Stakeholders' Perceptions of Factors Influencing the Use of Take-Home-Naloxone.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Opioid associated death and overdose is a growing burden in societies all over the world. In recent years, legislative changes have increased access to naloxone in the take-home setting for use by patients with a substance use disorder and bystanders, to prevent opioid overdose deaths. However, few studies have explored the factors influencing the uptake by its multiple stakeholders. The aim of this scoping review was to explore the factors influencing the use of take-home naloxone from the perspectives of different stakeholders. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was adopted with a systematic search of databases EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed. A variation of the search words "naloxone", "opioid" and "overdose" were used in each database. The articles were screened according to the predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and categorized based on their key perspective or target population. RESULTS: The initial database search yielded a total of 1483 articles. After a series of screening processes, 51 articles were included for analysis. Two key stakeholder perspectives emerged: patients and bystanders (n = 36), and healthcare professionals (n = 15). Within the patient and bystander group, a strong consensus arose that there were positive outcomes from increased access to take-home naloxone and relevant training programs. Despite these positive outcomes, some healthcare professionals were concerned that take-home naloxone would encourage high-risk opioid use. CONCLUSION: Take-home naloxone is slowly being introduced into community practice, with a sense of enthusiasm from patients and bystanders. There are still a number of barriers that need to be addressed from healthcare professionals' perspective. Future research should be aimed at emergency care professionals outside of the US, who are most experienced with naloxone and its potential impact on the community.

Emergency department physicians' and pharmacists' perspectives on take-home naloxone.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Opioid overdose is an increasing burden world-wide and is a major cause of death in Australia. To reduce the number of opioid-related deaths, access to take-home naloxone has expanded in Australia and is now accessible without prescription. Emergency departments (ED) could be ideal settings for the distribution of take-home naloxone, due to regular encounters with patients who experience opioid overdoses. The aim of this study was to gain insight into ED physicians' and pharmacists' perspectives on take-home naloxone in the ED setting. DESIGN AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with ED physicians and pharmacists about their perceptions of take-home naloxone. Participants were recruited through their involvement with professional bodies and through 'snowball' recruitment. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim to be analysed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Twenty-five interviews were conducted with 13 pharmacists and 12 physicians. Responses were categorised into three main themes: (i) Attitudes-the majority of participants supported take-home naloxone in principle, but had numerous concerns; (ii) Clinical Application-where challenges in terms of its patient use, implementation and pharmacological actions were raised; and (iii) Logistical Considerations-where many hindrances in relation to the distribution of take-home naloxone from the ED such as time considerations, education and resourcing were discussed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite the majority supporting take-home naloxone, participants identified barriers to take-home naloxone in the ED. In the future, emphasis should be placed on educating and training staff in the ED about take-home naloxone and implementing standardised protocols.

Food industry sponsorship of academic research: investigating commercial bias in the research agenda.

OBJECTIVE: To identify scientific publications that result from food industry-funded projects on human health and to characterize their research topics to assess the potential for bias in the research agenda. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis.Setting/SubjectsFood industry-supported projects related to human health were identified from food company websites; publications resulting from the food industry-sponsored projects were identified through a PubMed search. RESULTS: Of ten companies analysed, only two (Coca-Cola and the Mars Center for Cocoa Health Science) provided a list of research projects with sufficient detail for analysis. Among the 204 publications resulting from thirty-seven disclosed research projects, the most common topic was physical activity (40·7 %), while highly processed foods were analysed in 10·8 % of the publications. Twenty-two publications (10·8 %) focused on research integrity or research methods. CONCLUSIONS: Publications resulting from Coca-Cola- and Mars-sponsored research appear to skew the evidence towards solutions that favour industry interests by focusing on food components that can be manipulated and marketed by food companies. These food industry-funded publications can also distract from nutrition as a health issue by diverting public and policy attention to physical activity. Shaping the debate around scientific methods can be another strategy that corporations use for their benefit to raise doubts about the methods used in non-industry sponsored research.