TABLE 3—
Analyses Testing the Effect of the Communities That HEAL Intervention on the Rate of Each Efficacy Outcome Between Wave 1 and Wave 2 Communities During the Comparison Period: 4 US States, July 1, 2021‒June 30, 2022
| Outcome | Adjusted Rate (95% CI)a | Adjusted RR (95% CI)b | |
| Wave 1 | Wave 2 | ||
| Hypothesis 1: Total no. of naloxone units distributed in communities | 3378.1 (2663.1, 4285.0) | 1884.4 (1466.9, 2420.7) | 1.79 (1.28, 2.51) |
| Hypothesis 2: No. of naloxone units distributed through community-based programs | 2754.1 (2081.9, 3643.3) | 1348.4 (962.4, 1889.3) | 2.04 (1.32, 3.17) |
| Hypothesis 3: No. of naloxone units dispensed by retail community pharmacies | 524.0 (447.8, 613.1) | 531.6 (421.7, 670.2) | 0.99 (0.75, 1.30) |
Note. CI = confidence interval; HEAL = Helping to End Addiction Long-Term; RR = relative rate. A separate negative binomial model was fit for each hypothesis adjusting for urban‒rural classification (urban, rural), state (KY, MA, NY, OH), baseline opioid-related overdose death rate, and baseline outcome rate using the intention-to-treat population (n = 67 communities). The natural log of the community population was used as the offset. Dispersion parameters for each of the hypotheses’ models are: k = 0.36 (95% CI = 0.26, 0.49) for hypothesis 1; k = 0.93 (95% CI = 0.67, 1.29) for hypothesis 2; and k = 0.25 (95% CI = 0.18, 0.35) for hypothesis 3.
Model estimated marginal event rate expressed as per 100 000 community residents.
Adjusted RR of wave 1 communities over wave 2 communities.