A systematic review exploring healthcare professionals' perceptions of take‐home naloxone dispensing in acute care areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore healthcare professionals' perceptions and experiences of take-home naloxone initiatives in acute care settings to gain an understanding of issues facilitating or impeding dispensing. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane, MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from 15/03/2021 to 18/03/2021, with a follow-up search performed via PubMed on 22/03/2021. The years 2011 to 2021 were included in the search. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature review focused on qualitative studies and quantitative survey designs. Synthesis without meta-analysis was undertaken using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Seven articles from the United States of America (5), Australia (1) and Canada (1) with 750 participants were included in the review. Results indicate ongoing stigma towards people who use drugs with preconceived moral concerns regarding take-home naloxone. There was confusion regarding roles and responsibilities in take-home naloxone dispensing and patient education. Similarly, there was a lack of clarity over logistical and financial issues. CONCLUSION: Take-home naloxone is a vital harm reduction initiative. However, barriers exist that prevent the optimum implementation of these initiatives. IMPACT: What is already known: Deaths due to opioid overdose are a global health concern, with take-home naloxone emerging as a key harm reduction scheme. Globally, less than 10% of people who use drugs have access to treatment initiatives, including take-home naloxone. An optimum point of distribution of take-home naloxone is post-acute hospital care. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: There is role confusion regarding responsibility for the provision of take-home naloxone and patient education. This is exacerbated by inconsistent provision of training and education for healthcare professionals. Logistical or financial concerns are common and moral issues are prevalent with some healthcare professionals questioning the ethics of providing take-home naloxone. Stigma towards people who use drugs remains evident in some acute care areas which may impact the use of this intervention. Implications for practice/policy: Further primary research should examine what training and education methods are effective in improving the distribution of take-home naloxone in acute care. Education should focus on reduction of stigma towards people who use drugs to improve the distribution of take-home naloxone. Standardized care guidelines may ensure interventions are offered equally and take-home naloxone 'champions' could drive initiatives forward, with support from harm reduction specialists. REPORTING METHOD: This has adhered to the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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 | 0.014 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".