Back

The role of repeat training in participants undertaking take home naloxone interventions.

Bravo, M.; Monds, L. A.; Mills, L.; Read, P.; Harrod, M. E.; Nielsen, S.; Jauncey, M.; Rivas, C.; Malcolm, A.; Gilliver, R.; Lintzeris, N.

2020-04-30 addiction medicine
10.1101/2020.04.26.20074542 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction and AimsTraining of consumers is seen as a necessary component of take home naloxone (THN) interventions, with demonstrated improvements in consumer knowledge, attitudes and self-efficacy. However, we query whether re-training is necessary component for individuals renewing naloxone supplies who have previously completed a THN intervention. Design and MethodsA secondary analysis of the Overdose Response and Take Home Naloxone (ORTHN) project, comparing participant characteristics, and changes in knowledge, attitudes and self-efficacy regarding overdose and response, following a brief THN intervention in participants who had previously undertaken THN interventions, compared to those with no prior THN interventions. Data was analysed for those completing both baseline (pre-ORTHN intervention) and follow up (3-months later). ResultsNinety-four participants completed both research interviews, of whom 29 (31%) had previously completed a THN intervention. There were few differences in baseline demographics or overdose histories between the two groups. Knowledge regarding overdose response and naloxone use indicated high baseline levels in both groups. Those with no prior THN training had lower rates of self-efficacy at baseline, and significantly improved following the ORTHN intervention, whereas those with prior THN training had higher baseline levels of self-efficacy, which was maintained following the intervention. Discussion and ConclusionsIndividuals who have previously undertaken a THN intervention may not require repeat training when renewing naloxone supplies, increasing the efficiency of THN interventions.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.