Defining terminology and outcome measures for evaluating overdose response technology: An international Delphi study

William Rioux, Dylan Viste, Navid Sedaghat, Nathan Rider, Joseph Tay Wee Tek, Melissa Perri, David G. Schwartz, Kim Ritchie, Giuseppe Carrà, Stephanie Carreiro, Oona Kreig, Gabriela Marcu, Joseph Arthur, Joanne Cogdell, Mike Brown, Tyler Marshall, S. Monty Ghosh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Introduction: Various novel harm reduction services leverage technology to reduce the rising number of drug poisoning deaths, particularly among those who use drugs alone. There is significant variability in terminology and outcome measures in reporting these interventions, complicating efforts to build a comprehensive knowledge base. Thus, we conducted a Delphi study to establish consensus and heterogeneity in these metrics. Methods: Panellists from three stakeholder groups (people who use drugs, virtual harm reduction service operators and academics) participated in a multi-round Delphi study. The first round included open-ended questions to propose items in three categories: terminology, demographic information and outcomes. Subsequent rounds included options from a previously conducted scoping review for consideration. Likert ratings were used to achieve consensus, with a 70% threshold. Final rounds involved ranking terminology that reached a consensus. Results: Of 23 initial participants, 14 completed the fourth survey round. “Overdose response technology” was identified as the most appropriate term for these harm reduction technologies. This definition includes drug contamination alerts, overdose response hotlines and applications, wearable overdose detection technology and overdose detection tools. Fourteen demographic outcomes reached a consensus for data collection, including name or handle, neighbourhood, age, gender, past overdose experience, substance used, amount and route of use. Six service use outcomes were recommended: response type, service outcomes, morbidity and mortality, overdose events, responder arrival time and post-rescue care. Discussion and Conclusions: The study results are recommended to standardise terminology and guide future research and knowledge dissemination in the field, ensuring clear communication with a shared language.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1430-1443
Number of pages14
JournalDrug and Alcohol Review
Volume44
Issue number5
Early online date25 Apr 2025
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.

Keywords

  • Ehealth
  • mobile overdose response services
  • overdose detection technologies
  • virtual harm reduction
  • virtual supervised consumption

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Defining terminology and outcome measures for evaluating overdose response technology: An international Delphi study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this