Equity-oriented frameworks to inform responses to opioid overdoses: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to systematically identify and describe literature that uses a health equity-oriented approach for preventing and reducing the harms of stigma or overdose for people who use illicit drugs or misuse prescription opioids. INCLUSION CRITERIA: To be included, papers had to both: i) use a health equity-oriented approach, defined as a response that addresses health inequities and aims to reduce drug-related harms of stigma or overdose; and ii) include at least one of the following concepts: cultural safety, trauma- and violence-informed care, or harm reduction. We also looked for papers that included an Indigenous-informed perspective in addition to any of the three concepts. METHODS: An a priori protocol was published and the JBI methodology for conducting scoping reviews was employed. Published and unpublished literature from January 1, 2000, to July 31, 2019, was included. The databases searched included CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Sociological Abstracts and Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO, Aboriginal Health Abstract Database, First Nations Periodical Index, and the National Indigenous Studies Portal. The search for unpublished studies included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, and targeted web searches. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers using templates developed by the authors. Data extraction included specific details about the population, concepts, context, and key findings or recommendations relevant to the review objectives. RESULTS: A total of a total of 1065 articles were identified and screened, with a total of 148 articles included. The majority were published in the previous five years (73%) and were from North America (78%). Most articles only focused on one of the three health equity-oriented approaches, most often harm reduction (n = 79), with only 16 articles including all three. There were 14 articles identified that also included an Indigenous-informed perspective. Almost one-half of the papers were qualitative (n = 65; 44%) and 26 papers included a framework. Of these, seven papers described a framework that included all three approaches, but none included an Indigenous-informed perspective. Recommendations for health equity-oriented approaches are: i) inclusion of people with lived and living experience; ii) multifaceted approaches to reduce stigma and discrimination; iii) recognize and address inequities; iv) drug policy reform and decriminalization; v) ensure harm-reduction principles are applied within comprehensive responses; and vi) proportionate universalism. Gaps in knowledge and areas for future research are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified few conceptual frameworks that are both health equity-oriented and incorporate multiple concepts that could enrich responses to the opioid poisoning emergency. More research is required to evaluate the impact of these integrated frameworks for action.
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 | 0.073 | 0.224 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".