Twenty Years After the EMS Research Agenda: Trends in Emergency Medical Services Publications and Research Funding.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Since its publication in 2001, the National EMS Research Agenda has brought attention to a relative paucity of emergency medical services (EMS)-specific research and has called for an increase in funding and infrastructure to support EMS research. We investigated the trends in EMS-specific publications and National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded research grants in the 20 years since this landmark publication. METHODS: We performed a structured PubMed search of English-language citations from 2001 to 2020 to identify publications with populations, settings, or topics related to EMS care, education, or operations. Publications in trade journals and studies not involving humans were excluded. We also queried NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) using a similar structured search. Titles, keywords, and abstracts were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and nonlinear trends were described using segmented regression models. RESULTS: A total of 183,307 references met the search criteria in PubMed, and 4,281 grants were identified in NIH RePORTER. After removing duplicates, 152,408 titles were screened, with 17,314 (11.5%) included. EMS-related publications increased from 419 in 2001 to 1,788 in 2020, a 327% increase, compared with a 197% increase in total PubMed publications. There was a statistically significant nonlinear (J-shaped) increase in EMS publications after 2007. There were 1,166 funded EMS-related NIH grants, with a 469% increase from 2001 to 2020 compared with an 18% increase in overall NIH awards. CONCLUSION: Although total publications have doubled in the United States over the past 20 years, EMS-specific research has more than tripled and the number of funded EMS research grants has increased nearly 5-fold. Future evaluation should examine the quality of this research and its application to clinical practice.

Application of The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to inform understanding of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of opioid and naloxone training on college campuses.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic in the US continues to worsen. Opioid-only and polysubstance-involved opioid overdose deaths are increasing among adolescents and young adults, who have limited knowledge of opioid overdose prevention, including recognition and response. College campuses have infrastructure to support national-level implementation of evidence-based public health strategies for providing opioid overdose prevention and naloxone training programs among this priority population. However, college campuses are an underutilized, understudied setting for this programming. To address this gap, we conducted research assessing barriers and facilitators to planning and implementing this programming on college campuses. METHODS: We held 9 focus groups among purposively selected campus stakeholders whose perceptions were important to understand in planning for the dissemination and implementation of opioid overdose prevention and naloxone training. Focus group scripts were informed by The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to query about perceptions of opioid and other substance use, opioid and other substance use-related resources, and naloxone administration training. We used a deductive-inductive, iterative approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Themes about implementation barriers included (1) the perception that problematic use of other (non-opioid) substances was more prevalent than opioid use on campus and focus on those substances would be a greater priority on college campuses; (2) student schedules were overwhelmed with academic commitments and extracurricular activities, making delivery of additional training challenging; (3) barriers related to the perceived complexity and decentralization of communication on campus, preventing students from knowing how to access substance use-related resources. Themes about implementation facilitators included (1) framing naloxone training as important in becoming a responsible leader on campus and in the broader community and (2) leveraging existing infrastructure, champions within existing campus groups, and tailored messaging to facilitate participation in naloxone training. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide in-depth insights into potential barriers and facilitators to widespread, routine implementation of naloxone/opioid education on undergraduate college campuses. The study captured diverse stakeholder perspectives and was theoretically grounded in CFIR, contributing to the growing literature on the application and refinement of CFIR across diverse community and school contexts.