Feasibility and acceptability of take‐home naloxone for people released from prison in New South Wales, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of a take-home naloxone program for people with a history of opioid use released from prison in New South Wales, Australia. DESIGN AND METHODS: Cross-sectional interviews with people with a history of opioid use who were recently released from prison (n = 105), and semi-structured interviews with key clinical and operational staff of Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network and Corrective Services NSW (n = 9). RESULTS: Among people with a history of opioid use who had recently left prison, there was very high awareness of the elevated risk of overdose following release from prison (95%) and the potential for naloxone to reverse an opioid overdose (97%). Participants considered that their personal risk of overdose was low, despite ongoing opioid use being common. Participants were largely supportive of take-home naloxone, but the majority (83%) stated that proactively obtaining naloxone would be a low priority for them following release. Key informants were supportive of introducing naloxone training and supply and identified barriers to implementation, including adequate resourcing, identifying the population for training, and developing an appropriate model of training and implementation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There was widespread support for naloxone training in custody and distribution at release among people recently released from prison and key stakeholders in health-care provision and prisons administration. As proactively accessing naloxone is a low priority for patients, naloxone supply at release may be more effective than programs that refer releasees to local pharmacies, but developing a sustainable supply model requires consideration of several barriers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".