Skip to main content

Attitude changes following short-form opioid overdose video education: a pilot study

Abstract

Background

Opioid overdose response training (OORT) and the need for its rapid expansion have become more significant as the opioid epidemic continues to be a health crisis in the USA. Limitation of funding and stigmatization often hinders expansion of OORT programs. Primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been widespread transition from in-person to virtual communication. However, OORT programs may benefit from long-term use of this modality of education if it can be as effective.

Objective

To measure the change in participant attitude after a brief, virtual OORT.

Methods

A 6.5-min OORT video explained recognition of opioid overdose, appropriate response and proper administration of intranasal naloxone. Pre- and post-video scores from a 19-item survey were used to determine the video's impact on participants’ self-perceived competence and readiness to administer naloxone to a person with a suspected opioid overdose. Paired t tests were used in the analysis of pre- and post-video scores. Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis H testing were used to compare variance between several demographic subgroups of interest.

Results

A sample of 219 participants had a significant mean difference of 15.12 (SD 9.48; 95% CI 13.86–16.39, p < 0.001) between pre- and posttest scores. Improvements were found to be greatest in content-naïve participants with lower levels of education and non-health care-related jobs than participants endorsing previous content awareness, formal naloxone training, masters, doctorate or professional degrees and health care-related jobs.

Conclusion

This pilot study demonstrated encouraging evidence that a brief, virtual, pre-recorded educational intervention improved participant-rated competence and readiness to administer intranasal naloxone in a suspected opioid overdose. Due to scalability and ability to overcome common healthcare accessibility barriers, short-form videos focused on key facts about naloxone and the benefits of its use could be part of a strategy for rapid expansion of OORT programs to mitigate opioid overdose fatalities.

Background

The opioid epidemic in the USA has persisted for decades and markedly worsened within the past few years [1]. Despite numerous continuous public health efforts to mitigate misuse and overdose, opioid overdose fatalities increased from 50,963 in 2019 to 69,710 in 2020 [2]. The almost 37% increase has been attributed to mounting socioeconomic pressures and increasingly limited access to health care, secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic and compounded by the surge in synthetic opioids [3]. Evidence has suggested that opioid overdose education and distribution of naloxone to lay-persons and heroin users are cost-effective strategies at reducing opioid overdose deaths [4]. Efficacy of varied methods of opioid overdose response training (OORT) has been an area of flourishing research [5, 6]. A variety of in-person, online and hybrid training programs ranging from 10 min to 4 h have proven effective in teaching recognition of signs and symptoms of an opioid overdose and proper administration of naloxone [7, 8].

In the field of OORT research, the Opioid Overdose Knowledge Scale (OOKS) and Opioid Overdose Attitudes Scale (OOAS) have become standard pre- and post-educational intervention measures [9, 10]. The OOKS and OOAS were developed in 2013 using a sample of 42 family members or friends of people with an opioid use disorder (OUD) and 56 healthcare professionals [11]. The initial survey and a 7-day repeated measure were shown to have internal reliability, construct validity and test–retest reliability. Between both groups, healthcare professionals scored significantly higher than family and friends of people with an OUD across both scales.

In 2015, a study, using the OOAS as their pre-posttest measure, included 428 participants and studied score changes following a 90-min in-person OORT [12]. Participants were trained in either intramuscular (IM) or intranasal (IN) naloxone. The results indicated significant improvement following the OORT, and more specifically, participants trained in IN rather than IM naloxone scored significantly higher in self-perceived confidence on posttest. It is worth considering whether the lengthy training required to explain IM naloxone administration is still necessitated, since naloxone has shifted from IM to primarily IN administration (Narcan) in recent years. The transition has both increased ease of administration and decreased risk of needlestick injury [13]. Additionally, participants in this study identifying as either a healthcare provider, or a family member or friend of a person with an OUD scored significantly higher than other participants.

