Harm reduction journal · 2024
Preference for hotline versus mobile application/countdown-based mobile overdose response services: a qualitative study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rioux William, Teare Adrian, Rider Nathan, Jones Stephanie, Ghosh S Monty
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In response to the exacerbated rates of morbidity and mortality associated with the overlapping overdose and COVID-19 epidemics, novel strategies have been developed, implemented, operationalized and scaled to reduce the harms resulting from this crisis. Since the emergence of mobile overdose response services (MORS), two strategies have aimed to help reduce the mortality associated with acute overdose including staffed hotline-based services and unstaffed timer-based services. In this article, we aim to gather the perspectives of various key interest groups on these technologies to determine which might best support service users.
METHODS: Forty-seven participants from various interested groups including people who use substances who have and have not used MORS, healthcare workers, family members, harm reduction employees and MORS operators participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: Four major themes emerged regarding participant perspectives on the differences between services, namely differences in connection, perceived safety, privacy and accessibility, alongside features that are recommended for MORS in the future.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants noted that individuals who use substances vary in their desire for connection during a substance use session offered by hotline and timer-based service modalities. Participants perceived hotline-based approaches to be more reliable and thus potentially safer than their timer-based counterparts but noted that access to technology is a limitation of both approaches.
METHODS: Forty-seven participants from various interested groups including people who use substances who have and have not used MORS, healthcare workers, family members, harm reduction employees and MORS operators participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: Four major themes emerged regarding participant perspectives on the differences between services, namely differences in connection, perceived safety, privacy and accessibility, alongside features that are recommended for MORS in the future.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants noted that individuals who use substances vary in their desire for connection during a substance use session offered by hotline and timer-based service modalities. Participants perceived hotline-based approaches to be more reliable and thus potentially safer than their timer-based counterparts but noted that access to technology is a limitation of both approaches.