Factors Associated with Non-Evidence-Based Overdose Responses among People Who Use Prescription Opioids Non-Medically in Rural Appalachia.

Background: Opioid-related overdose deaths recently accelerated. In response, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) has been implemented widely, though access remains sparse in rural Appalachia. Despite increasing OEND, risk factors for non-evidence-based overdose responses among the training-naïve remain unknown. Methods: We enrolled 169 adults who use prescription opioids non-medically and reside in rural West Virginia (August 2014-March 2015). Participants were interviewed about witnessing overdose (lifetime and prior-year), characteristics of the most recent overdose, responses to the overdose, and OEND acceptability. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with non-evidence-based responses to overdose. Results: Among the 73 participants who witnessed an opioid-related overdose, the majority (n = 53, 73%) reported any non-evidence-based responses. Participants were significantly more likely to report a non-evidence-based response when victims were unresponsive (OR = 3.36; 95% CI = 1.07, 10.58). Common evidence-based responses included staying with the victim until help arrived (n = 66, 90%) and calling 911 (n = 63, 86%), while the most common non-evidence-based responses were hitting or slapping the victim (n = 37, 51%) and rubbing the victim with ice or placing them in a cold shower or bath (n = 14, 19%). While most (n = 60, 82%) had never heard of OEND, the majority (n = 69, 95%) were willing to train, particularly those reporting non-evidence-based responses (n = 52, 98%). Conclusions: These findings underscore the need to expand access to OEND in rural communities and indicate OEND is acceptable to training-naïve individuals who use opioids in rural Appalachia. Given the "harm reduction deserts" in the region, approaches to expand OEND should be pursued.

Facilitators, barriers and lessons learnt from the first state-wide naloxone distribution conducted in West Virginia.

BACKGROUND: Overdose education and naloxone distribution programmes are known to reduce opioid-related deaths. A state-wide naloxone distribution effort of 8250 rescue kits was undertaken by government, community and university partners in West Virginia in 2016-2017. The purpose of this study was to discern the barriers, facilitators and lesson learnt from implementing this endeavour in a rural state with the highest opioid overdose fatality rate in the US. METHODS: Structured interviews (n=26) were conducted among both internal and external stakeholders. Those who participated were >18 years of age and were the lead representative from agencies that either received naloxone (ie, external stakeholders) or helped implement the distribution (ie, internal stakeholders). The interviews followed standardised scripts and lasted approximately 40 min. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed. Qualitative content analysis was performed by two researchers to determine themes surrounding facilitators or barriers to programme implementation. RESULTS: The primary facilitators reported by stakeholders included collaborative partnerships, ease of participating in the programme, being established in prevention efforts, demand for naloxone and the need for personal protection from overdose. The primary barriers identified by stakeholders included bureaucracy/policy/procedures of their organisation or agency, stigma, logistical or planning issues, problems with reporting, lack of communication post distribution and sustainability. Numerous lessons were learnt. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the implementation of the programme in 87 organisations, including law enforcement and fire departments, the impact of facilitators outweighed that of barriers. These findings may inform others planning to conduct a similar, large-scale project.

The Changed Injury Landscape, More on Injury Prevention Roles for the Lifestyle Physician, and More Than "Limited Progress" Since Injury in America.

One theme of the article ("Time for Lifestyle Medicine to Take Injury Prevention Seriously," by Teitge and Francescutti) that should resonate with contemporary injury prevention proponents-whether they are researchers, practitioners, policy makers, or advocates in the public health arena or providers, administrators, and patient advocates in the health care arena-is the need for an increased injury prevention focus among health care providers. In particular, the call for providers to link injury prevention approaches and tools to the clinical care of patients is both noteworthy and compelling. However, the authors' description of the current injury experience in the United States fails to acknowledge important changes over the past decade and a half that have had an impact on the injury prevention roles of providers. Plus, the notion that progress in injury prevention has been limited in the 3 decades since the publication of Injury in America, undervalues the advances that have occurred.