Suchergebnisse

The practice of community based participatory research (CBPR) has evolved over the past 20 years with the recognition that health equity is best achieved when academic researchers form collaborative partnerships with communities. This article theorizes the possibility that core principles of CBPR cannot be realistically applied unless unequal power relations are identified and addressed. It provides theoretical and empirical perspectives for understanding power, privilege, researcher identity and academic research team composition, and their effects on partnering processes and health disparity outcomes. The team's processes of conducting seven case studies of diverse partnerships in a national cross-site CBPR study are analyzed; the multi-disciplinary research team's self-reflections on identity and positionality are analyzed, privileging its combined racial, ethnic, and gendered life experiences, and integrating feminist and post-colonial theory into these reflections. Findings from the inquiry are shared, and incorporating academic researcher team identity is recommended as a core component of equalizing power distribution within CBPR.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone is a safe and effective medication to help reverse opioid overdose. Providing take-home naloxone to patients in opioid treatment settings is a critical step to reducing opioid overdose deaths. In New Mexico, a US state with one of the highest rates of opioid overdose deaths, legislation was passed in 2017 (House Bill 370) to support take-home naloxone, and followed by naloxone training of Opioid Treatment Program staff to increase distribution. METHODS: Naloxone training was offered to all New Mexico Opioid Treatment Programs along with a baseline survey to assess current practices and barriers to take-home naloxone distribution. Focus groups were conducted approximately 1 year post-training with staff at a subset of the trained Opioid Treatment Programs to assess the impact of the legislation and training provided. RESULTS: Baseline survey results show most Opioid Treatment Program staff were unfamiliar with House Bill 370, reported conflicting understandings of their agency's current take-home naloxone practices, and reported a number of barriers at the patient, agency, and policy level. Follow-up focus groups revealed support for House Bill 370 but persistent barriers to its implementation at the patient, agency, and policy level including patient receptivity, cost of naloxone, staff time, and prohibitive pharmacy board regulations. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of targeted legislation and training, provision of take-home naloxone at remained low. This is alarming given the need for this lifesaving medication among the Opioid Treatment Program patient population, and high opioid death rate in New Mexico. Locally, important next steps include clarifying regulatory guidelines and supporting policy/billing changes to offset costs to Opioid Treatment Programs. Globally, additional research is needed to identify the prevalence of take-home naloxone distribution in similar settings, common barriers, and best practices that can be shared to increase access to this vital lifesaving medication in this ...