Awareness, Possession, and Use of Take-Home Naloxone Among Illicit Drug Users, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2014-2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although take-home naloxone (THN) programs are integral in strategies to prevent overdose deaths among opioid users, the uptake of THN among people who use drugs (PWUD) (including non-opioid users) is unknown. The objectives of this study were to determine awareness, possession, and use of THN among PWUD in Vancouver, Canada, and identify barriers to adopting this strategy. METHODS: From December 1, 2014, to May 29, 2015, participants in 2 prospective cohort studies of PWUD in Vancouver completed a standardized questionnaire, which asked about awareness, possession, and use of THN; sociodemographic characteristics; and drug use patterns. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to determine factors independently associated with awareness and possession of THN. RESULTS: Of 1137 PWUD, 727 (64%) reported at least 1 previous overdose ever, and 220 (19%) had witnessed an overdose in the previous 6 months. Although 769 (68%) participants overall reported awareness of THN, only 88 of 392 (22%) opioid users had a THN kit, 18 (20%) of whom had previously administered naloxone. Factors that were positively associated with awareness of THN included witnessing an overdose in the previous 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-3.34; P < .001), possession of THN (aOR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.11-3.06; P = .02), younger age (aOR = 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; P = .003), white race (aOR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.27-2.19; P < .001), hepatitis C infection (aOR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.13-2.36; P = .01), residing in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside neighborhood (aOR = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.47-2.53; P < .001), and at least daily heroin injection (aOR = 1.69; 95% CI, 1.09-2.62; P < .02). CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve knowledge of and participation in the THN program may contribute to reduced opioid overdose mortality in Vancouver.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".