Advertisement

Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 85, Issue 3, pp 352–360 | Cite as

Attitudes of Australian Heroin Users to Peer Distribution of Naloxone for Heroin Overdose: Perspectives on Intranasal Administration

  • Debra KerrEmail author
  • Paul Dietze
  • Anne-Maree Kelly
  • Damien Jolley
Article

Abstract

Naloxone distribution to injecting drug users (IDUs) for peer administration is a suggested strategy to prevent fatal heroin overdose. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes of IDUs to administration of naloxone to others after heroin overdose, and preferences for method of administration. A sample of 99 IDUs (median age 35 years, 72% male) recruited from needle and syringe programs in Melbourne were administered a questionnaire. Data collected included demographics, attitudes to naloxone distribution, and preferences for method of administration. The primary study outcomes were attitudes of IDUs to use of naloxone for peer administration (categorized on a five-point scale ranging from “very good idea” to “very bad idea”) and preferred mode of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and intranasal). The majority of the sample reported positive attitudes toward naloxone distribution (good to very good idea: 89%) and 92% said they were willing to participate in a related training program. Some participants raised concerns about peer administration including the competence of IDUs to administer naloxone in an emergency, victim response on wakening and legal implications. Most (74%) preferred intranasal administration in comparison to other administration methods (21%). There was no association with age, sex, or heroin practice. There appears to be strong support among Australian IDU for naloxone distribution to peers. Intranasal spray is the preferred route of administration.

Keywords

Naloxone Heroin Overdose Intranasal 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge staff of the three needle and syringe programs who provided access to potential candidates and a suitable environment for interviews, in particular Colin Coxhead, Sue White, and Jacqui Brown. The authors wish to thank the respondents for their participation.

References

  1. 1.
    Darke S, Ross J, Hall W. Overdose among heroin users in Sydney, Australia: II. Responses to overdose. Addiction. 1996;91(3):413–417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strang J, Powis B, Best D, et al. Preventing opiate overdose fatalities with take-home naloxone: pre-launch study of possible impact and acceptability. Addiction. 1999;94(2):199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGregor C, Darke S, Ali R, Christie P. Experience of non-fatal overdose among heroin users in Adelaide, Australia: circumstances and risk perceptions. Addiction. 1998;93(5):701–711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darke S, Ross J, Zador D, Sunjic S. Heroin-related deaths in New South Wales, Australia, 1992–1996. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;60(2):141–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidson PJ, Ochoa KC, Hahn JA, Evans JL, Moss AR. Witnessing heroin-related overdoses: the experiences of young injectors in San Francisco. Addiction. 2002;97(12):1511–1516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seal KH, Downing M, Kral AH, et al. Attitudes about prescribing take-home naloxone to injection drug users for the management of heroin overdose: a survey of street-recruited injectors in the San Francisco Bay Area. J Urban Health. 2003;80(2):291–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tracy M, Piper TM, Ompad D, et al. Circumstances of witnessed drug overdose in New York City: implications for intervention. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;79(2):181–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Darke S, Hall W. The distribution of naloxone to heroin users. Addiction. 1997;92(9):1195–1199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lenton SR, Hargreaves KM. Should we conduct a trial of distributing naloxone to heroin users for peer administration to prevent fatal overdose? Med J Aust. 2000;173(5):260–263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sporer KA, Kral AH. Prescription naloxone: a novel approach to heroin overdose prevention. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(2):172–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baca CT, Grant KJ. Take-home naloxone to reduce heroin death. Addiction. 2005;100(12):1823–1831.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wright N, Oldham N, Francis K, Jones L. Homeless drug users’ awareness and risk perception of peer “Take Home Naloxone” use—a qualitative study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2006;1:28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seal KH, Thawley R, Gee L, et al. Naloxone distribution and cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for injection drug users to prevent heroin overdose death: a pilot intervention study. J Urban Health. 2005;82(2):303–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Worthington N, Markham Piper T, Galea S, Rosenthal D. Opiate users’ knowledge about overdose prevention and naloxone in New York City: a focus group study. Harm Reduct. 2006;3:19.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tobin KE, Gaasch WR, Clarke C, MacKenzie E, Latkin CA. Attitudes of emergency medical service providers towards naloxone distribution programs. J Urban Health. 2005;82(2):296–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mountain D. Take home naloxone for opiate addicts Big conclusions are drawn from little evidence. BMJ. 2001;323(7318):934, author reply 5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ashworth AJ, Kidd A. Take home naloxone for opiate addicts. Apparent advantages may be balanced by hidden harms. BMJ. 2001;323(7318):935.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dettmer K, Saunders B, Strang J. Take home naloxone and the prevention of deaths from opiate overdose: two pilot schemes. BMJ. 2001;322(7291):895–896.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stata Statistical Software: release 8.2. College Station, Texas Stata Corporation, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    DHS. The Victorian drug statistics handbook 2006: patterns of drug use and related harm in Victoria. Melbourne, Victoria: Drugs Policy and Services Branch, Rural and Regional Health and Aged Care Services Division; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lagu T, Anderson BJ, Stein M. Overdoses among friends: drug users are willing to administer naloxone to others. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;30(2):129–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kelly AM, Kerr D, Dietze P, et al. Randomised trial of intranasal versus intramuscular naloxone in prehospital treatment for suspected opioid overdose. Med J Aust. 2005;182(1):24–27.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robertson T, Hendey G, Stroh G, Shalit M. Intranasal versus intravenous naloxone for prehospital narcotic overdose (abstract). Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12:s166–s167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baca CT, Grant KJ. What heroin users tell us about overdose. J Addict Dis. 2007;26(4):63–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dietze P, Fry C, Rumbold G, Gerostamoulos J. The context, management and prevention of heroin overdose in Victoria, Australia: the promise of a diverse approach. Addiction Research and Theory. 2001;9(5):437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cantwell K, Dietze P, Flander L. The relationship between naloxone dose and key patient variables in the treatment of non-fatal heroin overdose in the prehospital setting. Resuscitation. 2005;65(3):315–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maxwell S, Bigg D, Stanczykiewicz K, Carlberg-Racich S. Prescribing naloxone to actively injecting heroin users: a program to reduce heroin overdose deaths. J Addict Dis. 2006;25(3):89–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sherman SG, Gann DS, Scott G, Carlberg S, Bigg D, Heimer R. A qualitative study of overdose responses among Chicago IDUs. Harm Reduct J. 2008;5(1):2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debra Kerr
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Paul Dietze
    • 3
    • 4
  • Anne-Maree Kelly
    • 1
    • 2
  • Damien Jolley
    • 4
  1. 1.Joseph Epstein Centre for Emergency Medicine ResearchSunshine HospitalSt AlbansAustralia
  2. 2.The University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Burnet InstituteMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Monash Institute of Health Services ResearchMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations