An evaluation of Take Home Naloxone program implementation in British Columbian correctional facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand how the Take Home Naloxone (THN) program is implemented in two pilot correctional facilities in British Columbia (BC), Canada, in order to identify areas for program improvement and inform the expansion of the program to other Canadian correctional facilities The paper aims to discuss these issues. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Two focus groups and one interview were conducted with healthcare staff at two pilot correctional facilities. Sessions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and divergent and convergent experiences within and between the facilities were explored in an iterative process. Key themes and lessons learned were identified and later validated by focus group participants. FINDINGS: Key themes that emerged included: challenges and importance of the train-the-trainer program for healthcare staff conducting participant training sessions; potential for improved prison population engagement and awareness of the program; tailoring program resources to the unique needs of an incarcerated population; challenges connecting participants to community harm reduction resources following release; and clarifying and enhancing the role of correctional officers to support the program. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The correctional setting presents unique challenges and opportunities for the THN program that must be considered for program effectiveness. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This evaluation was conducted to inform program expansion amidst a historic opioid overdose epidemic in BC, and adds to the limited yet growing body of literature on the implementation and evaluation of this program in correctional settings globally.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".