↓ Skip to main content

Why is it so hard to implement change? A qualitative examination of barriers and facilitators to distribution of naloxone for overdose prevention in a safety net environment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why is it so hard to implement change? A qualitative examination of barriers and facilitators to distribution of naloxone for overdose prevention in a safety net environment
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2268-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mari-Lynn Drainoni, Elisa A. Koppelman, James A. Feldman, Alexander Y. Walley, Patricia M. Mitchell, Jacqueline Ellison, Edward Bernstein

Abstract

The increase in opioid overdose deaths has become a national public health crisis. Naloxone is an important tool in opioid overdose prevention. Distribution of nasal naloxone has been found to be a feasible, and effective intervention in community settings and may have potential high applicability in the emergency department, which is often the initial point of care for persons at high risk of overdose. One safety net hospital introduced an innovative policy to offer take-home nasal naloxone via a standing order to ensure distribution to patients at risk for overdose. The aims of this study were to examine acceptance and uptake of the policy and assess facilitators and barriers to implementation. After obtaining pre-post data on naloxone distribution, we conducted a qualitative study. The PARiHS framework steered development of the qualitative guide. We used theoretical sampling in order to include the range of types of emergency department staff (50 total). The constant comparative method was initially used to code the transcripts and identify themes; the themes that emerged from the coding were then mapped back to the evidence, context and facilitation constructs of the PARiHS framework. Acceptance of the policy was good but uptake was low. Primary themes related to facilitators included: real-world driven intervention with philosophical, clinician and leadership support; basic education and training efforts; availability of resources; and ability to leave the ED with the naloxone kit in hand. Barriers fell into five general categories: protocol and policy; workflow and logistical; patient-related; staff roles and responsibilities; and education and training. The actual implementation of a new innovation in healthcare delivery is largely driven by factors beyond acceptance. Despite support and resources, implementation was challenging, with low uptake. While the potential of this innovation is unknown, understanding the experience is important to improve uptake in this setting and offer possible solutions for other facilities to address the opioid overdose crisis. Use of the PARiHS framework allowed us to recognize and understand key evidence, contextual and facilitation barriers to the successful implementation of the policy and to identify areas for improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 41 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 47 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,134,639
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#438
of 4,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,866
of 316,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#4
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 316,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.