Bridging the gap: An environmental scan of post-overdose program features and evaluation measures

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Mikayla Ferg , Sabrina S. Rapisarda , Elena Soranno , Nikki Lewis , Andy Ottoson , Cynthia A. Tschampl
{"title":"Bridging the gap: An environmental scan of post-overdose program features and evaluation measures","authors":"Mikayla Ferg ,&nbsp;Sabrina S. Rapisarda ,&nbsp;Elena Soranno ,&nbsp;Nikki Lewis ,&nbsp;Andy Ottoson ,&nbsp;Cynthia A. Tschampl","doi":"10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Prior overdose incident is a predictor of future non-fatal and fatal overdoses. Therefore, the period immediately following a non-fatal overdose is critical for engaging with survivors; however, they often do not access or receive services immediately after experiencing an overdose. To efficiently reach this high-risk population and provide survivors with services, novel interventions including post-overdose outreach programs have been developed.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using PRISMA guidelines, we conducted an environmental scan of the academic and gray literature on post-overdose programs to identify key features and measures used to evaluate post-overdose programs. Using the Donabedian quality framework we then analyzed the frequency of measures by type of initiating stakeholder.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 36 studies included for final extraction, 14 were descriptive studies, ten were evaluation studies, eight studies identified facilitators and barriers, and four were program design toolkits. Initiator entity types included emergency departments (EDs; <em>n</em> = 10), public health agencies (<em>n</em> = 5), community-based organizations (<em>n</em> = 4), emergency medical services (EMS) (<em>n</em> = 4), law enforcement agencies (<em>n</em> = 4), and some combination or unknown (<em>n</em> = 9). We identified six key features of post-overdose programs across the literature: program theory, team composition, identifying and contacting clients, service provision, public private partnerships, and referrals. We extracted 223 operationalized measures, of which we analyzed 173 and categorized them as client experience (<em>n</em> = 2), structural (<em>n</em> = 12), process (<em>n</em> = 69), and outcome measures (<em>n</em> = 90). Public health agency-initiated programs reported all the experience-related measures (<em>n</em> = 2) and the most outcome measures (<em>n</em> = 23). Programs initiated by EDs reported the most process measures (<em>n</em> = 20), whereas community-based agencies reported the most structural measures (<em>n</em> = 12). Only two of the 223 measures related to stigma.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There are six common features across all post-overdose programs and different initiating organization types had differing foci for their evaluation measures. The key features and evaluation measure clusters identified in this environmental scan can help inform future post-overdose programs assess the comprehensiveness of their evaluations, inform funding agencies on the range of existing measures (and gaps) to consider, and support evaluators in study design.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48364,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Drug Policy","volume":"134 ","pages":"Article 104651"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Drug Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924003359","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Prior overdose incident is a predictor of future non-fatal and fatal overdoses. Therefore, the period immediately following a non-fatal overdose is critical for engaging with survivors; however, they often do not access or receive services immediately after experiencing an overdose. To efficiently reach this high-risk population and provide survivors with services, novel interventions including post-overdose outreach programs have been developed.

Methods

Using PRISMA guidelines, we conducted an environmental scan of the academic and gray literature on post-overdose programs to identify key features and measures used to evaluate post-overdose programs. Using the Donabedian quality framework we then analyzed the frequency of measures by type of initiating stakeholder.

Results

Of the 36 studies included for final extraction, 14 were descriptive studies, ten were evaluation studies, eight studies identified facilitators and barriers, and four were program design toolkits. Initiator entity types included emergency departments (EDs; n = 10), public health agencies (n = 5), community-based organizations (n = 4), emergency medical services (EMS) (n = 4), law enforcement agencies (n = 4), and some combination or unknown (n = 9). We identified six key features of post-overdose programs across the literature: program theory, team composition, identifying and contacting clients, service provision, public private partnerships, and referrals. We extracted 223 operationalized measures, of which we analyzed 173 and categorized them as client experience (n = 2), structural (n = 12), process (n = 69), and outcome measures (n = 90). Public health agency-initiated programs reported all the experience-related measures (n = 2) and the most outcome measures (n = 23). Programs initiated by EDs reported the most process measures (n = 20), whereas community-based agencies reported the most structural measures (n = 12). Only two of the 223 measures related to stigma.

Conclusion

There are six common features across all post-overdose programs and different initiating organization types had differing foci for their evaluation measures. The key features and evaluation measure clusters identified in this environmental scan can help inform future post-overdose programs assess the comprehensiveness of their evaluations, inform funding agencies on the range of existing measures (and gaps) to consider, and support evaluators in study design.
缩小差距:过量用药后计划特点和评估措施的环境扫描。
背景:之前的用药过量事件是未来非致命和致命用药过量的预测因素。因此,非致命性用药过量发生后的第一时间对幸存者的参与至关重要;然而,他们在经历用药过量后往往无法立即获得或接受服务。为了有效地接触到这一高风险人群并为幸存者提供服务,我们开发了包括用药过量后外展计划在内的新型干预措施:我们利用 PRISMA 指南,对有关用药过量后项目的学术文献和灰色文献进行了环境扫描,以确定用于评估用药过量后项目的关键特征和措施。然后,我们使用多纳比德质量框架,按发起利益相关者的类型分析了各项措施的频率:在最终提取的 36 项研究中,14 项为描述性研究,10 项为评估研究,8 项研究确定了促进因素和障碍,4 项为项目设计工具包。发起方实体类型包括急诊科(EDs;n = 10)、公共卫生机构(n = 5)、社区组织(n = 4)、紧急医疗服务(EMS)(n = 4)、执法机构(n = 4)以及某些组合或未知(n = 9)。我们在文献中发现了吸毒过量后项目的六个关键特征:项目理论、团队组成、识别和联系客户、服务提供、公私合作和转介。我们提取了 223 项可操作性措施,对其中 173 项进行了分析,并将其归类为客户体验(2 项)、结构(12 项)、过程(69 项)和结果措施(90 项)。公共卫生机构发起的项目报告了所有与体验相关的测量指标(n = 2)和最多的结果测量指标(n = 23)。由教育部门发起的项目报告了最多的过程测量(n = 20),而社区机构报告了最多的结构测量(n = 12)。在 223 项措施中,只有两项与污名化有关:结论:所有药物过量后项目都有六个共同特征,不同类型的发起机构有不同的评估措施重点。本次环境扫描中确定的关键特征和评估措施群组有助于为未来的药物过量后项目评估其评估的全面性提供信息,为资助机构提供有关现有措施范围(和差距)的信息,并为评估人员的研究设计提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.40%
发文量
307
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Drug Policy provides a forum for the dissemination of current research, reviews, debate, and critical analysis on drug use and drug policy in a global context. It seeks to publish material on the social, political, legal, and health contexts of psychoactive substance use, both licit and illicit. The journal is particularly concerned to explore the effects of drug policy and practice on drug-using behaviour and its health and social consequences. It is the policy of the journal to represent a wide range of material on drug-related matters from around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信