Opposition to Nonprescription Naloxone Access: Measurement and Psychosocial Predictors

Abstract

Background: Access of naloxone has been increased in recent years, yet opposition to unrestricted availability persists. Objectives: To validate a measure of opposition to the policy of nonprescription naloxone and foster a better understanding of the characteristics of individuals who oppose such a policy. Methods: Respondents from a crowdsource platform (N = 621) responded to an instrument developed to assess opposition to nonprescription naloxone. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relationship of the opposition scale with measures of social distance, belief in a just world, right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), perceptions of the degree of threat to the nation presented by opioid users, past exposure to opioid misuse, and conservative political ideology. Results: A 9-item measure of opposition emerged (α=.96). Opposition to nonprescription naloxone was generally associated with construct validation variables as expected. In a regression analysis that adjusted for demographic characteristics, opposition was most strongly related to authoritarianism, the perception that opioid users present a threat to our nation, the belief that we live in a just world, social dominance orientation, greater perceived social distance between self and opioid users, and past experiences with users. Opposition scores differentiated those who supported versus opposed specific policies regarding naloxone access and were particularly high among Republicans. Most respondents did not oppose policies on nonprescription naloxone access. Conclusions/Importance: The instrument developed provides a reliable and valid tool that enables future investigations into understanding and overcoming the psychological, social, and political foundations of opposition to expanded naloxone access.

Keywords:

• Naloxone
• Narcan
• opioids
• overdose
• attitudes
• measurement
• public opinion

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Jeanette B. Ruiz, PhD, for her insightful comments and suggestions for the survey instrument and manuscript revision processes.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.