What impacts the acceptability of wearable devices that detect opioid overdose in people who use opioids? A qualitative study.
device
opioid
overdose
technology
wearable
Journal
Drug and alcohol review
ISSN: 1465-3362
Titre abrégé: Drug Alcohol Rev
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9015440
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Aug 2023
19 Aug 2023
Historique:
revised:
26
07
2023
received:
07
03
2023
accepted:
29
07
2023
medline:
19
8
2023
pubmed:
19
8
2023
entrez:
19
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Drug-related deaths involving an opioid are at all-time highs across the United Kingdom. Current overdose antidotes (naloxone) require events to be witnessed and recognised for reversal. Wearable technologies have potential for remote overdose detection or response but their acceptability among people who use opioids (PWUO) is not well understood. This study explored facilitators and barriers to wearable technology acceptability to PWUO. Twenty-four participants (79% male, average age 46 years) with current (n = 15) and past (n = 9) illicit heroin use and 54% (n = 13) who were engaged in opioid substitution therapy participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 7) and three focus groups (n = 17) in London and Nottingham from March to June 2022. Participants evaluated real devices, discussing characteristics, engagement factors, target populations, implementation strategies and preferences. Conversations were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Three themes emerged: device-, person- and environment-specific factors impacting acceptability. Facilitators included inconspicuousness under the device theme and targeting subpopulations of PWUO at the individual theme. Barriers included affordability of devices and limited technology access within the environment theme. Trust in device accuracy for high and overdose differentiation was a crucial facilitator, while trust between technology and PWUO was a significant environmental barrier. Determinants of acceptability can be categorised into device, person and environmental factors. PWUO, on the whole, require devices that are inconspicuous, comfortable, accessible, easy to use, controlled by trustworthy organisations and highly accurate. Device developers must consider how the type of end-user and their environment moderate acceptability of the device.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
Références
Office for National Statistics. Deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales: 2021 registrations. Deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales from 1993 to 2021, by cause of death, sex, age, and substances involved in death. Office for National Statistics. 2022.
National Records of Scotland. Drug-related deaths in Scotland in 2021, Report [Internet]. 2022 Available from: www.nrscotland.gov.uk
Davidson P, McLean R, Kral A, Gleghorn A, Edlin B, Moss A. Fatal heroin-related overdose in San Francisco, 1997-2000: a case for targeted intervention. J Urban Health. 2003;80:261-273.
Bardwell G, Kerr T, McNeil R. The opioid overdose epidemic and the urgent need for effective public health interventions that address men who use drugs alone. Am J Mens Health. 2019;13:1557988319859113.
Wojcicki JM. Dying alone: the sad irrelevance of naloxone in the context of solitary opiate use. Addiction. 2019;114:574-575.
Anderson L, Johnson B. Fatal opioid overdoses usually occur without anyone being present and able to intervene. Knowledge of the presence of witnesses is important to how naloxone programs should be designed. Lakartidningen. 2022;119:21121.
Chuah S, Rauschnabel PA, Krey N, Nguyen B, Ramayah T, Krey N, et al. Wearable technologies: the role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;65:276-284.
Marcolino M, Olivera J, D'Agostino M, Ribeiro A, Alkmim M, Novillo-Ortiz D. The impact of mhealth interventions: systematic review of systematic reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6:e23.
Chan J, Iyer V, Wang A, Lyness A, Kooner P, Sunshine J, et al. Closed-loop wearable naloxone injector system. Sci Rep. 2021;11:22663.
Roth AM, Tran NK, Cocchiaro B, Mitchell AK, Schwartz DG, Hensel DJ, et al. Wearable biosensors have the potential to monitor physiological changes associated with opioid overdose among people who use drugs: a proof-of-concept study in a real-world setting. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;229:109138.
Nandakumar R, Gollakota S, Sunshine JE. Opioid overdose detection using smartphones. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11:eaau8914.
Oteo A, Daneshvar H, Baldacchino A, Matheson C. Overdose alert and response technologies: state-of-the-art review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e40389.
Lombardi AR, Arya R, Rosen JG, Thompson E, Welwean R, Tardif J, et al. Overdose detection technologies to reduce solitary overdose deaths: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20:1230.
