Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to laypersons are key approaches to reduce the incidence of opioid-involved overdoses. While some research has examined attitudes toward OEND, especially among pharmacists and first responders, our understanding of what laypersons believe about overdose and naloxone is surprisingly limited. Further, some scholars have expressed concerns about the prevalence of non-evidence-based beliefs about overdose and naloxone. We designed this study to analyze the prevalence, nature, and context of beliefs about naloxone and overdose among U.S. laypersons. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study (n = 702) using Prolific.co (representative of the U.S. population by age, gender, and race). Primary outcomes were the believability of six statements about overdose/naloxone on a seven-point Likert-type scale. Five statements were unsupported, and one was supported, by current scientific evidence. We used latent profile analysis to classify participants into belief groups, then used regression to study correlates of profile classification. RESULTS: Believability of the statements (7: extremely believable) ranged from m = 5.57 (SD = 1.38) for a scientifically supported idea (trained bystanders can reverse overdose with naloxone), to m = 3.33 (SD = 1.83) for a statement claiming opioid users can get high on naloxone. Participants were classified into three latent belief profiles: Profile 1 (most aligned with current evidence; n = 246), Profile 2 (moderately aligned; n = 351), and Profile 3 (least aligned, n = 105). Compared to Profile 1, several covariates were associated with categorization into Profiles 2 and 3, including lower trust in science (RRR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.24–0.54; RRR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.12–0.36, respectively), conservative political orientation (RRR = 1.41, 95%CI = 1.23–1.63; 3:RRR = 1.62, 95%CI = 1.35–1.95, respectively), and never being trained about naloxone (Profile 3: RRR = 3.37, 95%CI = 1.16–9.77). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests some ...

AbstractImproving understanding of behaviors that increase or reduce cancer risk for different Hispanic groups is a public health priority; such knowledge is sparse in new gateway immigration locations such as Indiana. The aims of this study were to: 1) describe cancer beliefs and cancer preventive/risk reduction behaviors (physical activity, tobacco, and alcohol use) among Hispanic adults; 2) examine differences in cancer beliefs and preventive behaviors by country/territory of birth, socioeconomic status, and area of residence (urban vs. rural); and 3) determine predictors of engagement in cancer prevention and risk reduction behaviors in this population. A cross-sectional online survey targeted adult Indiana residents who identified as Latino, Hispanic, or Spanish recruited using Facebook-targeted advertising. Complete survey data from 1520 respondents were analyzed using descriptive, unadjusted, and adjusted models. The majority of respondents believed they were unlikely to get cancer but held many other fatalistic beliefs about cancer. Only 35.6% of respondents had received the HPV vaccine, 37.6% reported they were currently smoking cigarettes, and 64% reported occasional or frequent drinking of alcohol. Respondents spent an average of 3.55 days per week engaged in moderate exercise. Differences were observed by country/territory of birth, income, and education but not by rural residence status. Predictors of cancer risk/risk reduction behaviors were identified. The Hispanic population in Indiana is diverse and effective interventions for cancer prevention should be culturally targeted based on country/territory of birth and individually tailored based on cancer-related beliefs.