Barriers to calling emergency services amongst people who use substances in the event of overdose: A scoping review.

North America is grappling with an ongoing drug overdose crisis. While harm reduction measures like take-home naloxone kits, and supervised consumption sites, have helped reduce mortality, other strategies to address this public health emergency are required. Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs) offer legal protection for individuals who report overdoses, yet people who use substances (PWUS) may still hesitate to seek help due to concerns about existing legislation. This scoping review explores barriers preventing PWUS from calling emergency services for overdoses, along with potential solutions and facilitators to address this challenge. PRISMA-ScR was used as a guide to conduct this study. Health sciences librarians searched Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS to identify relevant articles. Six reviewers contributed to screening and extracting the articles through Covidence. Two reviewers performed thematic analysis using NVivo software to identify key barriers and facilitators. An initial search found 6275 articles for title and abstract screening, resulting in 48 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The primary barrier to calling 911 pertained to concerns about police arrivng with other first responders, especially regarding their presence and involvement at the scene of overdose. This was followed by legal repercussions, including fear of arrest, incarceration, and fear of eviction, amongst others. Some studies noted the lack of knowledge or trust in GSLs as a deterrent to seeking medical assistance. Additional barriers included concerns about privacy and confidentiality, preference to manage an overdose alone/receive help from another peer, confidence in naloxone effectiveness, limited access to cell phones, peer pressure to not call for help, and identifying as Black, Indigenous, or a Person of Colour (BIPOC). Facilitators include increased GSL awareness among PWUS and law enforcement, expanded legal safeguards for 911 callers, reduced police intervention in overdose cases, and enhanced naloxone availability at key access points. Despite the good intentions of GSLs, PWUS continue to experience significant barriers to calling emergency services in the event of an overdose. Understanding these barriers and key facilitators is necessary to inform future drug policy and advocacy efforts.

Byles H ，Sedaghat N ，Rider N ，Rioux W ，Loverock A ，Seo B ，Dhanoa A ，Orr T ，Dunnewold N ，Tjosvold L ，Ghosh SM ... -  《-》

Erratum: Eyestalk Ablation to Increase Ovarian Maturation in Mud Crabs.

《Jove-Journal of Visualized Experiments》

Take-home naloxone in multicentre emergency settings: the TIME feasibility cluster RCT.

Snooks H ，Benger J ，Bell F ，Black S ，Dixon S ，Emery H ，Evans BA ，Fuller G ，Hoskins R ，Hughes J ，Jones J ，Jones M ，Johnston S ，Long J ，Moore C ，Parab R ，Pilbery R ，Sampson FC ，Watkins A ... -  《-》

Qualitative evidence synthesis informing our understanding of people's perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication.

