Longitudinal Assessment of Emergency Responders' Attitudes Toward People Who Overdose and Naloxone Following an Overdose Education Training.

Background: In addition to teaching overdose recognition and response, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) trainings for emergency responders aim to improve trainee attitudes toward people who use drugs and toward naloxone. This study examines the training effectiveness long term, as well as the extent to which improvements are dependent on profession type or recent experience administering naloxone.

Methods: A total of 774 emergency responders, consisting of law enforcement officers (LEOs) (n = 624, 81%) and emergency medical service (EMS) personnel (n = 150, 19%), attended OEND trainings and completed surveys immediately prior to ("pre") and following ("post") the training, as well as 6 months later ("follow-up"). Survey items assessed attitudes toward people who have overdosed, naloxone-related risk compensation (ie, "enabling") beliefs, and whether participants had administered naloxone since attending the training. Multiple regression and estimated marginal means were used to evaluate changes in scores.

Results: Emergency responders showed improved attitudes (pre = 2.60, follow-up = 2.45,  < .001) and risk compensation beliefs (pre = 2.97, follow-up = 2.67,  < .001) 6 months following the training. Follow-up scores differed by profession, with LEOs endorsing worse attitudes (difference = 0.55,  = .013) and more risk compensation beliefs (difference = 0.67,  = .014) than EMS. In addition, having recently administered naloxone predicted more negative attitudes (EMS: difference = 0.55,  = .01; LEO: difference = 0.54,  = .004) and risk compensation beliefs (EMS = 0.73,  = .006; LEO = 0.69,  = .002) at follow-up.

Conclusion: Six months after an OEND training, emergency responders' attitudes toward people who overdose, and their risk compensation beliefs remained improved. However, LEOs had more negative follow-up attitudes and beliefs compared to EMS. Emergency responders who had administered naloxone had worse attitudes and beliefs at follow-up than those who had not. Of note, our sample evidenced sizable attrition between pre and follow-up assessments, leaving room for selection bias. Future studies should investigate how to mitigate negative effects of administering naloxone on attitudes toward those who overdose, and belief that naloxone is "enabling."