Erin L Winstanley1, Angela Clark2, Judith Feinberg3, Christine M Wilder4,5. 1. a James L. Winkle College of Pharmacy , University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA. 2. b College of Nursing , University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA. 3. c Behavioral Medicine & Psychiatry , College of Medicine , West Virginia University, Morgantown , West Virginia , USA. 4. d Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA. 5. e Addiction Sciences Division , Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience , University of Cincinnati College of Medicine , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nationally, overdose fatalities have reached epidemic proportions. Ohio has one of the highest overdose death rates in the country, as well as high rates of prescription opioid trafficking. METHODS: A cross-sectional self-report survey of opioid overdose prevention programs (OOPPs) in Ohio was conducted between August and October 2014 to characterize programs and ascertain barriers to successful implementation. A 91% response rate was achieved with 18 programs participating in the study. RESULTS: The first Ohio OOPP opened in August 2012, a second program opened in 2013, and the remaining programs began in 2014. All of the programs distribute nasal naloxone and provide overdose prevention education, and 89% (n = 16) provide overdose kits for free. Six OOPPs are funded by the Ohio Department of Health, 3 programs are funded by a local health foundation, and several other public and private funding sources were reported. The OOPPs have funding to distribute a combined total of 8,670 overdose kits and had distributed 1998 kits by October 2014. The OOPPs reported 149 overdose reversals. Fifteen programs (83%) reported implementation barriers that were categorized as stigma-, cost-, staffing-, legal, regulatory, and client-related problems. Legislative changes aimed at removing some of the obstacles to distribution and lay administration of naloxone have recently been enacted in Ohio. CONCLUSIONS: OOPPs have rapidly expanded in Ohio during the past 3 years. Although recent legislative changes have addressed some of the reported implementation barriers, stigma and the cost of naloxone remain significant problems.
BACKGROUND: Nationally, overdose fatalities have reached epidemic proportions. Ohio has one of the highest overdose death rates in the country, as well as high rates of prescription opioid trafficking. METHODS: A cross-sectional self-report survey of opioid overdose prevention programs (OOPPs) in Ohio was conducted between August and October 2014 to characterize programs and ascertain barriers to successful implementation. A 91% response rate was achieved with 18 programs participating in the study. RESULTS: The first Ohio OOPP opened in August 2012, a second program opened in 2013, and the remaining programs began in 2014. All of the programs distribute nasal naloxone and provide overdose prevention education, and 89% (n = 16) provide overdose kits for free. Six OOPPs are funded by the Ohio Department of Health, 3 programs are funded by a local health foundation, and several other public and private funding sources were reported. The OOPPs have funding to distribute a combined total of 8,670 overdose kits and had distributed 1998 kits by October 2014. The OOPPs reported 149 overdose reversals. Fifteen programs (83%) reported implementation barriers that were categorized as stigma-, cost-, staffing-, legal, regulatory, and client-related problems. Legislative changes aimed at removing some of the obstacles to distribution and lay administration of naloxone have recently been enacted in Ohio. CONCLUSIONS:OOPPs have rapidly expanded in Ohio during the past 3 years. Although recent legislative changes have addressed some of the reported implementation barriers, stigma and the cost of naloxone remain significant problems.
Authors: Michael A Yokell; M Kit Delgado; Nickolas D Zaller; N Ewen Wang; Samuel K McGowan; Traci Craig Green Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Erin L Winstanley; Joe Gay; Lisa Roberts; Judi Moseley; Orman Hall; B Christine Beeghly; Theresa Winhusen; Eugene Somoza Journal: Public Health Nurs Date: 2012-08-26 Impact factor: 1.462
Authors: Albert Espelt; Gregorio Barrio; Dolores Álamo-Junquera; Maria José Bravo; Ana Sarasa-Renedo; Fernando Vallejo; Gemma Molist; M Teresa Brugal Journal: Eur Addict Res Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Stephen E Lankenau; Karla D Wagner; Karol Silva; Aleksandar Kecojevic; Ellen Iverson; Miles McNeely; Alex H Kral Journal: J Community Health Date: 2013-02
Authors: Alexander Y Walley; Ziming Xuan; H Holly Hackman; Emily Quinn; Maya Doe-Simkins; Amy Sorensen-Alawad; Sarah Ruiz; Al Ozonoff Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-01-30
Authors: Stephanie M Mathis; Nicholas Hagemeier; Angela Hagaman; John Dreyzehner; Robert P Pack Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Joanne Neale; Caral Brown; Aimee N C Campbell; Jermaine D Jones; Verena E Metz; John Strang; Sandra D Comer Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Sarah Bessen; Stephen A Metcalf; Elizabeth C Saunders; Sarah K Moore; Andrea Meier; Bethany McLeman; Olivia Walsh; Lisa A Marsch Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2019-10-04
Authors: Joanne Neale; Nicola J Kalk; Stephen Parkin; Caral Brown; Laura Brandt; Aimee N C Campbell; Felipe Castillo; Jermaine D Jones; John Strang; Sandra D Comer Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-08-05
Authors: Nádia P Pinheiro-Carozzo; Sheila G Murta; Luís Gustavo do A Vinha; Isabela M da Silva; Anne Marie G V Fontaine Journal: Psicol Reflex Crit Date: 2021-06-15