Protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility study for the surviving opioid overdose with naloxone education and resuscitation (SOONER) randomised control trial

Aaron Orkin, Douglas Campbell, Curtis Handford, Shaun Hopkins, Michelle Klaiman, Pamela Leece, Janet A Parsons, Rita Shahin, Carol Strike, Kevin Thorpe, Kate Sellen, Geoffrey Milos, Amy Wright, Mercy Charles, Ruby Sniderman, Laurie Morrison, SOONER Investigators, Leigh Chapman, Nick Goso, Richard Hunt, Peter Jüni, Vicky Stergiopoulos, Suzanne Turner, Daniel Werb, Aaron Orkin, Douglas Campbell, Curtis Handford, Shaun Hopkins, Michelle Klaiman, Pamela Leece, Janet A Parsons, Rita Shahin, Carol Strike, Kevin Thorpe, Kate Sellen, Geoffrey Milos, Amy Wright, Mercy Charles, Ruby Sniderman, Laurie Morrison, SOONER Investigators, Leigh Chapman, Nick Goso, Richard Hunt, Peter Jüni, Vicky Stergiopoulos, Suzanne Turner, Daniel Werb

Abstract

Introduction: The surviving opioid overdose with naloxone education and resuscitation (SOONER) project uses co-design and trial methods to develop and evaluate a point-of-care overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) tool. We plan to conduct a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of our OEND tool in comparison with best available standard of care by observing participants' performance as a responder to a simulated overdose. Recruiting and retaining people at risk of or likely to witness opioid overdose raises scientific, logistical and bioethical challenges. A feasibility study is needed to establish the effectiveness of recruitment and retention strategies and acceptability of study procedures prior to launching the full trial.

Methods and analysis: Strategies to enhance recruitment include candidate-driven recruitment, verbal informed consent, and attractive, destigmatising materials. Adults at risk of or likely to witness opioid overdose will be recruited through an urban emergency department, inpatient and ambulatory addiction medicine service, and outpatient family practice settings. Participants randomised to the intervention arm will receive our OEND intervention; those in the control arm will be referred to existing OEND programme. Retention procedures include participant reminders, flexible scheduling, cash and comfort compensation, and strategies to maintain a consistent relationship between individual study staff and participants. Within 2 weeks following recruitment, participants will engage as a responder to a manikin-simulated overdose, and complete overdose knowledge and attitudes questionnaires. The primary outcome is recruitment and retention feasibility, defined as the recruitment of 28 participants within 28 days of recruitment and <50% attrition at the overdose simulation. Staff and participant feedback will also be collected and considered.

Ethics and dissemination: The study has been reviewed by ethics boards at St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto Public Health and the University of Toronto. Dissemination will occur through peer-reviewed publication and presentations.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT03821649).

Keywords: addiction medicine; design for health; emergency medicine; family medicine; feasibility study; first aid; harm reduction; naloxone distribution; opioid overdose; overdose education; randomised control trial; recruitment; retention; trial protocol.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: AO: evidence reviewer for ILCOR 2015, and writer for AHA/HSFC Guidelines on CPR and Resuscitation in 2015. Receives salary support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute, and the University of Toronto Department of Family and Community Medicine. AO is an evidence reviewer for the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and a coauthor for the 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines for CPR and ECC concerning opioid overdose and 2019 American Heart Association Guidelines updates on First Aid. CH: Contract with Toronto Central Local Health Integration Network as primary care clinical lead for the mid-east Toronto sub-region. MK: speaker honoraria from the Ontario Pharmacists Association continuing education programs on the topic of opioid use disorder. I do not address take home naloxone beyond mentioning that the programme exists (Major >$5000). Advisory Committee Member, Health Quality Ontario, Quality Standard on Opioid Use Disorder, but recused from voting on standards that involved take-home naloxone. PL: Advisory Committee Member, Health Quality Ontario, Quality Standard: Opioid Use Disorder; Quality Statement 6 pertains to access to naloxone and overdose education. LM: contributor to the 2015 guidelines and ILCOR consensus on science where opioid management was reviewed and updated.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study schematic, recruitment and retention strategies.

