Grace Marley PharmD, Caroline Shubel MPh, Carolyn T. Thorpe PhD MPh, Izabela E. Annis M.S., Paul Delamater PhD, Delesha Carpenter PhD MSPh, Bayla Ostrach PhD, MA, CIP
{"title":"检视在北卡罗莱纳获得免费纳洛酮的地理差异:纳洛酮分配计划的横断面调查","authors":"Grace Marley PharmD, Caroline Shubel MPh, Carolyn T. Thorpe PhD MPh, Izabela E. Annis M.S., Paul Delamater PhD, Delesha Carpenter PhD MSPh, Bayla Ostrach PhD, MA, CIP","doi":"10.1111/jrh.70069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The objective of this study was to comprehensively identify the programs that distribute naloxone at no-cost in North Carolina, identify where and to whom these programs distribute naloxone, and evaluate disparities in reported naloxone distribution by geographic area.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A cross-sectional online survey was delivered to potential no-cost naloxone distributors in NC identified by a community advisory panel. Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were utilized to identify disparities in naloxone access by population served (people who use drugs, people who inject drugs) and location of naloxone distribution (rural; urban/suburban).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Approximately 76.5% (241/315) of respondents representing 341 different programs reported that their program(s) distributed no-cost naloxone to community members. Programs represented included health departments (<i>n</i> = 81), treatment programs/centers (<i>n</i> = 59), and syringe service programs(SSPs) (<i>n</i> = 41), among others. Programs reported distributing naloxone most frequently to people who use drugs (94.2%) and people with a substance use disorder history (94.3%). No-cost naloxone distribution was reported less frequently to all patient populations in rural ZIP codes when compared to urban ZIP codes, including justice-involved populations (86.4% vs. 98.3%) and individuals leaving treatment or detox (87.9% vs. 98.6%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study indicates that although most areas in NC were served by at least one no-cost naloxone program, distribution to rural populations may be limited, indicating a need for increased public investment in no-cost naloxone distribution to populations at greatest risk of overdose.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jrh.70069","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining geographic disparities in access to no-cost naloxone in North Carolina: A cross-sectional survey of naloxone distribution programs\",\"authors\":\"Grace Marley PharmD, Caroline Shubel MPh, Carolyn T. Thorpe PhD MPh, Izabela E. Annis M.S., Paul Delamater PhD, Delesha Carpenter PhD MSPh, Bayla Ostrach PhD, MA, CIP\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jrh.70069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The objective of this study was to comprehensively identify the programs that distribute naloxone at no-cost in North Carolina, identify where and to whom these programs distribute naloxone, and evaluate disparities in reported naloxone distribution by geographic area.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A cross-sectional online survey was delivered to potential no-cost naloxone distributors in NC identified by a community advisory panel. Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were utilized to identify disparities in naloxone access by population served (people who use drugs, people who inject drugs) and location of naloxone distribution (rural; urban/suburban).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Approximately 76.5% (241/315) of respondents representing 341 different programs reported that their program(s) distributed no-cost naloxone to community members. Programs represented included health departments (<i>n</i> = 81), treatment programs/centers (<i>n</i> = 59), and syringe service programs(SSPs) (<i>n</i> = 41), among others. Programs reported distributing naloxone most frequently to people who use drugs (94.2%) and people with a substance use disorder history (94.3%). No-cost naloxone distribution was reported less frequently to all patient populations in rural ZIP codes when compared to urban ZIP codes, including justice-involved populations (86.4% vs. 98.3%) and individuals leaving treatment or detox (87.9% vs. 98.6%).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study indicates that although most areas in NC were served by at least one no-cost naloxone program, distribution to rural populations may be limited, indicating a need for increased public investment in no-cost naloxone distribution to populations at greatest risk of overdose.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Rural Health\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jrh.70069\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Rural Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70069\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70069","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Examining geographic disparities in access to no-cost naloxone in North Carolina: A cross-sectional survey of naloxone distribution programs
Purpose
The objective of this study was to comprehensively identify the programs that distribute naloxone at no-cost in North Carolina, identify where and to whom these programs distribute naloxone, and evaluate disparities in reported naloxone distribution by geographic area.
Methods
A cross-sectional online survey was delivered to potential no-cost naloxone distributors in NC identified by a community advisory panel. Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were utilized to identify disparities in naloxone access by population served (people who use drugs, people who inject drugs) and location of naloxone distribution (rural; urban/suburban).
Results
Approximately 76.5% (241/315) of respondents representing 341 different programs reported that their program(s) distributed no-cost naloxone to community members. Programs represented included health departments (n = 81), treatment programs/centers (n = 59), and syringe service programs(SSPs) (n = 41), among others. Programs reported distributing naloxone most frequently to people who use drugs (94.2%) and people with a substance use disorder history (94.3%). No-cost naloxone distribution was reported less frequently to all patient populations in rural ZIP codes when compared to urban ZIP codes, including justice-involved populations (86.4% vs. 98.3%) and individuals leaving treatment or detox (87.9% vs. 98.6%).
Conclusion
This study indicates that although most areas in NC were served by at least one no-cost naloxone program, distribution to rural populations may be limited, indicating a need for increased public investment in no-cost naloxone distribution to populations at greatest risk of overdose.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.