An experimental investigation of federal messaging on public support for enforcement- and treatment-based approaches for opioid overdose prevention in South Carolina.

IF 2.6 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Lídia Gual-Gonzalez, Hunter M Boehme, Peter Leasure, Pieter A Baker, Melissa S Nolan
{"title":"An experimental investigation of federal messaging on public support for enforcement- and treatment-based approaches for opioid overdose prevention in South Carolina.","authors":"Lídia Gual-Gonzalez, Hunter M Boehme, Peter Leasure, Pieter A Baker, Melissa S Nolan","doi":"10.1186/s40352-025-00356-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As the opioid overdose crisis continues to produce excessive morbidity and mortality in the United States, government agencies have applied various approaches to prevent overdoses, including law-enforcement efforts (e.g., arresting people who use drugs, interrupting drug traffickers, etc.) and treatment-based approaches (e.g., naloxone, medications for opioid use disorder, etc.). Public perception and support of these approaches are relevant for informing policy, allocating resources, and effectively implementing community interventions to prevent drug-related harms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using an embedded informational survey design, we experimentally assessed whether public support for strategies to prevent overdose in South Carolina is influenced by language from federal agencies describing treatment- or enforcement-based approaches. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) enforcement -based approach, (2) treatment-based approach, or (3) the control condition. Those assigned to experimental groups were presented with statistics on drug overdose deaths, followed by an informational prompt with language about overdose prevention approaches from either DEA (enforcement) or NIH (treatment), while the control group received no informational prompt.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings from a sample of 4,675 respondents indicated that those assigned the DEA prompt were significantly more likely to support enforcement-based approaches in arresting drug traffickers and people who use drugs (AME = 0.060, p < 0.001). On the other hand, those assigned to the NIH prompt were significantly more likely to agree that both law enforcement (AME = 0.065, p < 0.0001) and clinicians (AME = 0.044, p < 0.05) are capable of preventing drug overdose deaths.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings shed light on public perceptions of approaches to addressing the opioid epidemic and limited modifiability when presented with language from federal agencies. This may inform future research, practice, and/or policy aiming to maintain public safety while also providing treatment options to people who use drugs in order to reduce overdose deaths.</p>","PeriodicalId":37843,"journal":{"name":"Health and Justice","volume":"13 1","pages":"46"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12291324/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00356-2","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: As the opioid overdose crisis continues to produce excessive morbidity and mortality in the United States, government agencies have applied various approaches to prevent overdoses, including law-enforcement efforts (e.g., arresting people who use drugs, interrupting drug traffickers, etc.) and treatment-based approaches (e.g., naloxone, medications for opioid use disorder, etc.). Public perception and support of these approaches are relevant for informing policy, allocating resources, and effectively implementing community interventions to prevent drug-related harms.

Methods: Using an embedded informational survey design, we experimentally assessed whether public support for strategies to prevent overdose in South Carolina is influenced by language from federal agencies describing treatment- or enforcement-based approaches. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) enforcement -based approach, (2) treatment-based approach, or (3) the control condition. Those assigned to experimental groups were presented with statistics on drug overdose deaths, followed by an informational prompt with language about overdose prevention approaches from either DEA (enforcement) or NIH (treatment), while the control group received no informational prompt.

Results: Findings from a sample of 4,675 respondents indicated that those assigned the DEA prompt were significantly more likely to support enforcement-based approaches in arresting drug traffickers and people who use drugs (AME = 0.060, p < 0.001). On the other hand, those assigned to the NIH prompt were significantly more likely to agree that both law enforcement (AME = 0.065, p < 0.0001) and clinicians (AME = 0.044, p < 0.05) are capable of preventing drug overdose deaths.

Conclusions: These findings shed light on public perceptions of approaches to addressing the opioid epidemic and limited modifiability when presented with language from federal agencies. This may inform future research, practice, and/or policy aiming to maintain public safety while also providing treatment options to people who use drugs in order to reduce overdose deaths.

一项关于南卡罗来纳州公众支持以执法和治疗为基础的阿片类药物过量预防方法的联邦信息的实验性调查。
背景:由于阿片类药物过量危机继续在美国造成过高的发病率和死亡率,政府机构采用了各种方法来预防过量使用,包括执法努力(例如,逮捕吸毒者,打断贩毒者等)和基于治疗的方法(例如,纳洛酮,阿片类药物使用障碍药物等)。公众对这些方法的认知和支持与政策信息、资源分配和有效实施社区干预措施以预防与毒品有关的危害有关。方法:采用嵌入式信息调查设计,我们实验评估了公众对南卡罗来纳州预防药物过量策略的支持是否受到联邦机构描述治疗或执法方法的语言的影响。受访者被随机分配到以下三组之一:(1)基于执法的方法,(2)基于治疗的方法,或(3)控制条件。被分配到实验组的人获得了药物过量死亡的统计数据,随后收到了来自DEA(执法)或NIH(治疗)的关于药物过量预防方法的信息提示,而对照组没有收到任何信息提示。结果:来自4,675名受访者的调查结果表明,分配给DEA提示的人更有可能支持以执法为基础的方法来逮捕贩毒者和吸毒者(AME = 0.060, p)。结论:这些发现揭示了公众对解决阿片类药物流行的方法的看法,以及在联邦机构的语言下有限的可修改性。这可能为未来的研究、实践和/或政策提供信息,旨在维护公共安全,同时也为吸毒者提供治疗选择,以减少过量死亡。
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
Health and Justice
Health and Justice Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.60%
发文量
34
审稿时长
13 weeks
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信