Brandon Del Pozo, Saba Rouhani, Amelia Bailey, M H Clark, Kaitlin F Martins, Fatema Z Ahmed, Danielle Atkins, Barbara Andraka-Christou
{"title":"The effects of message framing on US police chiefs' support for interventions for opioid use disorder: a randomized survey experiment.","authors":"Brandon Del Pozo, Saba Rouhani, Amelia Bailey, M H Clark, Kaitlin F Martins, Fatema Z Ahmed, Danielle Atkins, Barbara Andraka-Christou","doi":"10.1186/s40352-024-00306-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>US chiefs of police hold significant influence over the perceived acceptability and appropriateness of interventions for opioid use disorder (OUD) among the public, elected officials, and subordinate officers. This study assessed whether police chiefs' support for such interventions was sensitive to framing an intervention's benefits in terms that emphasize public health and harm reduction outcomes, versus terms typically indicative of public safety outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A two-armed survey utilizing a randomized, between-subjects design tested framing-based variance in support among US chiefs of police for overdose prevention centers, syringe service programs (SSPs), Good Samaritan laws, police naloxone distribution, trustworthiness of officers in recovery from OUD, and related propositions. Of 1,200 invitations, 276 chiefs participated (23%). The two experimental arms (n = 133, n = 143) were demographically balanced between both each other and non-respondents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Chiefs were more likely to agree that their mission was protecting public safety than protecting public health, even when both were defined using public health outcomes. Chiefs expressed significantly greater support for \"overdose prevention sites\" than \"safe injection sites\" (p = .018), low levels of support for SSPs regardless of framing (18% safety; 19% health), and comparably more support for Good Samaritan laws based on framing (62% safety vs. 54% health). Respondents voiced low levels of trust in officers recovering from OUD generally (31%), and significantly lower levels of trust when recovery involved the medication buprenorphine (10%; p < .001). Senior chiefs were significantly more likely to support SSPs (aOR 1.05; CI 1.01, 1.09) and overdose prevention sites (aOR 2.45; CI 1.13, 5.28) than less senior chiefs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this cross-sectional survey experiment, support for some interventions for OUD was greater among US chiefs of police when framed to emphasize positive public safety outcomes. Research is required to better understand low support for SSPs, mistrust of officers in recovery for OUD, and greater support for OUD interventions among senior chiefs.</p>","PeriodicalId":37843,"journal":{"name":"Health and Justice","volume":"12 1","pages":"50"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-024-00306-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: US chiefs of police hold significant influence over the perceived acceptability and appropriateness of interventions for opioid use disorder (OUD) among the public, elected officials, and subordinate officers. This study assessed whether police chiefs' support for such interventions was sensitive to framing an intervention's benefits in terms that emphasize public health and harm reduction outcomes, versus terms typically indicative of public safety outcomes.
Methods: A two-armed survey utilizing a randomized, between-subjects design tested framing-based variance in support among US chiefs of police for overdose prevention centers, syringe service programs (SSPs), Good Samaritan laws, police naloxone distribution, trustworthiness of officers in recovery from OUD, and related propositions. Of 1,200 invitations, 276 chiefs participated (23%). The two experimental arms (n = 133, n = 143) were demographically balanced between both each other and non-respondents.
Results: Chiefs were more likely to agree that their mission was protecting public safety than protecting public health, even when both were defined using public health outcomes. Chiefs expressed significantly greater support for "overdose prevention sites" than "safe injection sites" (p = .018), low levels of support for SSPs regardless of framing (18% safety; 19% health), and comparably more support for Good Samaritan laws based on framing (62% safety vs. 54% health). Respondents voiced low levels of trust in officers recovering from OUD generally (31%), and significantly lower levels of trust when recovery involved the medication buprenorphine (10%; p < .001). Senior chiefs were significantly more likely to support SSPs (aOR 1.05; CI 1.01, 1.09) and overdose prevention sites (aOR 2.45; CI 1.13, 5.28) than less senior chiefs.
Conclusions: In this cross-sectional survey experiment, support for some interventions for OUD was greater among US chiefs of police when framed to emphasize positive public safety outcomes. Research is required to better understand low support for SSPs, mistrust of officers in recovery for OUD, and greater support for OUD interventions among senior chiefs.
期刊介绍：
Health & Justice is open to submissions from public health, criminology and criminal justice, medical science, psychology and clinical sciences, sociology, neuroscience, biology, anthropology and the social sciences, and covers a broad array of research types. It publishes original research, research notes (promising issues that are smaller in scope), commentaries, and translational notes (possible ways of introducing innovations in the justice system). Health & Justice aims to: Present original experimental research on the area of health and well-being of people involved in the adult or juvenile justice system, including people who work in the system; Present meta-analysis or systematic reviews in the area of health and justice for those involved in the justice system; Provide an arena to present new and upcoming scientific issues; Present translational science—the movement of scientific findings into practice including programs, procedures, or strategies; Present implementation science findings to advance the uptake and use of evidence-based practices; and, Present protocols and clinical practice guidelines. As an open access journal, Health & Justice aims for a broad reach, including researchers across many disciplines as well as justice practitioners (e.g. judges, prosecutors, defenders, probation officers, treatment providers, mental health and medical personnel working with justice-involved individuals, etc.). The sections of the journal devoted to translational and implementation sciences are primarily geared to practitioners and justice actors with special attention to the techniques used.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
