Cited by 111Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Attitudes About Prescribing Take-Home Naloxone to Injection Drug Users for the Management of Heroin Overdose: a Survey of Street-Recruited Injectors in the San Francisco Bay Area

Open access
Seal, K. H.·2003·Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine

Abstract

Naloxone, an injectable opiate antagonist, can immediately reverse an opiate overdose and prevent overdose death. We sought to determine injection drug users' (IDUs) attitudes about being prescribed take-home naloxone. During November 1999 to February 2000, we surveyed 82 street-recruited IDUs from the San Francisco Bay Area of California who had experienced one or more heroin overdose events. We used a questionnaire that included structured and open-ended questions. Most respondents (89%) had witnessed an overdose, and 90% reported initially attempting lay remedies in an effort to help companions survive. Only 51% reported soliciting emergency assistance (calling 911) for the last witnessed overdose, with most hesitating due to fear of police involvement. Of IDUs surveyed, 87% were strongly in favor of participating in an overdose management training program to receive take-home naloxone and training in resuscitation techniques. Nevertheless, respondents expressed a variety of concerning attitudes. If provided naloxone, 35% predicted that they might feel comfortable using greater amounts of heroin, 62% might be less inclined to call 911 for an overdose, 30% might leave an overdose victim after naloxone resuscitation, and 46% might not be able to dissuade the victim from using heroin again to alleviate withdrawal symptoms induced by naloxone. Prescribing take-home naloxone to IDUs with training in its use and in resuscitation techniques may represent a life-saving, peer-based adjunct to accessing emergency services. Nevertheless, strategies for overcoming potential risks associated with the use of take-home naloxone would need to be emphasized in an overdose management training program.

