Supporting community overdose response planning in Ontario, Canada: Findings from a situational assessment.
Capacity building
Opioids
Overdose
Public health
Situational assessment
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 07 2022
19 07 2022
Historique:
received:
08
02
2022
accepted:
07
07
2022
entrez:
19
7
2022
pubmed:
20
7
2022
medline:
22
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many communities across North America are coming together to develop comprehensive plans to address and respond to the escalating overdose crisis, largely driven by an increasingly toxic unregulated drug supply. As there is a need to build capacity for successful implementation, the objective of our mixed methods study was to identify the current planning and implementation practices, needs, and priority areas of support for community overdose response plans in Ontario, Canada. We used a situational assessment methodology to collect data on current planning and implementation practices, needs, and challenges related to community overdose response plans in Ontario, consisting of three components. Between November 2019 to February 2020, we conducted ten semi-structured key informant interviews, three focus groups with 25 participants, and administered an online survey (N = 66). Purposeful sampling was used to identify professionals involved in coordinating, supporting, or partnering on community overdose response plans in jurisdictions with relevant information for Ontario including other Canadian provinces and American states. Key informants included evaluators, representatives involved in centralised supports, as well as coordinators and partners on community overdose response plans. Focus group participants were coordinators or leads of community overdose response plans in Ontario. Sixty-six professionals participated in the study. The current planning and implementation practices of community overdose response plans varied in Ontario. Our analysis generated four overarching areas for needs and support for the planning and implementation of community overdose response plans: 1) data and information; 2) evidence and practice; 3) implementation/operational factors; and 4) partnership, engagement, and collaboration. Addressing stigma and equity within planning and implementation of community overdose response plans was a cross-cutting theme that included meaningful engagement of people with living and lived expertise and meeting the service needs of different populations and communities. Through exploring the needs and related supports for community overdose response plans in Ontario, we have identified key priority areas for building local capacity building to address overdose-related harms. Ongoing development and refinement, community partnership, and evaluation of our project will highlight the influence of our supports to advance the capacity, motivation, and opportunities of community overdose response plans.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Many communities across North America are coming together to develop comprehensive plans to address and respond to the escalating overdose crisis, largely driven by an increasingly toxic unregulated drug supply. As there is a need to build capacity for successful implementation, the objective of our mixed methods study was to identify the current planning and implementation practices, needs, and priority areas of support for community overdose response plans in Ontario, Canada.
METHODS
We used a situational assessment methodology to collect data on current planning and implementation practices, needs, and challenges related to community overdose response plans in Ontario, consisting of three components. Between November 2019 to February 2020, we conducted ten semi-structured key informant interviews, three focus groups with 25 participants, and administered an online survey (N = 66). Purposeful sampling was used to identify professionals involved in coordinating, supporting, or partnering on community overdose response plans in jurisdictions with relevant information for Ontario including other Canadian provinces and American states. Key informants included evaluators, representatives involved in centralised supports, as well as coordinators and partners on community overdose response plans. Focus group participants were coordinators or leads of community overdose response plans in Ontario.
RESULTS
Sixty-six professionals participated in the study. The current planning and implementation practices of community overdose response plans varied in Ontario. Our analysis generated four overarching areas for needs and support for the planning and implementation of community overdose response plans: 1) data and information; 2) evidence and practice; 3) implementation/operational factors; and 4) partnership, engagement, and collaboration. Addressing stigma and equity within planning and implementation of community overdose response plans was a cross-cutting theme that included meaningful engagement of people with living and lived expertise and meeting the service needs of different populations and communities.
CONCLUSIONS
Through exploring the needs and related supports for community overdose response plans in Ontario, we have identified key priority areas for building local capacity building to address overdose-related harms. Ongoing development and refinement, community partnership, and evaluation of our project will highlight the influence of our supports to advance the capacity, motivation, and opportunities of community overdose response plans.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35854231
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13762-0
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13762-0
pmc: PMC9296108
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1390Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:27-53
pubmed: 29166243
Health Policy. 1997 Jan;39(1):29-42
pubmed: 10164903
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug;234:112384
pubmed: 31254965
BMC Public Health. 2020 Apr 3;20(1):431
pubmed: 32245442
BMC Public Health. 2017 Nov 28;17(1):914
pubmed: 29183296
Milbank Q. 2018 Dec;96(4):635-671
pubmed: 30350420
Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Jun;41(3-4):327-50
pubmed: 18322790
ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2015 Apr-Jun;38(2):121-35
pubmed: 25932819
Public Health Nutr. 2020 Nov;23(16):3045-3055
pubmed: 32618239
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 12;9(9):e028583
pubmed: 31515417
Pain Med. 2011 Jun;12 Suppl 2:S77-85
pubmed: 21668761
Milbank Q. 2016 Jun;94(2):392-429
pubmed: 27265562
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jun 1;18(1):684
pubmed: 29859075
CMAJ. 2017 Nov 6;189(44):E1350-E1351
pubmed: 29109207
Health Promot Int. 2006 Dec;21(4):340-5
pubmed: 16963461
Int J Equity Health. 2012 Oct 13;11:59
pubmed: 23061433
Public Health Nurs. 2020 May;37(3):412-421
pubmed: 32173954
JBI Evid Synth. 2021 Jun 16;19(8):1760-1843
pubmed: 34137739
Qual Health Res. 2001 Jul;11(4):522-37
pubmed: 11521609
Inj Prev. 2018 Feb;24(1):48-54
pubmed: 28835443
Health Educ Behav. 2017 Feb;44(1):59-69
pubmed: 26500080
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
Implement Sci. 2015 May 29;10:80
pubmed: 26018220
Am J Prev Med. 2014 Nov;47(5 Suppl 3):S288-96
pubmed: 25439247