References

    1. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Health Organization Discussion paper UNODC/WHO 2013: opioid overdose: preventing and reducing opioid overdose mortality, 2013. Available: [Accessed 04/23, 2014].
    1. Clark AK, Wilder CM, Winstanley EL. A systematic review of community opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution programs. J Addict Med 2014;8:153–63. 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000034
    1. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction Preventing fatal overdoses: a systematic review of the effectiveness of take-home naloxone, EMCDDA Papers, Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg, 2015.
    1. Doyon S, Aks SE, Schaeffer S. Expanding access to naloxone in the United States. Clin Toxicol 2014:1–4.
    1. Beletsky L, Ruthazer R, Macalino GE, et al. . Physicians' knowledge of and willingness to prescribe naloxone to reverse accidental opiate overdose: challenges and opportunities. J Urban Health 2007;84:126–36. 10.1007/s11524-006-9120-z
    1. Coffin PO, Fuller C, Vadnai L, et al. . Preliminary evidence of health care provider support for naloxone prescription as overdose fatality prevention strategy in New York City. J Urban Health 2003;80:288–90. 10.1093/jurban/jtg031
    1. Lacroix L, Thurgur L, Orkin AM, et al. . Emergency physicians' attitudes and perceived barriers to the implementation of take-home naloxone programs in Canadian emergency departments. CJEM 2017;18:1–7.
    1. Leece P, Orkin A, Shahin R, et al. . Can naloxone prescription and overdose training for opioid users work in family practice? perspectives of family physicians. Canadian Family Physician 2015;61:538–43.
    1. Meyers K, Webb A, Frantz J. What does it take to retain substance-abusing adolescents in research protocols? delineation of effort required, strategies undertaken, costs incurred, and 6-month post-treatment differences by retention difficulty. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;69:73–85. 10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00252-1
    1. Kobayashi L, Green TC, Bowman SE, et al. . Patient simulation for assessment of layperson management of opioid overdose with intranasal naloxone in a recently released prisoner cohort. Simul Healthc 2017;12. doi:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000182 . [Epub ahead of print: 9 Jan 2019].
    1. Orkin AM, Bingham K, Buick JE, et al. . Quality Assessment Errors and Study Misclassification Threaten Systematic Review Validity: Community Opioid Overdose Prevention and Naloxone Distribution Programs Review: Re: Clark AK, Wilder CM, Winstanley EL. A systematic review of community opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution programs.”. J Addict Med 2014.
    1. Friere K, Sangiorgi D. Service design and healthcare innovation: from consumption to co-production and co-creation. InService design and service innovation conference 2010 (PP. 39-50). Linköping electronic conference proceedings.
    1. Donetto S, Pierri P, Tsianakas V, et al. . Experience-Based Co-design and healthcare improvement: Realizing participatory design in the public sector. The Design Journal 2015;18:227–48. 10.2752/175630615X14212498964312
    1. Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, et al. . Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expectations 2015;18:1151–66. 10.1111/hex.12090
    1. Wallerstein NB, Duran B. Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Address Health Disparities. : Health promotion practice. 2nd ed Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2016: 312–23.
    1. Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, et al. . Defining feasibility and pilot studies in preparation for randomised controlled trials: development of a conceptual framework. PLoS One 2016;11:e0150205 10.1371/journal.pone.0150205
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. . Spirit 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:200–7. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
    1. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al. . A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (Precis): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:464–75. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011
    1. Lavonas EJ, Drennan IR, Gabrielli A, et al. . Part 10: special circumstances of resuscitation: 2015 American heart association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. United States 2015;132:S501–18.
    1. World Health Organization Community management of opioid overdose, 2014. Available: [Accessed 19 July 2019].
    1. Madadi P, Hildebrandt D, Lauwers AE, et al. . Characteristics of opioid-users whose death was related to opioid-toxicity: a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. PLoS One 2013;8:e60600 10.1371/journal.pone.0060600