Virtual health education has proven successful in improving medical outcomes in areas void of conventional resources with minimal cost comparative to in-person educational programs [14]. Additionally, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the appeal of virtual health education and telemedical interventions for patients with substance use disorders has increased as a method to safely social distance [15]. Video education on other health topics (e.g., outcomes in heart failure, prostate cancer screening and CPR instruction) has been shown to have comparable results in content testing and medical outcome to in-person education [16,17,18]. It is worth noting that the opioid epidemic is not unique to urbanicity [19]. However, outreach programs and naloxone access continue to remain disproportionately more available in metropolitan rather than rural regions of the country [20, 21]. Fewer resources at farther distances in rural regions often create barriers to healthcare access. With these considerations, measuring the impact of a brief video education provided virtually on participants’ attitudes toward overdose could be a significant step toward future mitigation of opioid use morbidity and mortality. Decreasing financial burden of educational programs while increasing scalability has become ever more significant as opioid fatalities and the demand for naloxone continue to rise [7, 13].

It has been shown that online OORT programs can be equally as effective as in-person OORT programs in a population of medical school students [22]. In another study, either in-person or through a live, online platform, ranging from 2–3 h a sample of 381 participants demonstrated improvement in OOAS items, along with measures of knowledge and stigma toward opioid use disorder (OUD) [23]. It should be noted, however, that the majority of the study participants were graduate students in health-related fields, which limits the generalizability of the findings.

In consideration of earlier studies, it is readily apparent that significant research has been done around online versus in-person opioid overdose education and its effects on certain demographic subgroups. However, there has yet to be a study with an educational intervention less than 20 min, without a live instructor [22, 24].

There is a body of research that points to the effectiveness of in-person opioid overdose education [7, 8, 12, 13]. However, there is a recognition that virtual education and telemedical interventions have the potential to also be an effective means of delivering OORT [15]. Previous research that has examined the effectiveness of virtual OORT [14, 15] has relied on presentations of at least 1 h; as such, the current study aimed to pilot test a brief (< 10 min), online video intervention. Specifically, the primary aim of this pilot was to determine the efficacy of this brief, online video on opioid overdose and naloxone administration would significantly improve participants’ attitudes to respond to and administer intranasal naloxone in an opioid overdose situation.

Method

Trial design and recruitment

A non-randomized, single (intervention only) arm pre-posttest study was used to assess the efficacy of a brief online video education on participants’ attitudes toward opioid overdose. Participants were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling through posts and reposts on social media, with the highest visibility repost by an addiction interest forum on Facebook, “The Addict’s Diary”. Members of this forum were interested in addiction in some way (e.g., academic interest, personally in recovery from a SUD, had a family with a SUD, etc.). Additionally, the senior author (MH) contacted colleagues working in family medicine who advertised the study in their waiting rooms. No exclusion criteria were used during participant recruitment (e.g., healthcare workers who may have been familiar with the material presented in the video were not excluded). A target sample size of 200 was set based on previous OORT pre-posttest research and suggested guidelines for quasi-experimental studies [25,26,27,28,29]. The study protocol was approved by the Internal Review Board at Meharry Medical College.

Informed consent and participant data collection

Access to the survey was provided through a link and administered using Typeform. The landing page of the link was the informed consent document with a risk warning indicating that the following content may be upsetting for some people and would include discussion of opioid overdose and fatalities. To advance in the study, participants were required to click “I understand and agree.” All data were collected anonymously and Typeform automatically removed all incomplete data sets. Participants did not receive any compensation and were able to discontinue the survey at any point by exiting their browser window. Pretest and posttest items including items related to demographics were forced response. All demographic items that were forced response included the options “prefer not to say” and “other” with a free-form text input box, with the gender options also including a “male,” “female,” and “non-binary” option. Ethnicity options were taken from the 2020 US Census [30].

Instrument

A 19-item survey was adapted from the 28-item Opioid Overdose Attitudes Scale (OOAS), which has internal (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90) and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation = 0.82) [11]. Permission for use was attained from Dr. Anna Williams of Kings College London. Participants received the same 19-item survey as both pre- and posttest. Questions related to demographics and base familiarity with subject matter preceded only the pretest. Items are rated on a Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The original 28-item OOAS is divided into three subscales: competence, concerns, and readiness.

Since online surveys suffer from higher attrition rates with an inverse relation to time required for completion, the survey was abbreviated [31]. Retaining only items from the competence and readiness subscales allowed maintenance of the study objective while decreasing completion time to approximately 15 min. Since the concerns subscale was removed from the abbreviated survey, the two remaining dimensions, competence and readiness, comprise the attitude toward opioid overdose construct in this study. All survey items are listed in Table 4. Items discussing intramuscular naloxone were modified for the use of intranasal naloxone and 2 items that covered topics beyond the scope of the video were removed from the competence subscale.

Intervention

A 6.5-min educational video was created in a tutorial-style format using animated graphic overlays (https://youtu.be/9hw6E9389W8). Following completion of the pretest, participants were prompted to click on a link to the 6.5-min educational video. The video was intended to be easily understood by an audience at any level of formal education, regardless of previous knowledge of the subject. Material included in this video was based on a summary of multiple OORT videos and presentations [32,33,34,35,36]. Informational content covered recognition of signs and symptoms of an opioid overdose, appropriate response and proper administration of intranasal naloxone. The video concept outline, transcript, and graphics are included in Supplementary Materials. The video also incorporated a stigma reduction component by concluding with a brief testimonial of an opioid overdose survivor who had been resuscitated with naloxone [37].

Analysis

A paired t test was used to evaluate the statistical significance of changes between pre- and posttest scores of: (1) the scale of attitude toward opioid overdose, (2) the subscale of competence, (3) the subscale of readiness, and (4) individual survey items. Mann–Whitney U tests and Kruskal–Wallis H tests were conducted on pre- and posttest results separated by various demographic subgroupings to determine homogeneity of variance between groups. Demographic subgroups with suspected increased health literacy, increased base knowledge or increased interest in the subject material were specifically isolated for analysis of variance between groups. A standard statistical significance of p < 0.05 was used throughout analysis.

Analysis was completed using IBM SPSS statistics program. All text answers were operationalized, and four negative items’ results were reverse coded in SPSS [38]. Characteristics of the sample were assessed using descriptive statistics of demographic question results.

Results

Participant characteristics

A total of 219 participants completed the survey in its entirety. An additional 129 participants discontinued the survey immediately after agreeing to the informed consent and only 25 participants partially completed the survey. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the 219 participants that completed the survey.

Table 1 Participant characteristics

Effects of video education on opioid overdose attitudes

Participants demonstrated a significant improvement in attitude toward opioid overdose management following the 6.5-min educational video (mean difference = 15.12 ± 9.49; t (218) = 23.59, p < 0.001, d = 1.59). Separated by subscale, self-perceived competence (mean difference = 12.98 ± 8.32; t (218) = 23.07, p < 0.001, d = 1.56) showed greater improvement than self-perceived readiness post-video (mean difference = 2.15 ± 2.99; t (218) = 10.63, p < 0.001, d = 0.78). Full results for each item are presented In Table 2.

Table 2 Survey items with mean pre- and posttest score 

Significant differences between educational subgroups’ medians were noted in pretest scoring, but were found to be nonsignificant in posttest scoring (Table 3; Fig. 1). Participants with doctorate and professional degrees demonstrated less improvement than lower levels of education, with the exception of vocational training. A box and whisker plot demonstrates pre- and posttest scores divided by highest level of education attained (Fig. 1).

Table 3 Kruskal–Wallis H Test comparison of differences between medians of groups separated by highest level of education, pretest and posttest
Fig. 1
figure 1

Box and whisker plots of pre- and posttest score comparison, separated by participant-identified highest level of education attained. Lines show differences between subgroups from pretest to posttest

The same pattern was found between participants who endorsed a personal relationship or personal experience with opioid abuse (Table 4; Fig. 2b). Significant differences between pretest scores medians in healthcare and non-healthcare workers, in those with and without previous naloxone training, and in those with and without previous familiarity with naloxone were maintained in posttest scores (Table 4; Fig. 2a, c, d). However, all showed a decrease in magnitude of difference, as indicated by z-scores from pre- to posttest score. No significant differences were found between pre- or posttest scores in subgroups divided by personal relationship and/or personal experience with substance abuse (Table 4; Fig. 2e).

Table 4 Comparison of differences between medians of demographic subgroups pre- and posttest
Fig. 2
figure 2

Box and whisker plots of pre- and posttest score comparisons, separated by participant-identified demographic subgroups. Lines show differences between subgroups from pretest to posttest. A. Does not work in health care vs. works in health care, B. No personal experience or relationships with opioid abuse vs. personal experience or relationships with opioid abuse, C. Not familiar with naloxone vs. familiar with naloxone, D. No previous naloxone training vs. previous naloxone training, E. No personal experience or relationships with substance abuse vs. personal experience or relationships with substance abuse

Discussion

Naloxone awareness and education have not been able to match the tragic level of ubiquity attained by opioid use and related fatalities in America. As the extraordinary number of these preventable deaths continues to grow, innovative solutions need to be considered to hasten expansion of OORT programs. The results of this pilot study provide encouraging initial support for the efficacy of short-form video education in improving participant self-perception of ability to manage opioid overdoses. Although social distancing due to COVID-19 was the initial motivation for the study on virtual opioid overdose education, the results have implications beyond the pandemic. Statistically significant improvements across both subscales following the 6.5-min video are congruent with the improvements following the previously discussed in-person educational interventions.

