Opioid Overdose Fatality Prevention

Leece, Pamela; Orkin, Aaron

doi:10.1001/jama.2013.375

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Support for the provision of THN in Australian policy and practice has been mixed, in part clouded by concerns about the adequacy of evidence of intervention effectiveness . Here, some have argued that randomised controlled trials (RCT), often considered the ‘gold standard’ for assessing causality, are needed to establish whether THN programs actually reduce opioid overdose mortality and morbidity .…”

Section: Bradford Hill Criteria: Summary Of Findings Across Two Indepmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…THN programs aim to reduce and prevent opioid-related death, disability and injury, and Australia's first THN program started in the Australian Capital Territory in 2011 [2], with programs in other Australian jurisdictions commencing shortly after [3]. Support for the provision of THN in Australian policy and practice has been mixed, in part clouded by concerns about the adequacy of evidence of intervention effectiveness [4,5]. Here, some have argued that randomised controlled trials (RCT), often considered the 'gold standard' for assessing causality, are needed to establish whether THN programs actually reduce opioid overdose mortality and morbidity [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing causality in drug policy analyses: How useful are the Bradford Hill criteria in analysing take‐home naloxone programs?

Olsen

McDonald

Lenton

et al. 2017

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Bradford Hill criteria for assessing causality are useful in assembling evidence, including within complex policy analyses. In this paper, we argue that the implementation of take-home naloxone (THN) programs in Australia and elsewhere reflects sensible, evidence-based public health policy, despite the absence of randomised controlled trials. However, we also acknowledge that the debate around expanding access to THN would benefit from a careful consideration of causal inference and health policy impact of THN program implementation. Given the continued debate around expanding access to THN, and the relatively recent access to new data from implementation studies, two research groups independently conducted Bradford Hill analyses in order to carefully consider causal inference and health policy impact. Hill's criteria offer a useful analytical tool for interpreting current evidence on THN programs and making decisions about the (un)certainty of THN program safety and effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Bradford Hill Criteria: Summary Of Findings Across Two Indepmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing causality in drug policy analyses: How useful are the Bradford Hill criteria in analysing take‐home naloxone programs?

Olsen

McDonald

Lenton

et al. 2017

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other objections point to the lack of adequate research on the safety of bystander-administered naloxone and advocate for well-designed experimental trials before widespread adoption. These clinicians argue that opioid users deserve the same high quality, evidence-based practice as other patients [38]. Within the current context of incomplete knowledge and evidence, public health must invoke the precautionary principle: a principle that seeks to implement preventative measures to respond to a real risk in the face of uncertainty regarding a tradeoff between safety concerns, efficacy, and cost issues [39,40].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%