La Trobe

Understanding preferences for type of take-home naloxone device: international qualitative analysis of the views of people who use opioids

journal contribution
posted on 2025-05-05, 05:51 authored by Joanne Neale, Adrian FarrugiaAdrian Farrugia, AN Campbell, Paul DietzePaul Dietze, Robyn DwyerRobyn Dwyer, Renae FomiattiRenae Fomiatti, JD Jones, SD Comer, Suzanne FraserSuzanne Fraser, J Strang
Background: Take-home naloxone (THN) is provided to non-medically trained people to reverse potential opioid overdoses. There is an increasing range of effective intramuscular (IM) and intranasal (IN) naloxone devices and this paper explores the types preferred by people who use opioids, using consumer behaviour literature to interpret the findings. Methods: Data derive from two unconnected qualitative studies involving audio-recorded semi-structured interviews. Study 1 was conducted in the United States (n = 21 users of non-medical/illicit opioids). Study 2 was conducted in Australia (n = 42 users of non-medical/illicit or prescribed opioids). Findings: Most participants preferred IN naloxone. Preferences were based on the ease, speed, safety and comfort of each device and underpinned by accounts of overdose revivals as being very rushed and frightening situations. Preferences related to complex interactions between the naloxone device (‘product’); the knowledge, skills, experience and attitudes of the lay responder (‘consumer’), and when, where and how naloxone was to be used (‘usage situation’). Conclusions: THN programs should offer choice of device when possible and nasal naloxone if resources permit. Asking people which devices they prefer and why and treating them as valued consumers of naloxone products can generate insights that improve future naloxone technology and increase THN uptake and usage.

Funding

The randomized controlled trial (“Risks and benefits of overdose education and naloxone prescribing to heroin users”) was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [R01DA035207; Comer – Principal Investigator]. The Australian research was supported by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project grant [DP170101669; Fraser – Principal Investigator]. The ARC project has been based in two institutions over time: The National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, and The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University. The National Drug Research Institute is supported by core funding from the Australian Government under the Drug and Alcohol Program and also receives significant funding from Curtin University. J.N. is part-funded by, and J.S. is supported by, the NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, UK. P.D. is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Research Fellowship [#1136908].

History

Publication Date

2022-04-01

Journal

Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

Volume

29

Issue

2

Pagination

12p. (p. 109-120)

Publisher

Taylor & Francis

ISSN

0968-7637

Rights Statement

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Usage metrics

    Journal Articles

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC