Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process
Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Smart, Rosanna [verfasserIn] Grant, Sean [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: International journal of drug policy - Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998, 98 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:98 |
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV007115113 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV007115113 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230524161345.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230506s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV007115113 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(21)00288-7 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q DE-600 |
| 084 | |a 44.38 |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 44.91 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Smart, Rosanna |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Naloxone | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Harm reduction | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Overdose | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Opioids | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Pharmacy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Mortality | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Grant, Sean |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International journal of drug policy |d Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 |g 98 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)320482693 |w (DE-600)2010000-0 |w (DE-576)259271349 |x 1873-4758 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:98 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_32 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_101 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2004 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2008 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2026 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2027 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2034 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2049 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2050 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2059 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2064 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2065 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2068 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2088 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2118 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2122 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2129 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2143 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2147 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2148 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2153 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2232 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2336 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2470 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2507 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2522 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4046 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4242 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4251 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4326 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4333 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4334 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4393 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.38 |j Pharmakologie |
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.91 |j Psychiatrie |j Psychopathologie |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 98 | ||
| author_variant |
r s rs s g sg |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:18734758:2021----::fetvnsadmlmnaiiyfttlvlaooecesoiisxetosnufo |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021 |
| bklnumber |
44.38 44.91 |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383 doi (DE-627)ELV007115113 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(21)00288-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Smart, Rosanna verfasserin aut Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations. Naloxone Harm reduction Overdose Opioids Pharmacy Mortality Grant, Sean verfasserin aut Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 98 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:98 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 98 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383 doi (DE-627)ELV007115113 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(21)00288-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Smart, Rosanna verfasserin aut Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations. Naloxone Harm reduction Overdose Opioids Pharmacy Mortality Grant, Sean verfasserin aut Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 98 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:98 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 98 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383 doi (DE-627)ELV007115113 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(21)00288-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Smart, Rosanna verfasserin aut Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations. Naloxone Harm reduction Overdose Opioids Pharmacy Mortality Grant, Sean verfasserin aut Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 98 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:98 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 98 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383 doi (DE-627)ELV007115113 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(21)00288-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Smart, Rosanna verfasserin aut Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations. Naloxone Harm reduction Overdose Opioids Pharmacy Mortality Grant, Sean verfasserin aut Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 98 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:98 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 98 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383 doi (DE-627)ELV007115113 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(21)00288-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Smart, Rosanna verfasserin aut Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations. Naloxone Harm reduction Overdose Opioids Pharmacy Mortality Grant, Sean verfasserin aut Enthalten in International journal of drug policy Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998 98 Online-Ressource (DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 1873-4758 nnns volume:98 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.38 Pharmakologie 44.91 Psychiatrie Psychopathologie AR 98 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in International journal of drug policy 98 volume:98 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in International journal of drug policy 98 volume:98 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Pharmakologie Psychiatrie Psychopathologie |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Naloxone Harm reduction Overdose Opioids Pharmacy Mortality |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
International journal of drug policy |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Smart, Rosanna @@aut@@ Grant, Sean @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
320482693 |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
ELV007115113 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV007115113</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524161345.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230506s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV007115113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(21)00288-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.38</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.91</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Smart, Rosanna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Naloxone</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Harm reduction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Overdose</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Opioids</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pharmacy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mortality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Grant, Sean</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">International journal of drug policy</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">98</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)320482693</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2010000-0</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)259271349</subfield><subfield code="x">1873-4758</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:98</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.38</subfield><subfield code="j">Pharmakologie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.91</subfield><subfield code="j">Psychiatrie</subfield><subfield code="j">Psychopathologie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">98</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Smart, Rosanna |
| spellingShingle |
Smart, Rosanna ddc 610 bkl 44.38 bkl 44.91 misc Naloxone misc Harm reduction misc Overdose misc Opioids misc Pharmacy misc Mortality Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process |
| authorStr |
Smart, Rosanna |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)320482693 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1873-4758 |
| topic_title |
610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process Naloxone Harm reduction Overdose Opioids Pharmacy Mortality |
| topic |
ddc 610 bkl 44.38 bkl 44.91 misc Naloxone misc Harm reduction misc Overdose misc Opioids misc Pharmacy misc Mortality |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 bkl 44.38 bkl 44.91 misc Naloxone misc Harm reduction misc Overdose misc Opioids misc Pharmacy misc Mortality |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 bkl 44.38 bkl 44.91 misc Naloxone misc Harm reduction misc Overdose misc Opioids misc Pharmacy misc Mortality |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
International journal of drug policy |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
320482693 |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
International journal of drug policy |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)320482693 (DE-600)2010000-0 (DE-576)259271349 |
| title |
Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV007115113 (ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(21)00288-7 |
| title_full |
Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process |
| author_sort |
Smart, Rosanna |
| journal |
International journal of drug policy |
| journalStr |
International journal of drug policy |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| author_browse |
Smart, Rosanna Grant, Sean |
| container_volume |
98 |
| class |
610 DE-600 44.38 bkl 44.91 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Smart, Rosanna |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383 |
| dewey-full |
610 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: expert consensus from an online modified-delphi process |
| title_auth |
Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process |
| abstract |
Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations. |
| abstractGer |
Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 |
| title_short |
Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Grant, Sean |
| author2Str |
Grant, Sean |
| ppnlink |
320482693 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T23:39:58.361Z |
| _version_ |
1803874937981632512 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV007115113</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524161345.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230506s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103383</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV007115113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0955-3959(21)00288-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.38</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.91</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Smart, Rosanna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Naloxone distribution, a key global strategy to prevent fatal opioid overdose, has been a recent target of legislation in the U.S., but there is insufficient empirical evidence from causal inference methods to identify which components of these policies successfully reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and implementability of various state-level naloxone policies.Methods: We used the online ExpertLens platform to conduct a three-round modified-Delphi process with a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with naloxone policy expertise. The Effectiveness Panel (n = 24) rated average effects of 15 types of policies on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder (OUD) prevalence, nonfatal opioid-related overdoses, and opioid-related overdose mortality. The Implementation Panel (n = 22) rated the same policies on acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability. We compared ratings across policies using medians and inter-percentile ranges, with consensus measured using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry technique.Results: Experts reached consensus on all items. Except for liability protections and required provision of education or training, experts perceived all policies to generate moderate-to-large increases in naloxone pharmacy distribution. However, only three policies were expected to yield substantive decreases on fatal overdose: statewide standing/protocol order, over-the-counter supply, and statewide “free naloxone.” Of these, experts rated only statewide standing/protocol orders as highly affordable and equitable, and unlikely to generate meaningful population-level effects on OUD or nonfatal opioid-related overdose. Across all policies, experts rated naloxone prescribing mandates relatively lower in acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability.Conclusion: Experts believe statewide standing/protocol orders are an effective, implementable, and equitable policy for addressing opioid-related overdose mortality. While experts believe many other broad policies are effective in reducing opioid-related harms, they also believe these policies face implementation challenges related to cost and reaching vulnerable populations.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Naloxone</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Harm reduction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Overdose</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Opioids</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pharmacy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mortality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Grant, Sean</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">International journal of drug policy</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">98</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)320482693</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2010000-0</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)259271349</subfield><subfield code="x">1873-4758</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:98</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.38</subfield><subfield code="j">Pharmakologie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.91</subfield><subfield code="j">Psychiatrie</subfield><subfield code="j">Psychopathologie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">98</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.401512 |