Can naloxone prescription and overdose training for opioid users work in family practice? Perspectives of family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore family physicians' attitudes toward prescribing naloxone to at-risk opioid users, as well as to determine the opportunities and challenges for expanding naloxone access to patients in family practice settings. DESIGN: One-hour focus group session and SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. SETTING: Workshop held at the 2012 Family Medicine Forum in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen conference attendees from 3 Canadian cities who practised in various family practice settings and who agreed to participate in the workshop. METHODS: The workshop included an overview of information about naloxone distribution and overdose education programs, followed by group discussion in smaller focus groups. Participants were instructed to focus their discussion on the question, "Could this [overdose education and naloxone prescription] work in your practice?" and to record notes using a standardized discussion guide based on a SWOT analysis. Two investigators reviewed the forms, extracting themes using an open coding process. MAIN FINDINGS: Some participants believed that naloxone could be used safely among family practice patients, that the intervention fit well with their clinical practice settings, and that its use in family practice could enhance engagement with at-risk individuals and create an opportunity to educate patients, providers, and the public about overdose. Participants also indicated that the current guidelines and support systems for prescribing or administering naloxone were inadequate, that medicolegal uncertainties existed for those who prescribed or administered naloxone, and that high-quality evidence about the intervention's effectiveness in family practice was lacking. CONCLUSION: Family physicians believe that overdose education and naloxone prescription might provide patients at risk of opioid overdose in their practices with broad access to a potentially lifesaving intervention. However, they explain that there are key barriers currently limiting widespread implementation of naloxone use in family practice settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".