Missouri's Overdose Field Report: descriptive analysis, survival trends, and naloxone dosing patterns from a community-based survey tool, 2018-2022.

Background: Missouri's Overdose Field Report (ODFR) is a community-based reporting system which intends to capture overdoses which may not be otherwise recorded.Objectives: Describe the factors related to non-fatal overdoses reported to Missouri's ODFR.Methods: This study used a descriptive epidemiological approach to examine the demographics and circumstances of overdoses reported to the ODFR. We used binary logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with survival and ordinal logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with number of doses used. Factors were chosen based on their relevance to overdose education and survival, and naloxone distribution.Results: Between 2018 and 2022, 12,225 overdoses (67% male; 78% White) were reported through the ODFR, with a 96% (n = 11,225) survival rate. Overdose survival (ps < .02) was associated with younger age (OR = .58), no opioid and stimulant co-involvement (OR = .61), and private location (OR = .48). Intramuscular naloxone in particular was associated with a significantly higher odds of survival compared to nasal naloxone (OR = 2.11). An average of 1.6 doses of naloxone per incident were administered. Additional doses were associated (ps < .02) with being older (OR = .45), female (OR = .90), nasal naloxone (versus intravenous) (OR = .65), and the belief fentanyl was present (OR = 1.49).Conclusion: Our reporting form provides a comprehensive picture of the events surrounding reported overdoses, including factors associated with survival, how much naloxone was used, and the effects of respondents believing fentanyl was involved. Missouri's report can provide support for current naloxone dosing, contextualize refusing post-overdose transport, and can be used to improve overdose response by community and first responders.

An evaluation of first responders' intention to refer to post-overdose services following SHIELD training.

BACKGROUND: First responders [law enforcement officers (LEO) and Fire/Emergency Medical Services (EMS)] can play a vital prevention role, connecting overdose survivors to treatment and recovery services. This study was conducted to examine the effect of occupational safety and harm reduction training on first responders' intention to refer overdose survivors to treatment, syringe service, naloxone distribution, social support, and care-coordination services, and whether those intentions differed by first responder profession. METHODS: First responders in Missouri were trained using the Safety and Health Integration in the Enforcement of Laws on Drugs (SHIELD) model. Trainees' intent to refer (ITR) overdose survivors to prevention and supportive services was assessed pre- and post-training (1-5 scale). A mixed model analysis was conducted to assess change in mean ITR scores between pre- and post-training, and between profession type, while adjusting for random effects between individual trainees and baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Between December 2020 and January 2023, 742 first responders completed pre- and post-training surveys. SHIELD training was associated with higher first responders' intentions to refer, with ITR to naloxone distribution (1.83-3.88) and syringe exchange (1.73-3.69) demonstrating the greatest changes, and drug treatment (2.94-3.95) having the least change. There was a significant increase in ITR score from pre- to post-test (ß = 2.15; 95% CI 1.99, 2.30), and LEO-relative to Fire/EMS-had a higher score at pre-test (0.509; 95% CI 0.367, 0.651) but a lower score at post-test (0.148; 95% CI - 0.004, 0.300). CONCLUSION: Training bundling occupational safety with harm reduction content is immediately effective at increasing first responders' intention to connect overdose survivors to community substance use services. When provided with the rationale and instruction to execute referrals, first responders are amenable, and their positive response highlights the opportunity for growth in increasing referral partnerships and collaborations. Further research is necessary to assess the extent to which ITR translates to referral behavior in the field.

Longitudinal Assessment of Emergency Responders' Attitudes Toward People Who Overdose and Naloxone Following an Overdose Education Training.

BACKGROUND: In addition to teaching overdose recognition and response, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) trainings for emergency responders aim to improve trainee attitudes toward people who use drugs and toward naloxone. This study examines the training effectiveness long term, as well as the extent to which improvements are dependent on profession type or recent experience administering naloxone. METHODS: A total of 774 emergency responders, consisting of law enforcement officers (LEOs) (n = 624, 81%) and emergency medical service (EMS) personnel (n = 150, 19%), attended OEND trainings and completed surveys immediately prior to ("pre") and following ("post") the training, as well as 6 months later ("follow-up"). Survey items assessed attitudes toward people who have overdosed, naloxone-related risk compensation (ie, "enabling") beliefs, and whether participants had administered naloxone since attending the training. Multiple regression and estimated marginal means were used to evaluate changes in scores. RESULTS: Emergency responders showed improved attitudes (pre = 2.60, follow-up = 2.45, P < .001) and risk compensation beliefs (pre = 2.97, follow-up = 2.67, P < .001) 6 months following the training. Follow-up scores differed by profession, with LEOs endorsing worse attitudes (difference = 0.55, P = .013) and more risk compensation beliefs (difference = 0.67, P = .014) than EMS. In addition, having recently administered naloxone predicted more negative attitudes (EMS: difference = 0.55, P = .01; LEO: difference = 0.54, P = .004) and risk compensation beliefs (EMS = 0.73, P = .006; LEO = 0.69, P = .002) at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Six months after an OEND training, emergency responders' attitudes toward people who overdose, and their risk compensation beliefs remained improved. However, LEOs had more negative follow-up attitudes and beliefs compared to EMS. Emergency responders who had administered naloxone had worse attitudes and beliefs at follow-up than those who had not. Of note, our sample evidenced sizable attrition between pre and follow-up assessments, leaving room for selection bias. Future studies should investigate how to mitigate negative effects of administering naloxone on attitudes toward those who overdose, and belief that naloxone is "enabling."