William Rioux, Dylan Viste, Navid Sedaghat, Nathan Rider, Joseph Tay Wee Tek, Melissa Perri, David G. Schwartz, Kim Ritchie, Giuseppe Carrà, Stephanie Carreiro, Oona Kreig, Gabriela Marcu, Joseph Arthur, Joanne Cogdell, Mike Brown, Tyler Marshall, S. Monty Ghosh
{"title":"定义评估过量反应技术的术语和结果测量:一项国际德尔菲研究。","authors":"William Rioux, Dylan Viste, Navid Sedaghat, Nathan Rider, Joseph Tay Wee Tek, Melissa Perri, David G. Schwartz, Kim Ritchie, Giuseppe Carrà, Stephanie Carreiro, Oona Kreig, Gabriela Marcu, Joseph Arthur, Joanne Cogdell, Mike Brown, Tyler Marshall, S. Monty Ghosh","doi":"10.1111/dar.14055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Various novel harm reduction services leverage technology to reduce the rising number of drug poisoning deaths, particularly among those who use drugs alone. There is significant variability in terminology and outcome measures in reporting these interventions, complicating efforts to build a comprehensive knowledge base. Thus, we conducted a Delphi study to establish consensus and heterogeneity in these metrics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Panellists from three stakeholder groups (people who use drugs, virtual harm reduction service operators and academics) participated in a multi-round Delphi study. The first round included open-ended questions to propose items in three categories: terminology, demographic information and outcomes. Subsequent rounds included options from a previously conducted scoping review for consideration. Likert ratings were used to achieve consensus, with a 70% threshold. Final rounds involved ranking terminology that reached a consensus.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 23 initial participants, 14 completed the fourth survey round. “Overdose response technology” was identified as the most appropriate term for these harm reduction technologies. This definition includes drug contamination alerts, overdose response hotlines and applications, wearable overdose detection technology and overdose detection tools. Fourteen demographic outcomes reached a consensus for data collection, including name or handle, neighbourhood, age, gender, past overdose experience, substance used, amount and route of use. Six service use outcomes were recommended: response type, service outcomes, morbidity and mortality, overdose events, responder arrival time and post-rescue care.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion and Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The study results are recommended to standardise terminology and guide future research and knowledge dissemination in the field, ensuring clear communication with a shared language.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11318,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol review","volume":"44 5","pages":"1430-1443"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dar.14055","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defining terminology and outcome measures for evaluating overdose response technology: An international Delphi study\",\"authors\":\"William Rioux, Dylan Viste, Navid Sedaghat, Nathan Rider, Joseph Tay Wee Tek, Melissa Perri, David G. Schwartz, Kim Ritchie, Giuseppe Carrà, Stephanie Carreiro, Oona Kreig, Gabriela Marcu, Joseph Arthur, Joanne Cogdell, Mike Brown, Tyler Marshall, S. Monty Ghosh\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dar.14055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Various novel harm reduction services leverage technology to reduce the rising number of drug poisoning deaths, particularly among those who use drugs alone. There is significant variability in terminology and outcome measures in reporting these interventions, complicating efforts to build a comprehensive knowledge base. Thus, we conducted a Delphi study to establish consensus and heterogeneity in these metrics.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Panellists from three stakeholder groups (people who use drugs, virtual harm reduction service operators and academics) participated in a multi-round Delphi study. The first round included open-ended questions to propose items in three categories: terminology, demographic information and outcomes. Subsequent rounds included options from a previously conducted scoping review for consideration. Likert ratings were used to achieve consensus, with a 70% threshold. Final rounds involved ranking terminology that reached a consensus.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Of 23 initial participants, 14 completed the fourth survey round. “Overdose response technology” was identified as the most appropriate term for these harm reduction technologies. This definition includes drug contamination alerts, overdose response hotlines and applications, wearable overdose detection technology and overdose detection tools. Fourteen demographic outcomes reached a consensus for data collection, including name or handle, neighbourhood, age, gender, past overdose experience, substance used, amount and route of use. Six service use outcomes were recommended: response type, service outcomes, morbidity and mortality, overdose events, responder arrival time and post-rescue care.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion and Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study results are recommended to standardise terminology and guide future research and knowledge dissemination in the field, ensuring clear communication with a shared language.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug and alcohol review\",\"volume\":\"44 5\",\"pages\":\"1430-1443\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dar.14055\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug and alcohol review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.14055\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.14055","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Defining terminology and outcome measures for evaluating overdose response technology: An international Delphi study
Introduction
Various novel harm reduction services leverage technology to reduce the rising number of drug poisoning deaths, particularly among those who use drugs alone. There is significant variability in terminology and outcome measures in reporting these interventions, complicating efforts to build a comprehensive knowledge base. Thus, we conducted a Delphi study to establish consensus and heterogeneity in these metrics.
Methods
Panellists from three stakeholder groups (people who use drugs, virtual harm reduction service operators and academics) participated in a multi-round Delphi study. The first round included open-ended questions to propose items in three categories: terminology, demographic information and outcomes. Subsequent rounds included options from a previously conducted scoping review for consideration. Likert ratings were used to achieve consensus, with a 70% threshold. Final rounds involved ranking terminology that reached a consensus.
Results
Of 23 initial participants, 14 completed the fourth survey round. “Overdose response technology” was identified as the most appropriate term for these harm reduction technologies. This definition includes drug contamination alerts, overdose response hotlines and applications, wearable overdose detection technology and overdose detection tools. Fourteen demographic outcomes reached a consensus for data collection, including name or handle, neighbourhood, age, gender, past overdose experience, substance used, amount and route of use. Six service use outcomes were recommended: response type, service outcomes, morbidity and mortality, overdose events, responder arrival time and post-rescue care.
Discussion and Conclusions
The study results are recommended to standardise terminology and guide future research and knowledge dissemination in the field, ensuring clear communication with a shared language.
期刊介绍:
Drug and Alcohol Review is an international meeting ground for the views, expertise and experience of all those involved in studying alcohol, tobacco and drug problems. Contributors to the Journal examine and report on alcohol and drug use from a wide range of clinical, biomedical, epidemiological, psychological and sociological perspectives. Drug and Alcohol Review particularly encourages the submission of papers which have a harm reduction perspective. However, all philosophies will find a place in the Journal: the principal criterion for publication of papers is their quality.