Search

Introduction: To expand access to naloxone, the state of Illinois implemented a standing order allowing registered pharmacies to dispense the drug without an individual prescription. To participate under the standing order, pharmacies were required to opt in through a formal registration process. In our study we aimed to evaluate the availability and price of naloxone at registered pharmacies.Methods: This was a prospective, de-identified, cross-sectional telephone survey. Trained interviewers posed as potential customers and used a standardized script to determine the availability of naloxone between February–December, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as a pharmacy indicating it carried naloxone, currently had naloxone in stock, and was able to dispense it without anindividual prescription.Results: Of 948 registered pharmacies, 886 (93.5%) were successfully contacted. Of those, 792 (83.4%) carried naloxone, 659 (74.4%) had naloxone in stock, and 472 (53.3%) allowed purchase without a prescription. Naloxone nasal spray (86.4%) was the formulation most commonly stocked. Chain pharmacies were more likely to carry naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97–5.01, P < 0.01) and have naloxone in stock (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76–4.20, P < 0.01), but no more likely to dispense it without a prescription. Pharmacies in higher population areas (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99–0.99, P < 0.05) and rural areas adjacent to metropolitan areas (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 025–0.98, P < 0.05) were less likely to have naloxone available without a prescription. Associations of naloxone availability based on other urbanicity designations, overdose count, and overdose rate were not significant.Conclusion: Among pharmacies in Illinois that formally registered to dispense naloxone without a prescription, the availability of naloxone remains limited. Additional interventions may be needed to maximize the potential impact of a statewide standing order.

BackgroundAsian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) sexual and gender minorities (SGM) face unique challenges in mental health and accessing high-quality health care.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) between AAPI SGM and providers, especially surrounding mental health.Research designInterviews, focus groups, and surveys.SubjectsAAPI SGM interviewees in Chicago (n=20) and San Francisco (n=20). Two focus groups (n=10) in San Francisco.MeasuresParticipants were asked open-ended questions about their health care experiences and how their identities impacted these encounters. Follow-up probes explored SDM and mental health. Participants were also surveyed about attitudes towards SGM disclosure and preferences about providers. Transcripts were analyzed for themes and a conceptual model was developed.ResultsOur conceptual model elucidates the patient, provider, and encounter-centered factors that feed into SDM for AAPI SGM. Some participants shared the stigma of SGM identities and mental health in their AAPI families. Their AAPI and SGM identities were intertwined in affecting mental health. Some providers inappropriately controlled the visibility of the patient's identities, ignoring or overemphasizing them. Participants varied on whether they preferred a provider of the same race, and how prominently their AAPI and/or SGM identities affected SDM.ConclusionsProviders should understand identity-specific challenges for AAPI SGM to engage in SDM. Providers should self-educate about AAPI and SGM history and intracommunity heterogeneity before the encounter, create a safe environment conducive to patient disclosure of SGM identity, and ask questions about patient priorities for the visit, pronouns, and mental health.

Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of patient-provider communication. Little is known about the role of SDM in health disparities among Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) sexual and gender minorities (SGM). We illustrate how issues at the intersection of AAPI and SGM identities affect SDM processes and health outcomes. We discuss experiences of AAPI SGM that are affected by AAPI heterogeneity, SGM stigma, multiple minority group identities, and sources of discrimination. Recommendations for clinical practice, research, policy, community development, and education are offered.