Despite the vast discrepancy in duration of educational intervention, improvements in overlapping OOAS items between current study and the 2022 Bascou et al. study using an in-person or live, online OORT of 2–3 h in duration and this study were comparable [23]. However, it is worth noting the OUD study trained and tested participants on opioid overdose knowledge and stigma toward OUD in addition to attitude toward opioid overdose and naloxone administration. While markedly shorter, this study’s 6.5-min video covered fewer topics and all survey items were focused on assessing attitudes toward intervention. Despite the differences between studies, the informal comparison is still favorable and encourages further exploration.

Subgroups

The results of certain subgroups were selected for comparison due to suspected correlation to health literacy and previous exposure to video content [12]. Decrease in variance between subgroups from pre- to posttest suggests that the video intervention may function as an equalizer in populations that initially present with a large score differential in pretest. Participants denying previous naloxone training, personal experience or relationship with opioid abuse, and employment in health care showed significantly greater improvement following the short-form online video education than those endorsing previous naloxone education, personal experience with opioid abuse and healthcare employment, respectively. This is likely due to the fact that the participants with prior knowledge/experience with naxolone and opioids had higher scores at pretest, indicating that they already showed a reasonably high degree of comfort in recognizing and intervening during an opioid overdose.

Limitations

Although the aim of this pilot study was to test the efficacy of the brief video, there were several limitations that temper the conclusions that can be drawn. First, an in-person control group would allow direct comparisons to fully determine the efficacy of this video. Second, the current study did not use any eligibility criteria to exclude anyone with prior training in overdose prevention, which may have confounded the results. Last, previous research also measured participant engagement and satisfaction to determine whether they actually watched the video and if they found it useful. At this point in time, the results of this pilot study are not conclusive due to these limitations; however, the results are encouraging, given the large effect sizes observed. Future research using a randomized control group, eligibility criteria, and measurements of engagement and satisfaction are necessary to determine if this intervention translates into a substantial and effective change in attitude.

Conclusion

The training was not only brief, but also prerecorded and still yielded encouraging initial results. Moving from in-person and live to virtual and prerecorded education could scale distribution of OORT programs, reducing fiscal burden. Transitioning OORT programs toward shorter, virtual education could also allow for more expansive program coverage. Virtual OORT programs could potentially decrease accessibility issues. Additionally, patient avoidance due to perceived stigma, scheduling, and transportation show improvement with online transitioning [39]. It should be noted, however, that in-person can also be advantageous over virtual programs in some contexts: for example, it is likely that some important hands-on interaction and co-learning experiences will be lost in virtual classes. As such, both in-person and virtual media may have their place in interventions.

This pilot study provides initial evidence that pre-recorded, virtual educational interventions of extremely brief duration could be as effective as longer in-person seminars in improving attitudes toward opioid overdose. The need to decrease opioid overdose fatalities in cost-effective ways cannot be overstated. The COVID-19 pandemic has simultaneously increased use of illicit substances and isolation, which has led to increasing opioid overdose fatalities [1]. Implementation and expansion of OORT programs are proven strategies to prevent deaths from opioid overdoses [40]. Despite multiple limitations of this pilot study, the results suggest that short-form educational videos could be a fundamental part of a future strategy to rapidly scale OORT programs, increasing their potential reach to decrease opioid overdose fatalities.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article and supplementary materials (including the video concept, transcript and.mov of the video) are available in the Mendeley Data repository, Galiher, Mika (2022), “Attitude Changes Following Brief Opioid Overdose Video Education: A Pilot Study”, Mendeley Data, V3, https://doi.org/10.17632/ngv538r68c.3. Video: A Youtube link to the educational intervention video is included within the manuscript text (https://youtu.be/9hw6E9389W8).