Health communication is an area where changing technologies, particularly digital technologies, have a growing role to play in delivering and exchanging health information between individuals, communities, health systems, and governments.[1] Such innovation has the potential to strengthen health systems and services, with substantial investments in digital health already taking place, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Communication using mobile phones is an important way of contacting individual people and the public more generally to deliver and exchange health information. Such technologies are used increasingly in this capacity, but poor planning and short‐term projects may be limiting their potential for health improvement. The assumption that mobile devices will solve problems that other forms of communication have not is also prevalent. In this context, understanding people's views and experiences may lead to firmer knowledge on which to build better programs. A qualitative evidence synthesis by Heather Ames and colleagues on clients' perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication focuses on a particular type of messaging – targeted messages from health services delivered to particular group(s) via mobile devices, in this case looking at communicating with pregnant women and parents of young children, and with adults and teenagers about sexual health and family planning.[2] These areas of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH) are where important gains have been made worldwide, but there remains room for improvement. Ames and colleagues sought to examine and understand people's perceptions and experiences of using digital targeted client communication. This might include communication in different formats and with a range of purposes related to RMNCAH – for example, receiving text message reminders to take medicines (e.g. HIV medicines) or go to appointments (such as childhood vaccination appointments), or phone calls offering information or education (such as about breastfeeding or childhood illnesses), support (e.g. providing encouragement to change behaviours) or advice (such as advising about local healthcare services). These communication strategies have the potential to improve health outcomes by communicating with people or by supporting behaviour change. However, changing people's health behaviours to a significant and meaningful degree is notoriously challenging and seldom very effective across the board. There are a multitude of systematic reviews of interventions aiming to change behaviours of both patients and providers, with the overall objective of improving health outcomes – many of which show little or no average effects across groups of people.[3] This evidence synthesis is therefore important as it may help to understand why communicating with people around their health might (or might not) change behaviours and improve consequent health outcomes. By examining the experiences and perspectives of those receiving the interventions, this qualitative evidence synthesis allows us to better understand the interventions' acceptability and usefulness, barriers to their uptake, and factors to be considered when planning implementation. The synthesis looked at 35 studies from countries around the world, focussing on communication related to RMNCAH. Of the 35 studies, 16 were from high‐income countries, mainly the United States, and 19 were from low‐ or middle‐income countries, mainly African countries. Many of the studies presented hypothetical scenarios. The findings from the synthesis are mixed and give us a more nuanced picture of the role of targeted digital communication. People receiving targeted digital communications from health services often liked and valued these contacts, feeling supported and connected by them. However, some also reported problems with the use of these technologies, which may represent barriers to their use. These included practical or technical barriers like poor network or Internet access, as well as cost, language, technical literacy, reading or issues around confidentiality, especially where personal health conditions were involved. Access to mobile phones may also be a barrier, particularly for women and adolescents who may have to share or borrow a phone or who have access controlled by others. In such situations it may be difficult to receive communications or to maintain privacy of content. The synthesis also shows that people's experiences of these interventions are influenced by factors such as the timing of messages, their frequency and content, and their trust in the sender. Identifying key features of such communications by the people who use them might therefore help to inform future choices about how and when such messaging is used. The authors used their knowledge from 25 separate findings to list ten implications for practice. This section of the review is hugely valuable, making a practical contribution to assist governments and public health agencies wishing to develop or improve their delivery of digital health. The implications serve as a list of points to consider, including issues of access (seven different aspects are considered), privacy and confidentiality, reliability, credibility and trust, and responsiveness to the needs and preferences of users. In this way, qualitative evidence is building a picture of how to better communicate with people about health. For example, an earlier 2017 Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames, Glenton and Lewin on parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination provides ample evidence that may help program managers to deliver or plan communication interventions in ways that are responsive to and acceptable to parents.[4] The qualitative synthesis method, therefore, puts a spotlight on how people's experiences of health and health care in the context of their lives may lead to the design of better interventions, as well as to experimental studies which take more account of the diversity that exists in people's attitudes and decision‐making experiences.[5] In the case of this qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames and colleagues, the method pulled together a substantial body of research (35 data‐rich studies were sampled from 48 studies identified, with the high‐to‐moderate confidence in the evidence for 13 of the synthesized findings). The evidence from this review can inform the development of interventions, and the design of trials and their implementation. While waiting for such new trials or trial evidence on effects to emerge, decision‐makers can build their programs on the highly informative base developed by this review. This qualitative evidence synthesis, alongside other reviews, has informed development by the World Health Organization of its first guideline for using digital technologies for health systems strengthening,[1, 6] part of a comprehensive program of work to better understand and support implementation of such new technologies.

Ryan R ，Hill S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Ethics of Procuring and Using Organs or Tissue from Infants and Newborns for Transplantation, Research, or Commercial Purposes: Protocol for a Bioethics Scoping Review.