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 · 10.1093/jurban/jtg032

Cites

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Seal KH, Kral AH, Gee L, et al. Predictors and prevention of nonfatal overdose among street-recruited injection heroin users in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1998-1999. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1842-1846.
  2. Darke S, Ross J, Hall W. Overdose among heroin users in Sydney, Australia: I. Ppreva- lence and correlates of non-fatal overdose. Addiction. 1996;91:405-411.
  3. Darke S, Zador D. Fatal heroin "overdose": a review. Addiction. 1996;91:1765-1772.
  4. Zador D, Sunjic, S, Darke, S. Heroin-related deaths in New South Wales, 1992: toxico- logical findings and circumstances. Med J Aust. 1996;164:204-207.
  5. Levine B, Green D, Smialek JE. The role of ethanol in heroin deaths. J Forensic Sci. 1995;40:808-810.
  6. Powis B, Strang J, Griffiths P, et al. Self-reported overdose among injecting drug users in London: extent and nature of the problem. Addiction. 1999;94:471-478.
  7. Taylor A, Frischer M, Goldberg D. Non-fatal overdosing is related to polydrug use in Glasgow [letter; comment]. BMJ. 1996;313:1400-1401.
  8. Darke S, Hall W. The distribution of naloxone to heroin users. Addiction. 1997;92: 1195-1199.
  9. Sporer KA. Acute heroin overdose. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:584-590.
  10. Darke S, Ross J, Hall W. Overdose among heroin users in Sydney, Australia: II. re- sponses to overdose. Addiction. 1996;91:413-417.
  11. Strang J, Best D, Man L, Noble A, Gossop M. Peer-initiated overdose resuscitation: fellow drug users could be mobilized to implement resuscitation. Int J Drug Policy. 2000;11:437-445.
  12. Giuliano R. Drug users' tools of the trade: naloxone and Narcan. Harm Reduction Commun. 1999;9:18-19.
  13. Goldfrank LR, Hoffman RS. The poisoned patient with altered consciousness. Contro- versies in the use of a "coma cocktail." JAMA. 1995;274:562-569.
  14. Bigg D. Data on take home naloxone are unclear but not condemnatory [letter]. BMJ. 2002;324:678.
  15. Strang J, Powis B, Best D, et al. Preventing opiate overdose fatalities with take-home naloxone: pre-launch study of possible impact and acceptability. Addiction. 1999;94: 199-204.
  16. Lenton SR, Hargreaves KM. Should we conduct a trial of distributing naloxone to her- oin users for peer administration to prevent fatal overdose? Med J Aust. 2000;173: 260-263.
  17. Watters JK. Trends in risk behavior and HIV seroprevalence in heterosexual injection drug users in San Francisco, 1986-1992. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:1276- 1281.
  18. Kral AH, Bluthenthal RN, Lorvick J, Gee L, Bacchetti P, Edlin BR. Sexual transmission of HIV-1 among injection drug users in San Francisco, USA: risk-factor analysis. Lancet. 2001;357:1397-1401.
  19. Watters JK, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden popula- tions. Soc Problems. 1989;36:416-430.
  20. Bluthenthal RN, Watters JK. Multimethod research: from targeted sampling to HIV risk behaviors. In: Lambert EY, Ashery RS, Needle RH, eds. Qualitative Methods in the Prevention of Drug Abuse and HIV Research. Vol. 157. Rockville, MD: National Insti- tute on Drug Abuse; 1995:212-230.
  21. Darke S, Hall W, Weatherburn D, Lind B. Fluctuations in heroin purity and the inci- dence of fatal heroin overdose. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999;54:155-161.
  22. Bammer G, Sengoz A. Non-fatal heroin overdoses [letter]. Med J Aust 1994;161:572- 573.
  23. Gossop M, Griffiths P, Powis B, Williamson S, Strang J. Frequency of non-fatal heroin overdose: survey of heroin users recruited in non-clinical settings. BMJ. 1996;313:402.
  24. Levy JA, Gallmeier CP, Weibel WW. The outreach assisted peer-support model for con- trolling drug dependency. J Drug Issues. 1995;25:507-529.
  25. Hawkins WE, Latkin C, Mandel W, Oziemkowska M. Do actions speak louder than words? Perceived peer influences on needle sharing and cleaning in a sample of injection drug users. AIDS Educ Prev. 1999;11:122-131.
  26. Burris S, Noreland J, Edlin B. Legal aspects of providing naloxone to heroin users in the United States. Int J Drug Policy. 2001;12:237-248.
  27. Sporer KA, Firestone J, Isaacs SM. Out-of-hospital treatment of opioid overdoses in an urban setting. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3:660-667.
  28. Smith DA, Leake L, Loflin JR, Yealy DM. Is admission after intravenous heroin over- dose necessary? Ann Emerg Med. 1992;21:1326-1330.
  29. Vilke GM, Buchanan J, Dunford JV, Chan TC. Are heroin overdose deaths related to patient release after prehospital treatment with naloxone? Prehosp Emerg Care. 1999; 3:183-186.
  30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unintentional overdose in King County, Washington, 1990-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49:633-636.
  31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heroin overdose deaths-Multnomah County, Oregon, 1993-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49:633-636.
  32. Watters JK, Needle R, Brown BS, Weatherby N, Booth R, Williams M. The self-report- ing of cocaine use. JAMA. 1992;268:2374-2375; [discussion], 2375-2376.
  33. Dowling-Guyer S, Johnson ME, Fisher DG, et al. Reliability of drug users' self-reported HIV risk behaviors and validity of self-reported recent drug use. Assessment. 1994;1: 383-392.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seal, K. H.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Seal, K. H.
Venue
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
Published
2003-06-01
Volume
80
Issue
2
Pages
291-301
ISSN
  • 0022-1503 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-3460
  • 1471-8505
OpenAlex
W2032311287
Cited by
111
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Heredity (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Open Society Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
take-home naloxone, heroin overdose, people who inject drugs, naloxone-precipitated withdrawal, San Francisco Bay Area
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Emergency Medical Services, Female, Heroin Dependence, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Naloxone, Narcotic Antagonists, Surveys and Questionnaires, San Francisco, Urban Health, Substance Abuse, Intravenous, Health Care Surveys, 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