Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (Jun 2024)

Overdose prevention activities led by local public health departments, 2019–2023

  • April Wisdom,
  • Stephanie Haddad,
  • Madhumita Govindu,
  • Francis Higgins,
  • Nikki Filion,
  • Kate Sullivan,
  • Cherie Rooks-Peck

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-024-00612-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 1
pp. 1 – 28

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Drug overdose deaths in the United States increased to historic levels in recent years, with provisional estimates indicating more than 111,000 deaths in the 12 months ending July 2023. In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Overdose Prevention in collaboration with the National Association of City and County Health Officials, funded local health departments (LHDs) to work on overdose prevention activities. This paper aims to: 1) describe the overdose prevention activities that LHDs implemented during the four eighteen-month funding cycles; 2) identify programmatic successes and areas of opportunity for LHDs to consider when implementing future overdose prevention activities; and to 3) inform policy considerations and future overdose prevention programming at the local level. Methods We used programmatic data to identify overdose prevention activities implemented by 45 LHDs. Activities were double-coded according to the social-ecological model and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Overdose Prevention Strategies and Guiding Principles. We analyzed final codes to identify distribution and overlap of the Strategies and Guiding Principles across the social ecological model co-occurrences. Results Approximately 55.9% (n=123) of the 220 overdose prevention activities that were coded took place at the community level, 32.3% (n=71) at the individual level, 8.6% (n=19) at the relationship level, and 3.2% (n=7) at the policy level. Most of the activities were coded as coordination, collaboration, and integration (n=52, 23.6%), harm reduction (n=51, 23.1%), data and evidence (n=47, 21.4%) or reducing stigma (n=24, 10.9%). Few activities were related to primary prevention (n=14, 6.4%), equity (n=14, 6.4%), recovery support (n=11, 5.0%), and evidence-based treatment (n=7, 3.2%). Conclusions Localities have primarily implemented activities focused on the community and individual levels, with most of these centered around coordination, collaboration, and integration; harm reduction; or data and evidence. This study identified gaps in overdose prevention for LHDs related to treatment and health equity and that more interventions should be implemented at the relationship and policy levels. Continuing these efforts is important as LHDs explore opportunities to enhance and expand their work in various strategy areas across the social ecology. Findings from this study may be used to inform localities as they design and implement future overdose prevention activities.

Keywords