The uptake of the pharmacy-dispensed naloxone kit program in Ontario: A population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Naloxone is a life-saving antidote for opioid overdoses. In June 2016, the Ontario government implemented the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies (ONPP) to enhance access to naloxone. OBJECTIVE: We examined the initial uptake of naloxone through the ONPP and characteristics of the individuals receiving and pharmacies dispensing naloxone kits. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of all Ontario residents who received a naloxone kit between July 1, 2016 and March 31, 2018. This involved 1) a cross-sectional analysis of monthly rates of kits dispensed; and 2) a descriptive analysis of all individuals and pharmacies who accessed and dispensed naloxone, respectively. We stratified individuals according to their opioid exposure as: prescription opioid agonist therapy (OAT) recipients, prescription opioid recipients, those with past opioid exposure and those with no/unknown opioid exposure. We calculated a Lorenz curve comparing the cumulative percent of naloxone-dispensing pharmacies and cumulative percent of naloxone kits dispensed and the corresponding Gini coefficient. RESULTS: Naloxone dispensing through the ONPP increased considerably from 1.9 to 54.3 kits per 100,000 residents over the study period. In this time, 2,729 community pharmacies dispensed 91,069 kits to 67,910 unique individuals. Uptake was highest among prescription OAT recipients (40.7% of OAT recipients dispensed at least one kit), compared with 1.6% of prescription opioid recipients, 1.0% of those with past opioid exposure and 0.3% with no/unknown opioid exposure. Naloxone dispensing was highly clustered among pharmacies (Gini = 0.78), with 55.6% of Ontario pharmacies dispensing naloxone, and one-third (33.7%) of kits dispensed by the top 1.0% of naloxone-dispensing pharmacies. CONCLUSION: The ONPP launch led to a rapid increase in the number of naloxone kits dispensed in Ontario. Although the program successfully engaged people prescribed OAT, efforts to increase uptake among others at risk of opioid overdose appear warranted. Opportunities for expanding pharmacy participation should be identified and pursued.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".