Cited by 22Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

A qualitative examination of naloxone access in three states: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin

Open access
Spector, Antoinette L., Galletly, Carol L., Christenson, Erika A., Montaque, H. Danielle Green, Dickson-Gomez, Julia·2022·BMC Public Health

Abstract

Background: Prevention of opioid-involved overdose deaths remains a public health priority in the United States. While expanding access to naloxone is a national public health strategy, it is largely implemented at the state and local level, where significant variability in policies, resources, and norms exist. The aims of the current study were to examine the social context of naloxone access in three different states (Connecticut, Kentucky, Wisconsin) from the perspectives of key informants (first responders, harm reduction personnel, and pharmacists), who play some role in dispensing or administering naloxone within their communities. Methods: Interviews were conducted with key informants who were in different local areas (urban, suburban, rural) across Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. Interview guides explored the key informants’ experiences with administering or dispensing naloxone, and their perspectives on opioid overdose prevention efforts in their areas. Data analysis was conducted using multistage inductive coding and comparative methods to identify dominant themes within the data. Results: Key informants in each of the three states noted progress toward expanding naloxone access, especially among people who use opioids, but also described inequities. The key role of harm reduction programs in distributing naloxone within their communities was also highlighted by participants, as well as barriers to increasing naloxone access through pharmacies. Although there was general consensus regarding the effectiveness of expanding naloxone access to prevent overdose deaths, the results indicate that communities are still grappling with stigma associated with drug use and a harm reduction approach. Conclusion: Findings suggest that public health interventions that target naloxone distribution through harm reduction programs can enhance access within local communities. Strategies that address stigmatizing attitudes toward people who use drugs and harm reduction may also facilitate naloxone expansion efforts, overall, as well as policies that improve the affordability and awareness of naloxone through the pharmacy.

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 · 10.1186/s12889-022-13741-5

Cites

50 of 50 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]Dydyk AM, Jain NK, Gupta M. Opioid Use Disorder. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553166/
  2. [42]Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd edition. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2014. 388 p. (Introducing qualitative methods).
  3. [44]Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 3E [Third edition]. Los Angeles; London: SAGE; 2016. 339 p.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spector, A. L., Galletly, C. L., Christenson, E. A., Montaque, H. D. G., & Dickson-Gomez, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • Boston Medical Center (US)
  • Institute For Community Research (US)
Corresponding author
Spector, Antoinette L.
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2022-07-19
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
1387-1387
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285795671
Cited by
22
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (5R01DA044971, 3R01Da044971-S1)
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
naloxone access, opioid overdose prevention, harm reduction, people who use opioids, stigma, first responders, harm reduction programs, state policy, Connecticut, Kentucky, Wisconsin
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Connecticut, Humans, Kentucky, Naloxone, Narcotic Antagonists, Opioid-Related Disorders, United States, Wisconsin, 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