“SafetyNet”: Evaluation of a Recovery Coach and Paramedic Intervention Following Naloxone Resuscitation From an Opioid Overdose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine has proven efficacy, but many patients are reluctant to begin this treatment. This study evaluated SafetyNet, a program using a 2-person, recovery coach and paramedic (RCP) intervention postoverdose to reduce subsequent opioid overdose, engage patients in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and reduce illicit drug use. Methods: We conducted a prospective nonrandomized study in individuals who experienced opioid overdoses, received naloxone, but subsequently declined buprenorphine initiation in the ED. Each participant was followed by an RCP team that performed a brief negotiation interview (BNI) to motivate engagement in treatment, peer-recovery coaching to encourage recovery-related activities, and health education around medical concerns by trained paramedics. Participants were followed-up at 30 and 180 days. The primary hypothesized outcome was reduction in overdose events; the secondary hypothesized outcomes were engagement in MOUD and reduction in opioid positive urine tests. Results: Eighty-one patients were enrolled and received BNIs; 45 (56%; 95% CI: 44-67) had at least 1 follow-up encounter. Twenty participants (25%; 95% CI: 16-36) had at least 1 overdose during follow-up. Fifty-five participants (68%; 95% CI: 57-78) were confirmed to have engaged in some form of medication treatment. Differences in subsequent overdose events ( P = .95), engagement in MOUD ( P = .49), and rates of opioid-positive urine toxicology rates within 30 days ( P = .44) and between 31 and 180 days ( P = .46) were not significantly different when comparing those who did and did not follow-up. Conclusion: There were no differences in rates of subsequent overdose, MOUD engagement, or positive urine toxicology screens in our intervention. However, 68% of participants engaged in outpatient MOUD, a treatment associated with fewer overdose events, particularly fatal ones. Substantial limitations occurred due to the COVID pandemic, and sample size estimates were not met. Further research is needed to investigate potential benefits of the SafetyNet program.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".