Since the inception of transplantation, it has been crucial to ensure that organ or tissue donations are made with valid informed consent to avoid concerns about coercion or exploitation. This issue is particularly challenging when it comes to infants and younger children, insofar as they are unable to provide consent. Despite their vulnerability, infants' organs and tissues are considered valuable for biomedical purposes due to their size and unique properties. This raises questions about the conditions under which it is permissible to remove and use these body parts for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes. The aim of this protocol is to establish a foundation for a scoping review that will identify, clarify, and categorise the main ethical arguments regarding the permissibility of removing and using organs or tissues from infants. The scoping review will follow the methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), consisting of five stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) developing the search strategy, (3) setting inclusion criteria, (4) extracting data, and (5) presenting and analysing the results. We will include both published and unpublished materials that explicitly discuss the ethical arguments related to the procurement and use of infant organs or tissues in the biomedical context. The search will cover various databases, including the National Library of Medicine, Web of Science, EBSCO, and others, as well as grey literature sources. Two raters will independently assess the eligibility of articles, and data from eligible studies will be extracted using a standardised form. The extracted data will then be analysed descriptively through qualitative content analysis. There has been debate about how to respect the rights and interests of organ and tissue donors since the beginning of transplantation practice, given the moral risks involved in procuring parts of their bodies and using them for transplantation or research. A major concern has been to ensure that, at a minimum, donation of organs or other bodily tissues for transplantation or research is done under conditions of valid informed consent, so as to avoid coercion or exploitation among other moral harms. In the case of infants and younger children, however, this concern poses special difficulties insofar as infants and younger children are deemed incapable of providing valid consent. Due to their diminutive size and other distinctive properties, infants' organs and tissues are seen as valuable for biomedical purposes. Yet, the heightened vulnerability of infants raises questions about when and whether it is ever permissible to remove these body parts or use them in research or for other purposes. The aim of this protocol is to form the basis of a systematic scoping review to identify, clarify, and systematise the main ethical arguments for and against the permissibility of removing and using infant or newborn (hereafter, "infant") organs or tissues in the biomedical context (i.e. for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes). Our scoping review will broadly follow the well-established methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute ( Peters et al., 2020). We will follow a five-stage review process: (1) identification of the research question, (2) development of the search strategy, (3) inclusion criteria, (4) data extraction, and (5) presentation and analysis of the results. Published and unpublished bibliographic material (including reports, dissertations, book chapters, etc.) will be considered based on the following inclusion criteria: the presence of explicit (bio)ethical arguments or reasons (concept) for or against the procurement and use of organs or tissues from infants, defined as a child from birth until 1 year old (population), in the biomedical domain, including transplantation, research, and commercial development (context). We will search for relevant studies in the National Library of Medicine (including PubMed and MEDLINE), Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Google Scholar, PhilPapers, The Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), EthxWeb as well as grey literature sources (e.g., Google, BASE, OpenGrey, and WorldCat) and the reference lists of key studies to identify studies suitable for inclusion. A three-stage search strategy will be used to determine the eligibility of articles, as recommended by the JBI methodological guidelines. We will exclude sources if (a) the full text is not accessible, (b) the main text is in a language other than English, or (c) the focus is exclusively on scientific, legal, or religious/theological arguments. All articles will be independently assessed for eligibility between two raters (MB & XL); data from eligible articles will be extracted and charted using a standardised data extraction form. The extracted data will be analysed descriptively using basic qualitative content analysis. Ethical review is not required as scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis that synthesise data from publicly available sources. Our dissemination strategy includes peer review publication, presentation at conferences, and outreach to relevant stakeholders. The results will be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. An overview of the general data from the included studies will be presented in the form of graphs or tables showing the distribution of studies by year or period of publication, country of origin, and key ethical arguments. These results will be accompanied by a narrative summary describing how each included study or article relates to the aims of this review. Research gaps will be identified and limitations of the review will also be highlighted. A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, a synthesis of the key findings will be disseminated to biomedical settings (e.g., conferences or workshops, potentially including ones linked to university hospitals) in the UK, USA, Türkiye, and Singapore. They will also be shared with the academic community and policy makers involved in the organ procurement organisations (OPO), which will potentially consider our recommendations in their decision-making processes regarding infant tissue/organ donation practice in these countries. The use of a rigorous, well-established methodological framework will ensure the production of a high-quality scoping review that will contribute to the bioethics literature.A comprehensive search of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary databases will be undertaken to ensure coverage of all possible sources that meet the inclusion criteria for the review.This review will focus exclusively on infant tissue/organ procurement/use in biomedical contexts, providing a comprehensive and reliable source of ethical arguments for future debates on this sensitive topic.The review will be limited to articles published in English, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources published in other languages.The review will be limited to articles for which the full text is available, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources that otherwise may have been included in the scoping review had the full text been accessible.

Barış M ，Lim X ，T Almonte M ，Shaw D ，Brierley J ，Porsdam Mann S ，Nguyen T ，Menikoff J ，Wilkinson D ，Savulescu J ，Earp BD ... -  《-》