↓ Skip to main content

Overdose Education and Naloxone for Patients Prescribed Opioids in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Staff

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
38 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
Title
Overdose Education and Naloxone for Patients Prescribed Opioids in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Staff
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3394-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingrid A. Binswanger, Stephen Koester, Shane R. Mueller, Edward M. Gardner, Kristin Goddard, Jason M. Glanz

Abstract

The rate of fatal unintentional pharmaceutical opioid poisonings has increased substantially since the late 1990s. Naloxone is an effective opioid antidote that can be prescribed to patients for bystander use in the event of an overdose. Primary care clinics represent settings in which large populations of patients prescribed opioids could be reached for overdose education and naloxone prescription. Our aim was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about overdose education and naloxone prescription among clinical staff in primary care. This was a qualitative study using focus groups to elucidate both clinic-level and provider-level barriers and facilitators. Ten primary care internal medicine, family medicine and infectious disease/HIV practices in three large Colorado health systems. A focus group guide was developed based on behavioral theory. Focus group transcripts were coded for manifest and latent meaning, and analyzed for themes using a recursive approach that included inductive and deductive analysis. Themes emerged in four content areas related to overdose education and naloxone prescription: knowledge, barriers, benefits and facilitators. Clinical staff (N = 56) demonstrated substantial knowledge gaps about naloxone and its use in outpatient settings. They expressed uncertainty about who to prescribe naloxone to, and identified a range of logistical barriers to its use in practice. Staff also described fears about offending patients and concerns about increased risk behaviors in patients prescribed naloxone. When considering naloxone, some providers reflected critically and with discomfort on their own opioid prescribing. These barriers were balanced by beliefs that prescribing naloxone could prevent death and result in safer opioid use behaviors. Findings from these qualitative focus groups may not be generalizable to other settings. In addition to evidence gaps, logistical and attitudinal barriers will need to be addressed to enhance uptake of overdose education and naloxone prescription for patients prescribed opioids for pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Unknown 158 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 16 10%
Other 15 9%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 40 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Social Sciences 15 9%
Psychology 12 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 5%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 44 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 302. 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 18 March 2021.
All research outputs
#115,774
of 25,639,676 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#112
of 8,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,131
of 280,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,639,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 280,522 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 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 98% of its contemporaries.