Exploring the perceived barriers and facilitators to equitable access of Naloxone in Durham Region: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through exploratory case study research, we examined naloxone distribution from community pharmacies and perspectives of service providers about barriers and facilitators to equitable access of naloxone through the Ontario Naloxone Program (for Pharmacies) in Durham Region, Ontario, Canada. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access was also explored. Results from an environmental scan questionnaire (N=8) found that for community pharmacies, naloxone was available whenever requested and access was unchanged by pandemic conditions. Key informant interviews and demographic surveys (N=2) completed with service providers found perceived facilitators for equitable access included uninterrupted operations during the pandemic, and naloxone being available without cost and prescription. Integrating opioid prescribers into programs was recommended. Perceived barriers identified included stigma a lack of awareness of the programs. This study serves as a potential precursor to conducting a larger study to further explore equitable access to naloxone by program users across Ontario, Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".