Abbreviations

OORT:

Opioid overdose response training

SD:

Standard deviation

CI:

Confidence interval

OUD:

Opioid use disorder

OOKS:

Opioid overdose knowledge scale

OOAS:

Opioid overdose attitudes scale

IM:

Intramuscular

IN:

Intranasal

References

  1. Wakeman SE, Green TC, Rich J. An overdose surge will compound the COVID-19 pandemic if urgent action is not taken. Nat Med. 2020;26:819–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0898-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Provisional drug overdose death counts. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdosedata.htm.

  3. Harris PA, Taylor S, Reznikoff C. Issue brief: Reports of increases in opioid-and other drug-related overdose and other concerns during COVID pandemic *Updated. 2020;1–22. Available from: https://www.abc15.com/news/rebound/keeping-you-safe/amid-covid-19-pandemic-the.

  4. Wheeler E, Jones TS, Gilbert MK, Davidson PJ, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Opioid overdose prevention programs providing Naloxone to Laypersons—United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64:631–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kwon M, Moody AE, Thigpen J, Gauld A. Implementation of an opioid overdose and naloxone distribution training in a pharmacist laboratory course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020;84:231–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Moses TEH, Chou JS, Moreno JL, Lundahl LH, Waineo E, Greenwald MK. Long-term effects of opioid overdose prevention and response training on medical student knowledge and attitudes toward opioid overdose: a pilot study. Addict Behav. 2022;126:107172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.107172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pellegrino JL, Krob JL, Orkin A. First aid education for opioid overdose poisoning: scoping review. Cureus. 2021;13:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Giglio RE, Li G, DiMaggio CJ. Effectiveness of bystander naloxone administration and overdose education programs: a meta-analysis. Inj Epidemiol. 2015;2:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-015-0041-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Franklin Edwards G, Mierisch C, Mutcheson B, Horn K, Henrickson PS. A review of performance assessment tools for rescuer response in opioid overdose simulations and training programs. Prev Med Rep. 2020;20:101232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101232.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Donovan E, Case P, Bratberg JP, Baird J, Burstein D, Walley AY, et al. Beliefs associated with pharmacy-based naloxone: a qualitative study of pharmacy-based naloxone purchasers and people at risk for opioid overdose. J Urban Heal. 2019;96:367–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ashrafioun L, Gamble S, Herrmann M, Baciewicz G. Evaluation of knowledge and confidence following opioid overdose prevention training: a comparison of types of training participants and naloxone administration methods. Subst Abus. 2016;37:76–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2015.1110550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gilbert L, Elliott J, Beasley L, Oranu E, Roth K, Nguyễn J. Naloxone availability in independent community pharmacies in Georgia, 2019. Subst Abus Treat Prev Policy. 2021;16:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Izquierdo RE, Knudson PE, Meyer S, Kerns J, Ploutz-Snyder R, Weinstock RS. Administered through telemedicine versus in person. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:1002–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Oesterle TS, Kolla B, Risma CJ, Breitinger SA, Rakocevic DB, Loukianova LL, et al. Substance use disorders and telehealth in the COVID-19 pandemic era: a new outlook. In: Mayo Clin Proc. 2020 [cited 2022 Sep 21];95:2709–18. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33276843.

