Preference for hotline versus mobile application/countdown-based mobile overdose response services: a qualitative study
Tóm tắt
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. 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. 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. 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.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Public Health Agency of Canada. Opioid and stimulant related harms in Canada. [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/
Krausz RM, Westenberg JN, Meyer M, Choi F. The upcoming synthetic ultrapotent opioid wave as a foreseeable disaster. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9(9):699–700.
Hu K, Klinkenberg B, Gan WQ, Slaunwhite AK. Spatial-temporal trends in the risk of illicit drug toxicity death in British Columbia. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):2121.
Palis H, Bélair M, Hu K, Tu A, Buxton J, Slaunwhite A. Overdose deaths and the COVID -19 pandemic in British Columbia, Canada. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022;41(4):912–7.
Rioux W. Defining terminology and outcome measures for evaluating digital and/or virtual drug overdose response technology: an international Delphi study. 2023 Jan 31 [cited 2023 Apr 20]. Available from: https://osf.io/un49f/
Rioux W, Marshall T, Ghosh SM. Virtual overdose monitoring services and overdose prevention technologies: opportunities, limitations, and future directions. Int J Drug Policy. 2023;119:104121.
Welwean RA, Krieg O, Casey G, Thompson E, Fleetham D, Deering T, et al. Evaluating the impact of brave technology co-op’s novel drug overdose detection and response devices in North America: a retrospective study. J Urban Health. 2023;100(5):1043–7.
National overdose response service (NORS) [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 24]. National Overdose Response Service (NORS). Available from: https://www.nors.ca
The Brave App [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 24]. The brave app. Available from: https://www.thebraveapp.com
Never Use Alone Inc. – 800-484-3731 [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 25]. Available from: https://neverusealone.com/
Powered by evan | A digital health company. No blog title set. [cited 2022 Oct 24]. Lifeguard Digital Health. Available from: https://lifeguarddh.com/
Dorsapp [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 24]. DORS app. Available from: https://www.dorsapp.ca
Ritchie K, Ghosh SM. Determining the feasibility for an overdose prevention line to support substance users who use alone. Harm Reduct J. 2022;19(1):92.
Viste D, Rioux W, Cristall N, Orr T, Taplay P, Morris-Miller L, et al. Association of drug overdoses and user characteristics of Canada’s national mobile/virtual overdose response hotline: the National Overdose Response Service (NORS). BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1–12.
Rider N, Safi F, Marshall T, Jones S, Seo B, Viste D, et al. Investigating uses of peer-operated virtual overdose monitoring services (VOMS) beyond overdose response: a qualitative study. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2023;13:1–9.
Matskiv G, Marshall T, Krieg O, Viste D, Ghosh SM. Virtual overdose monitoring services: a novel adjunctive harm reduction approach for addressing the overdose crisis. CMAJ. 2022;194(46):5.
Rioux W, Enns B, Ghosh SM. Virtual overdose monitoring services/mobile overdose response services: estimated number of potentially averted drug poisoning fatality events by various telephone and digital-based overdose prevention/harm reduction services in North America. Front Public Health. 2023;19(11):1242795.
Mertz E. EMS crews have saved 18 patients using Alberta’s overdose response app [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 1]. Available from: https://globalnews.ca/news/9731841/ems-stars-alberta-overdose-response-app/
Provincial Health Services Authority. Two years later, Lifeguard App continues to save lives [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 1]. Available from: http://www.bcehs.ca/about/news-stories/stories/two-years-later-lifeguard-app-continues-to-save-lives
Boyatzis R. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1998.
Glaser A, Strauss B. Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge; 2017. p. 282.
Rioux W, Enns B, Jackson J, Quereshi H, Irvine M, Ghosh SM. A cost benefit analysis of a virtual overdose monitoring service/mobile overdose response service: the national overdose response service. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2023;18(1):57.
Perri M, Guta A, Kaminski N, Bonn M, Kolla G, Bayoumi A, et al. Spotting as a risk mitigation method: a qualitative study comparing organization-based and informal methods. Int J Drug Policy. 2023;1(111):103905.
Perri M, Schmidt RA, Guta A, Kaminski N, Rudzinski K, Strike C. COVID-19 and the opportunity for gender-responsive virtual and remote substance use treatment and harm reduction services. Int J Drug Policy. 2022;108:103815.
Viste D, Rioux W, Cristall N, Orr T, Taplay P, Moris-Miller L, et al. Association of adverse events and user characteristics of Canada’s national virtual overdose monitoring service: the National Overdose Response Service (NORS). Forthcoming.
Mercer F, Miler JA, Pauly B, Carver H, Hnízdilová K, Foster R, et al. Peer support and overdose prevention responses: a systematic ‘state-of-the-art’ review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(22):12073.
Loverock A, Marshall RT, Safi F, Viste D, Ghosh SM, Kennedy M. E-health interventions for drug overdose monitoring and prevention: a scoping review. 2022 Aug 26 [cited 2023 Jan 11]; Available from: https://osf.io/pkuhb
Perri M, Kaminski N, Bonn M, Kolla G, Guta A, Bayoumi AM, et al. A qualitative study on overdose response in the era of COVID-19 and beyond: how to spot someone so they never have to use alone. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18(1):85.
Marshall T, Viste D, Jones S, Kim J, Lee A, Jafri F, et al. Beliefs, attitudes and experiences of virtual overdose monitoring services from the perspectives of people who use substances in Canada: a qualitative study. Harm Reduct J. 2023;20(1):80.
Michaud L, van der Meulen E, Guta A. Between care and control: examining surveillance practices in harm reduction. Contemp Drug Probl. 2022;50:3–24.
Draanen J, Satti S, Morgan J, Gaudette L, Knight R, Ti L. Using passive surveillance technology for overdose prevention: key ethical and implementation issues. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022;41(2):406–9.
Tsang VWL, Papamihali K, Crabtree A, Buxton JA. Acceptability of technological solutions for overdose monitoring: perspectives of people who use drugs. Subst Abuse. 2021;42(3):284–93.
Hsu M, Martin B, Ahmed S, Torous J, Suzuki J. Smartphone ownership, smartphone utilization, and interest in using mental health apps to address substance use disorders: literature review and cross-sectional survey study across two sites. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(7):e38684.
Kumar D, Hemmige V, Kallen MA, Giordano TP, Arya M. Mobile phones may not bridge the digital divide: a look at mobile phone literacy in an underserved patient population. Cureus. 2019;11(2):e4104.
Benavides-Vaello S, Strode A, Sheeran BC. using technology in the delivery of mental health and substance abuse treatment in rural communities: a review. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2013;40(1):111–20.
Marshall BD, Milloy MJ, Wood E, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1429–37.
Bardwell G, Lappalainen L. The need to prioritize research, policy, and practice to address the overdose epidemic in smaller settings in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2021;112(4):733–6.
Montaque HDG, Christenson E, Spector A, Wogen J, McDonald M, Weeks MR, et al. Mechanisms for expanding harm reduction for opioid use in suburban and rural U.S. settings. J Drug Issues. 2023;53(2):196–212.
Khair S, Eastwood CA, Lu M, Jackson J. Supervised consumption site enables cost savings by avoiding emergency services: a cost analysis study. Harm Reduct J. 2022;19(1):32.
Jozaghi E, Reid AA, Andresen MA, Juneau A. A cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis of proposed supervised injection facilities in Ottawa, Canada. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2014;9(1):31.
Andresen MA, Boyd N. A cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21(1):70–6.