected from traditional services. This study evaluates the use of a Trigger Checklist to identify and outreach individuals within 48 hours of referral in a rural Emergency Department (ED).
methodsA realist evaluation explored how and why the Trigger Checklist works within the complexity of an ED setting. Guided by Pawson and Tilley's framework, the evaluation followed three stages: theory gleaning, refining, and consolidation. Initial programme theories were developed using literature and advisory group input, then refined through 13 realist interviews with ED clinicians and outreach workers (OW). Data were analysed using Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configurations and linked to middle-range theories.
resultsThree programme theories emerged: (1) Confident decision-making, where certainty, conversational aids, ethical reasoning, and outreach worker prompts influenced checklist use; (2) Trusting relationships, shaped by OWs' approachability, situational awareness, and mutual respect; and (3) Perceived value, driven by altruism, narrative feedback, and perceived reductions in ED visits. Relational coordination theory explained how shared goals, knowledge, and respect - reinforced by timely, accurate communication - enabled coordinated action. OW presence and recovery discussions were critical to foster confident and appropriate referrals among ED clinicians.
conclusionsThe Trigger Checklist can support timely outreach potentially reducing drug-related harm in rural ED settings, but its success depends on relational dynamics, perceived value, and organisational integration. To avoid checklist fatigue or tokenistic use, it should be embedded with the support of OWs who foster trust. These relationships will enhance use of the checklist as a meaningful intervention within complex care systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.