  16. Reid KRY, Reid K, Esquivel JH, Thomas SC, Rovnyak V, Hinton I, et al. Using video education to improve outcomes in heart failure. Hear Lung. 2019;48:386–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2019.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sheehan CA. A brief educational video about prostate cancer screening: a community intervention. Urol Nurs. 2009;29:103–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Braslow A, Brennan RT, Newman MM, Bircher NG, Batcheller AMKW. CPR training without an instructor: development and evaluation of a video self-instructional system for effective performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 1997;34:207–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Deng J, Hou W, Dong X, Hajagos J, Saltz M, Saltz J, et al. A large-scale observational study on the temporal trends and risk factors of opioid overdose: real-world evidence for better opioids. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2021;8:393–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-021-00253-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kiang MV, Barnett ML, Wakeman SE, Humphreys K, Tsai AC. Robustness of estimated access to opioid use disorder treatment providers in rural vs. urban areas of the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;228:109081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Olives T, Willhite LA, Lee SC, Evans DK, Jensen A, Regelman HT, et al. Point-of-sale naloxone: novel community-based research to identify naloxone availability. West J Emerg Med. 2020;21:1188–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moses TEH, Moreno JL, Greenwald MK, Waineo E. Training medical students in opioid overdose prevention and response: comparison of in-person versus online formats. Med Educ Online. 2021;26:1994906. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1994906.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bascou NA, Haslund-Gourley B, Amber-Monta K, Samson K, Goss N, Meredith D, et al. Reducing the stigma surrounding opioid use disorder: evaluating an opioid overdose prevention training program applied to a diverse population. Harm Reduct J. 2022;19:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00589-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Thomas J, Slat S, Woods G, Cross K, Macleod C, Lagisetty P. Assessing medical student interest in training about medications for opioid use disorder: a pilot intervention. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:238212052092399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Berland N, Fox A, Tofighi B. Opioid overdose prevention training with Naloxone, an adjunct to basic life support training for first year medical students. Physiol Behav. 2015;176:139–48.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lewis DA, Park JN, Vail L, Sine M, Welsh C, Sherman SG. Evaluation of the overdose education and naloxone distribution program of the Baltimore Student Harm Reduction Coalition. Am J Public Health. 2016;106:1243–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Klimas J, Egan M, Tobin H, Coleman N, Bury G. Development and process evaluation of an educational intervention for overdose prevention and naloxone distribution by general practice trainees curriculum development. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Estrada E, Ferrer E, Pardo A. Statistics for evaluating pre-post change: relation between change in the distribution center and change in the individual scores. Front Psychol. 2019;9:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Whitehead AL, Julious SA, Cooper CL, Campbell MJ. Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25:1057–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Census Bureau U. Collecting and tabulating ethnicity and race responses in the 2020 census. 2020.

  31. Liu M, Wronski L. Examining completion rates in web surveys via over 25,000 real-world surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2018;36:116–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. canaPHEM. NARCAN Nasal Spray—How to use. 2018. Nov 9. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnjgrRNMfKM.

  33. canaPHEM. NARCAN Nasal Spray—How it Works. 2018. Nov 9. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBqG5KH-2ek.

  34. Veterans Health Administration. Opioid Overdose Education & Naloxone Distribution (OEND). 2016. April 14. Available from: https://www.pbm.va.gov/PBM/academicdetailingservice/Opioid_Overdose_Education_and_Naloxone_Distribution.asp.

  35. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA/NIH). How Naloxone Saves Lives in Opioid Overdose. 2019. Apr 11. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWe_lPniEq4.

  36. Mass General Hospital. What does an opioid overdose look like? 2019. Oct 21. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xyLasUqxKk.

  37. Biancarelli DL, Biello KB, Childs E, Drainoni M, Salhaney P, Edeza A, et al. Strategies used by people who inject drugs to avoid stigma in healthcare settings. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;198:80–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.037.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Williams A, Strang J, Marsden J. Opioid overdose attitudes scale. 2013;132:6–8. Available from: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/depts/addictions/research/drugs/Naloxone/Opioid-Overdose-Attitudes-Scale.pdf.

  39. Harper LM. Telehealth approaches to improve opioid use care in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2021;64:352–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ashton H, Hassan Z. Best evidence topic report. Intranasal naloxone in suspected opioid overdose. Emerg Med J. 2006;23:221–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Anna V. Williams for permission to use the Opioid Overdose Attitudes Scale (OOAS), all 219 participants who volunteered their time for this study, Sam Anthony Luciana for his personal testimonial, Adam Nelson for his participation in the naloxone administration demonstration and help with video editing, The Addiction Diary Facebook Group for reposting the survey and video, and Meharry Medical College for their participation as an open access institution with the Harm Reduction Journal.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Funding for open access publication was provided by Meharry Medical College School of Medicine. 

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MG designed the study and completed the data analysis and manuscript with the mentorship of MH. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mika V. Galiher.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was deemed exempt from a formal evaluation Meharry Medical College Internal Review Board because it posed minimal or no risk to participants and participants could not be identified from survey data collected. All participants clicked “I understand and agree” at the bottom of the informed consent prior to beginning the survey.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galiher, M.V., Huffman, M. Attitude changes following short-form opioid overdose video education: a pilot study. Harm Reduct J 19, 114 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00696-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00696-4

Keywords

  • Naloxone training
  • Overdose
  • Opioid
  • Prevention
  • Video education
  • Accessibility