Dataset Information

Impact of policy changes on the provision of naloxone by pharmacies in Ontario, Canada: a population-based time-series analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

In June 2016, the Ontario, Canada government implemented the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies (ONPP), authorizing pharmacists to provide injectable naloxone kits at no charge to all Ontario residents. In March 2018, the program was amended to include intranasal naloxone and remove the requirement to present a government health card to the dispensing pharmacist. We examined whether these changes increased naloxone dispensing through the ONPP.

Design

Population-based time-series analysis using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models.

Setting

Ontario, Canada.

Participants

All Ontario residents between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2020.

Measurements

Monthly rates of pharmacy naloxone dispensing.

Findings

Overall, 199 484 individuals were dispensed a naloxone kit during the study period. In the main analysis, the rate of pharmacy naloxone dispensing increased by 65.1% following program changes (55.6-91.8 kits per 100 000 population between February 2018 and May 2018; P = 0.01). In subgroup analyses, naloxone dispensing increased among individuals receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT) (3374.9-7264.2 kits per 100 000 OAT recipients; P = 0.04) among individuals receiving other prescription opioids (192.8-381.8 kits per 100 000 population prescribed opioids; P < 0.01), among individuals with past opioid exposure (134.7-205.6 kits per 100 000 population with past opioid exposure; P < 0.01) and in urban centers (56.2-91.4 kits per 100 000 population; P < 0.01). We did not observe a clear impact on pharmacy-dispensed naloxone to individuals with no or unknown opioid exposure (34.4-39.3 kits per 100 000 population with no/unknown opioid exposure; P = 0.42) and in rural regions (50.4-97.2 kits per 100 000 population; P = 0.09).

Conclusions

Changes to the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies to add intranasal naloxone and remove the requirement to present a government health card appeared to increase pharmacy-based naloxone dispensing uptake in Ontario, Canada, particularly among individuals at high risk of inadvertent opioid overdose.

SUBMITTER: Antoniou T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8247272 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn March 2020, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency due to the growing risk of COVID-19. In response, new guidance for the management of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) was released, which included the expansion of eligibility for take-home doses. We investigated the impact of these changes on trends in the distribution of take-home doses of OAT.MethodsWe conducted a population-based time series analysis among residents of Ontario, Canada who were dispensed OAT between June 25, 2019 and November 30, 2020. For each week of the study period, we calculated the percentage of people dispensed (a) methadone and (b) buprenorphine/naloxone by the number of take-home doses received. We used interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models to estimate changes in the percentage of people dispensed each category of take-home doses in the weeks following the declaration of the state of emergency and release of the OAT dispensing guidance.ResultsFollowing the state of emergency and release of the OAT dispensing guidance, there was a significant increase in the percentage of Ontarians dispensed 7 to 13 (3.6% increase; p = 0.033) and 14 or more (0.8% increase; p<0.001) take-home doses of methadone, and in the percentage of people dispensed 7 to 13 (4.3% increase; p = 0.001), 14 to 27 (2.8% increase; p<0.001), and 28 or more (0.3% increase; p = 0.008) take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone. There were significant decreases in the percentage of Ontarians receiving daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone (-3.1%; p = 0.001), as well as the percentage dispensed 1 to 6 take-home doses of methadone (-4.5%; p = 0.001) and buprenorphine/naloxone (-4.9%; p = 0.001).ConclusionThe new guidance for dispensing OAT in Ontario resulted in increases in the duration of take-home doses of methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone supplied. However, given that changes were small, strategies to improve retention in OAT and ensure equitable access to take-home dosing should continue.

Project description:BackgroundNews media coverage of antimask protests, COVID-19 conspiracies, and pandemic politicization has overemphasized extreme views but has done little to represent views of the general public. Investigating the public's response to various pandemic restrictions can provide a more balanced assessment of current views, allowing policy makers to craft better public health messages in anticipation of poor reactions to controversial restrictions.ObjectiveUsing data from social media, this infoveillance study aims to understand the changes in public opinion associated with the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions (eg, business and school closures, regional lockdown differences, and additional public health restrictions, such as social distancing and masking).MethodsCOVID-19-related tweets in Ontario (n=1,150,362) were collected based on keywords between March 12 and October 31, 2020. Sentiment scores were calculated using the VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner) algorithm for each tweet to represent its negative to positive emotion. Public health restrictions were identified using government and news media websites. Dynamic regression models with autoregressive integrated moving average errors were used to examine the association between public health restrictions and changes in public opinion over time (ie, collective attention, aggregate positive sentiment, and level of disagreement), controlling for the effects of confounders (ie, daily COVID-19 case counts, holidays, and COVID-19-related official updates).ResultsIn addition to expected direct effects (eg, business closures led to decreased positive sentiment and increased disagreements), the impact of restrictions on public opinion was contextually driven. For example, the negative sentiment associated with business closures was reduced with higher COVID-19 case counts. While school closures and other restrictions (eg, masking, social distancing, and travel restrictions) generated increased collective attention, they did not have an effect on aggregate sentiment or the level of disagreement (ie, sentiment polarization). Partial (ie, region-targeted) lockdowns were associated with better public response (ie, higher number of tweets with net positive sentiment and lower levels of disagreement) compared to province-wide lockdowns.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates the feasibility of a rapid and flexible method of evaluating the public response to pandemic restrictions using near real-time social media data. This information can help public health practitioners and policy makers anticipate public response to future pandemic restrictions and ensure adequate resources are dedicated to addressing increases in negative sentiment and levels of disagreement in the face of scientifically informed, but controversial, restrictions.