Drug and alcohol dependence · 2021
Limited access to pharmacy-based naloxone in West Virginia: Results from a statewide purchase trial.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Pollini Robin A, Ozga Jenny E, Joyce Rebecca, Xuan Ziming, Walley Alexander Y
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: West Virginia (WV) has the highest overdose mortality rate in the United States and expanding naloxone access is crucial for reducing opioid overdose deaths. We conducted a purchase trial to establish an objective measure of naloxone access under WV's naloxone standing order (NSO) program.
METHODS: A stratified random sample of 200 chain and independent retail pharmacies across WV were included. Each pharmacy underwent two purchase attempts-one by a person who used illicit opioids (PWUIO) and one by a potential bystander who did not use illicit opioids but had a relationship with a PWUIO. We used matched-pairs analysis to identify differences in outcomes by purchaser type (PWUIO vs bystander). Chi-square and independent-samples t-tests were used to compare outcomes by pharmacy type (chain vs independent).
RESULTS: Overall, 29% of purchase attempts were successful, with no significant difference between PWUIO and bystanders (p = 0.798). Fewer than half (44%) of successful purchases included verbal counseling, and bystanders were more likely to receive counseling than PWUIO (33% vs 4%, p = 0.018). Common reasons for failed purchases were naloxone not being in stock (41%), requiring a naloxone prescription (35%), and/or requiring formal identification (23%). Chain pharmacies were more likely to sell naloxone than independents (35% vs 19%, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We documented limited naloxone access under the WV NSO. These findings indicate that simply establishing an NSO program is insufficient to expand access. Implementation efforts should ensure adequate naloxone stocks, pro-active delivery of NSO-related information and pharmacist training, and avoidance of recordkeeping requirements that may impede access.
METHODS: A stratified random sample of 200 chain and independent retail pharmacies across WV were included. Each pharmacy underwent two purchase attempts-one by a person who used illicit opioids (PWUIO) and one by a potential bystander who did not use illicit opioids but had a relationship with a PWUIO. We used matched-pairs analysis to identify differences in outcomes by purchaser type (PWUIO vs bystander). Chi-square and independent-samples t-tests were used to compare outcomes by pharmacy type (chain vs independent).
RESULTS: Overall, 29% of purchase attempts were successful, with no significant difference between PWUIO and bystanders (p = 0.798). Fewer than half (44%) of successful purchases included verbal counseling, and bystanders were more likely to receive counseling than PWUIO (33% vs 4%, p = 0.018). Common reasons for failed purchases were naloxone not being in stock (41%), requiring a naloxone prescription (35%), and/or requiring formal identification (23%). Chain pharmacies were more likely to sell naloxone than independents (35% vs 19%, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We documented limited naloxone access under the WV NSO. These findings indicate that simply establishing an NSO program is insufficient to expand access. Implementation efforts should ensure adequate naloxone stocks, pro-active delivery of NSO-related information and pharmacist training, and avoidance of recordkeeping requirements that may impede access.