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Tri-Council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans, 2010. Available: [Accessed 1 December 2014].
    1. Hurst B, Buick J, Cote J, et al. . Cpr Anytime any school: a randomized trial of strategies to teach CPR and use of AED to high school students. Can J Emerg Med 2012;14.
    1. Leece PN, Hopkins S, Marshall C, et al. . Development and implementation of an opioid overdose prevention and response program in Toronto, Ontario. Can J Public Health 2013;104:e200–4. 10.17269/cjph.104.3788
    1. Leece P, Gassanov M, Hopkins S, et al. . Process evaluation of the prevent overdose in Toronto (point) program. Can J Public Health 2016;107:e224–30. 10.17269/CJPH.107.5480
    1. Williams AV, Strang J, Marsden J. Development of opioid overdose knowledge (OOKS) and attitudes (OOAS) scales for take-home naloxone training evaluation. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013;132:383–6. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.007
    1. Williams AV, Marsden J, Strang J. Training family members to manage heroin overdose and administer naloxone: randomized trial of effects on knowledge and attitudes. Addiction 2014;109:250–9. 10.1111/add.12360
    1. Lott DC, Rhodes J. Opioid overdose and naloxone education in a substance use disorder treatment program. Am J Addict 2016;25:221–6. 10.1111/ajad.12364
    1. Neale J, Tompkins CNE, McDonald R, et al. . Improving recruitment to pharmacological trials for illicit opioid use: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Addiction 2018;113:1066–76. 10.1111/add.14163
    1. Scott CK. A replicable model for achieving over 90% follow-up rates in longitudinal studies of substance abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend 2004;74:21–36. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.11.007
    1. Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening? Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25:e13–14. 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3341
    1. Health Canada Tri-Council policy statement 2, chapter 3: the consent process. Available: [Accessed 17 February 2018].
    1. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research. JAMA 2004;292:1593–601. 10.1001/jama.292.13.1593
    1. Varner C, McLeod S, Nahiddi N, et al. . Text messaging research participants as a follow-up strategy to decrease emergency department study attrition. Canadian journal of emergency medicine 2017:1–6.
    1. Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Dugosh KL, et al. . Higher magnitude cash payments improve research follow-up rates without increasing drug use or perceived coercion. Drug Alcohol Depend 2008;96:128–35. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.02.007
    1. Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Croft JR, et al. . Do research payments precipitate drug use or coerce participation? Drug Alcohol Depend 2005;78:275–81. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.11.011
    1. Lynch B, Einspruch EL, Nichol G, et al. . Effectiveness of a 30-min CPR self-instruction program for lay responders: a controlled randomized study. Resuscitation 2005;67:31–43. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.04.017
    1. Neset A, Birkenes TS, Furunes T, et al. . A randomized trial on elderly laypersons' CPR performance in a realistic cardiac arrest simulation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2012;56:124–31. 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02566.x
    1. Eppich W, Cheng A. Promoting excellence and reflective learning in simulation (pearls): development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation Debriefing. Simulation in Healthcare 2015;10.
    1. Dreifuerst KT. The essentials of Debriefing in simulation Learning…. Nurs Edu Perspec 2009;30:109–14.
    1. Whitfield RH etal. Reliability of the Cardiff Test… Resuscitation 2003;59:291–314.
    1. van Boekel LC, Brouwers EPM, van Weeghel J, et al. . Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013;131:23–35. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.018
    1. Valente TW, Zogg JB, Christensen S, et al. . Using social networks to recruit an HIV vaccine preparedness cohort. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 2009;52:514–23. 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181acff91
    1. Young AM, Stephens DB, Khaleel HA, et al. . Hepatitis C vaccine clinical trials among people who use drugs: potential for participation and involvement in recruitment. Contemp Clin Trials 2015;41:9–16. 10.1016/j.cct.2014.12.015
    1. Sackett DL. Clinician-trialist rounds: 5. Cointervention bias – how to diagnose it in their trial and prevent it in yours. Clin Trials 2011;8:440–2. 10.1177/1740774511410995

Source: PubMed

Подписаться