| Title |
Overdose rescues by trained and untrained participants and change in opioid use among substance-using participants in overdose education and naloxone distribution programs: a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-297 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maya Doe-Simkins, Emily Quinn, Ziming Xuan, Amy Sorensen-Alawad, Holly Hackman, Al Ozonoff, Alexander Y Walley |
| Abstract |
One approach to preventing opioid overdose, a leading cause of premature, preventable mortality, is to provide overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND). Two outstanding issues for OEND implementation include 1) the dissemination of OEND training from trained to untrained community members; and 2) the concern that OEND provides active substance users with a false sense of security resulting in increased opioid use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 50% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 180 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 18% |
| Researcher | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 11% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 9% |
| Other | 38 | 21% |
| Unknown | 29 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 11% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 13% |
| Unknown | 41 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2022.
All research outputs
#596,265
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#580
of 17,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,204
of 239,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#7
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.