Cited by 112Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Impact of a community-based naloxone distribution program on opioid overdose death rates

Open access
Naumann, Rebecca B., Durrance, Christine Piette, Ranapurwala, Shabbar I., Austin, Anna E., Proescholdbell, Scott, Childs, Robert, Marshall, Stephen W., Kansagra, Susan +1 more·2019·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

Background In August 2013, a naloxone distribution program was implemented in North Carolina (NC). This study evaluated that program by quantifying the association between the program and county-level opioid overdose death (OOD) rates and conducting a cost-benefit analysis. Methods One-group pre-post design. Data included annual county-level counts of naloxone kits distributed from 2013 to 2016 and mortality data from 2000-2016. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the association between cumulative rates of naloxone kits distributed and annual OOD rates. Costs included naloxone kit purchases and distribution costs; benefits were quantified as OODs avoided and monetized using a conservative value of a life. Results The rate of OOD in counties with 1-100 cumulative naloxone kits distributed per 100,000 population was 0.90 times (95% CI: 0.78, 1.04) that of counties that had not received kits. In counties that received >100 cumulative kits per 100,000 population, the OOD rate was 0.88 times (95% CI: 0.76, 1.02) that of counties that had not received kits. By December 2016, an estimated 352 NC deaths were avoided by naloxone distribution (95% CI: 189, 580). On average, for every dollar spent on the program, there was $2742 of benefit due to OODs avoided (95% CI: $1,237, $4882). Conclusions Our estimates suggest that community-based naloxone distribution is associated with lower OOD rates. The program generated substantial societal benefits due to averted OODs. States and communities should continue to support efforts to increase naloxone access, which may include reducing legal, financial, and normative barriers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.06.038

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A North Carolina study estimated that naloxone distribution averted 352 overdose deaths over a three-year period, at a cost of $1,605 per life saved.

    “The sixth study estimated that naloxone distribution in North Carolina averted 352 overdose deaths over a three-year period, at a cost of $1,605 per life saved [34].”

    From Effectiveness of naloxone distribution in community settings to reduce opioid overdose deaths among people who use drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results > Cost-benefit analysis estimates approximately 352 deaths avoided from August 2013 through December 2016. It reports $1,605 per death avoided only for 2015–2016, when an estimated 255 deaths were avoided; the claim incorrectly pairs that cost with the longer period and its 352-death estimate. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 2015. Preventing fatal overdoses: a systematic review of the effectiveness of take-home naloxone, EMCDDA Papers, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
  2. Hedegaard H, Minino AM, Warner M, 2018. Data Brief, No.329: Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 1999-2017. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. 27996932

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naumann, R. B., Durrance, C. P., Ranapurwala, S. I., Austin, A. E., Proescholdbell, S., Childs, R., Marshall, S. W., Kansagra, S., & Shanahan, M. E.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • NC Department of Health and Human Services (US)
  • JBS International (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Naumann, Rebecca B.
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
204
Pages
107536
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2970055270
Cited by
112
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6
FWCI
7.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (5NU17CE002728)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (R49‐CE001495)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
naloxone distribution, opioid overdose deaths, harm reduction, cost-benefit analysis, North Carolina, value of a statistical life
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Naloxone, Narcotic Antagonists, Opioid-Related Disorders, North Carolina, Program Evaluation, Young Adult, Drug Overdose

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review