Reducing the stigma surrounding opioid use disorder: evaluating an opioid overdose prevention training program applied to a diverse population

Background The opioid epidemic is a rapidly growing public health concern in the USA, as the number of overdose deaths continues to increase each year. One strategy for combating the rising number of overdoses is through opioid overdose prevention programs (OOPPs). Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of an innovative OOPP, with changes in knowledge and attitudes serving as the primary outcome measures. Methods The OOPP was developed by a group of medical students under guidance from faculty advisors. Training sessions focused on understanding stigmatizing factors of opioid use disorder (OUD), as well as protocols for opioid overdose reversal through naloxone administration. Pre- and post-surveys were partially adapted from the opioid overdose attitudes and knowledge scales and administered to all participants. Paired t-tests were conducted to assess differences between pre- and post-surveys. Results A total of 440 individuals participated in the training; 381 completed all or the majority of the survey. Participants came from a diverse set of backgrounds, ages, and experiences. All three knowledge questions showed significant improvements. For attitude questions, significant improvements were found in all three questions evaluating confidence, two of three questions assessing attitudes towards overdose reversal, and four of five questions evaluating stigma and attitudes towards individuals with OUD. Conclusions Our innovative OOPP was effective not only in increasing knowledge but also in improving attitudes towards overdose reversal and reducing stigma towards individuals with OUD. Given the strong improvements in attitudes towards those with OUD, efforts should be made to incorporate the unique focus on biopsychosocial and sociohistorical components into future OOPPs.

Assessing the impact of the Good Samaritan Law in the state of Connecticut: a system dynamics approach

Background Although Good Samaritan laws (GSLs) have been widely adopted throughout the United States, their efficacy in individual states is often unknown. This paper offers an approach for assessing the impact of GSLs and insight for policy-makers and public health officials who wish to know whether they should expect to see outcomes from similar policy interventions. Methods Utilizing a system dynamics (SD) modeling approach, the research team conducted a policy evaluation to determine the impact of GSLs on opioid use disorder (OUD) in Connecticut and evaluated the GSL based upon the following health outcomes: (1) emergency department (ED) visits for overdose, (2) behavioral changes of bystanders, and (3) overdose deaths. Results The simulation model suggests that Connecticut’s GSL has not yet affected overdose deaths but has resulted in bystander behavioral changes, such as increased 911 calls for overdose. ED visits have increased as the number of opioid users has increased. Conclusions The simulation results indicate that the number of opioid-related deaths will continue to increase and that the GSL alone cannot effectively control the crisis. However, the SD approach that was used will allow policymakers to evaluate the effectiveness of the GSL over time using a simulation framework. This SD model demonstrates great potential by producing simulations that allow policymakers to assess multiple strategies for combating the opioid crisis and select optimal public health interventions.

Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2020

This report uses the most recent data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) to update statistics on deaths from drug overdose in the United States, showing rates by demographic group and by specific types of drugs involved (such as opioids or stimulants), with a focus on changes from 2019 to 2020.

Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2020

This report uses the most recent data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) to update statistics on deaths from drug overdose in the United States, showing rates by demographic group and by specific types of drugs involved (such as opioids or stimulants), with a focus on changes from 2019 to 2020.

Take-Home Naloxone and the Prevention of Deaths from Heroin Overdose: Pursuing Strong Science, Fuller Understanding, Greater Impact

<b><i>Background and Context:</i></b> Realization of the life-saving potential of “take-home naloxone” has been a personal journey, but it has also been a collective journey. It has been a story of individual exploration and growth, and also a story of changes at a societal level. “Take-home naloxone” has matured since its first conceptualization a quarter of a century ago. It required recognition of the enormous burden of deaths from drug overdose (particularly heroin and other opioids), and also realization of critical clusterings (such as post-release from prison). It also required realization that, since many overdose deaths are witnessed, we can potentially prevent many deaths by mobilizing drug users themselves, their families, and the wider caring community to act as intervention workforce to give life-saving interim emergency care. <b><i>Summary of Scope:</i></b> This article explores 5 areas (many illustrations UK-based where the author works): firstly, the need for strong science; secondly, our improved understanding of opioid overdose and deaths; thirdly, the search for greater impact from our policies and interventions; fourthly, developing better forms of naloxone; and fifthly, examining the challenges still to be addressed. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> “Take-home naloxone” is an exemplar of harm reduction with potential global impact – drug policy and practice for the public good. However, “having the potential” is not good enough – there needs to be actual implementation. This will be easier once the component parts of “take-home naloxone” are improved (better naloxone products, better training aids, revised legislation, and explicit funding support). Many improvements are already possible, but we hesitate about implementation. It is our responsibility to drive progress faster. With “take-home naloxone,” we can be proud of what we have achieved, but we must also be humble about how much more we still need to do.