Tas B, Lawn W, Traykova EV, Evans RAS, Murvai B, Walker H, et al. A scoping review of mHealth technologies for opioid overdose prevention, detection and response. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2023;42:748-764.
Botros A, Schütz N, Camenzind M, Urwyler P, Bolliger D, Vanbellingen T, et al. Long-term home-monitoring sensor technology in patients with parkinson's disease-acceptance and adherence. Sensors (Basel). 2019;19:5169.
Morgan C, Craddock I, Tonkin EL, Kinnunen KM, Mcnaney R, Whitehouse S, et al. Protocol for PD SENSORS: Parkinson's disease symptom evaluation in a naturalistic setting producing outcome measuRes using SPHERE technology. An observational feasibility study of multi-modal multi-sensor technology to measure symptoms and activities of daily living in Parkinson's disease. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e041303.
Simblett S, Greer B, Matcham F, Curtis H, Polhemus A, Ferrão J, et al. Barriers to and facilitators of engagement with remote measurement technology for managing health: systematic review and content analysis of findings. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20:e10480.
Simblett S, Matcham F, Siddi S, Bulgari V, di San PC, Lopez J, et al. Barriers to and facilitators of engagement with mHealth technology for remore measurement and management of depression: qualitative analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7:e11325.
Barry CL, McGinty EE, Pescosolido BA, Goldman HH. Stigma, discrimination, treatment effectiveness, and policy: public views about drug addiction and mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65:1269-1272.
Hatzenbuehler ML, Phelan JC, Link BG. Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Public Health. 2013;103:813-821.
Kanter K, Gallagher R, Eweje F, Lee A, Gordon D, Landy S, et al. Willingness to use a wearable device capable of detecting and reversing overdose among people who use opioids in Philadelphia. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18:75.
Schwartz DG, Ataiants J, Roth A, Marcu G, Yahav I, Cocchiaro B, et al. Layperson reversal of opioid overdose supported by smartphone alert: a prospective observational cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;25:100474.
Ahamad K, Dong H, Johnson C, Hyashi K, DeBeck K, Milloy MJ, et al. Factors associated with willingness to wear an electronic overdose detection device. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2019;14:23.
Campbell A, Millen S, Guo L, Jordan U, Taylor-Beswick A, Rintoul C, et al. Reducing opioid related deaths for individuals who are at high risk of death from overdose: a co-production study with people housed within prison and hostel accommodation during Covid-19. Front Pub Health. 2023;11:1080629.
Dumbrell J, Daneshvar H, Oteo A, Baldacchino A, Matheson C. The acceptability of overdose alert and response technologies: introducing the TPOM-ODART framework. Harm Reduct J. 2023;20:40.
Guest G, Namey E, Taylor J, Eley N, McKenna K. Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20:693-708.
Tsang VWL, Papamihali K, Crabtree A, Buxton JA. Acceptability of technological solutions for overdose monitoring: perspectives of people who use drugs. Subst Abus. 2021;42:284-293.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77-101.
Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11:589-597.
Holloway K, Hills R, May T. Fatal and non-fatal overdose among opiate users in South Wales: a qualitative study of peer responses. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;56:56-63.
Chong KPL, Guo JZ, Deng X, Woo BKP. Consumer perceptions of wearable technology devices: retrospective review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8:e17544.
Motti VG, Caine K. Human factors considerations in the design of wearable devices. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Vol. 58. Sage Publications, 2014. p. 1820-1824.
Hunkin H, King DL, Zajac IT. Perceived acceptability of wearable devices for the treatment of mental health problems. J Clin Psychol. 2020;76:987-1003.
Lloyd C. The stigmatization of problem drug users: a narrative literature review. Drugs Educ Prev Policy. 2013;20:85-95.
Lopez MH, Patten E. Closing the digital divide: Latinos and technology adoption. 2013. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2013/03/07/closing-the-digital-divide-latinos-and-technology-adoption/
Neogi PK, Brocca J. Broadband adoption and use in Canada and the US: is the digital divide closing? (September 24, 2011). TPRC; 2011. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1983590
Adult substance misuse treatment statistics 2020 to 2021: report [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/substance-misuse-treatment-