Executive evidence brief | August 21, 2026
National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day 2026: Build a No-Wrong-Door Overdose Safety System
Awareness becomes credible when every contact can connect a person to respectful prevention, overdose response, evidence-based treatment, harm reduction, grief support, and accountable follow-through.
Observance verification. National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day is observed on August 21. The 2026 observance marks its fifth anniversary. This executive brief uses the observance as a governance opportunity and does not replace current clinical, emergency, pharmacy, public health, legal, or community guidance.
The leadership signal
Make every door a safe route to the next right service
National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day presents a direct question to healthcare leaders: what happens after a person, family member, clinician, first responder, student, employee, or community partner asks for help? A poster can make people aware of risk. A reliable system must also make the next action visible, respectful, timely, affordable, and reachable. If one doorway offers compassion while another produces delay, shame, or a dead end, the organization has an operating gap rather than a communication gap.
The problem cannot be reduced to a single setting or a single story. People encounter the health system through emergency departments, primary care, behavioral health, pharmacies, inpatient units, urgent care, occupational health, telehealth, crisis lines, mobile services, schools, workplaces, shelters, first responders, public health programs, and community organizations. Their goals and circumstances differ. Some seek overdose prevention resources. Some need emergency help. Some ask about treatment. Some need wound care, housing help, grief support, or a confidential conversation. A no-wrong-door system does not force every person into the same destination. It ensures that every entry point can recognize the request, respond without stigma, and complete an appropriate handoff.
Recent peer-reviewed work supports this broader view. Research addresses public support for harm reduction, training for first responders, communication campaigns, stigma in medical education, treatment beliefs among people who have experienced homelessness, overdose burden among people who inject drugs, occupational differences in deaths, xylazine-associated wounds, and grief after a drug-related death.12567911121416 The studies use different designs and cannot be treated as one intervention trial. Together, they show that access, communication, workforce behavior, social conditions, and follow-through belong in the same leadership conversation.
Executives should reject the idea that awareness is successful because information was distributed. The better test is whether the organization can demonstrate a functioning route from recognition to action. Can staff find the current policy? Can the person receive a clear explanation of options? Is language assistance available? Are emergency pathways distinct from routine service requests? Does the receiving service accept the referral? Can the organization learn when a handoff fails? Are partners compensated for the work that keeps the route functioning?
This is also a dignity test. Language that labels people by a diagnosis, behavior, housing status, or loss can reduce trust and discourage disclosure. A person-first approach does not minimize risk. It creates conditions in which risk can be discussed honestly. The organization should use neutral language, distinguish prescribed fentanyl from illicitly manufactured fentanyl when context requires, and avoid describing every exposure or death with one word when the circumstances are not known. Precision and respect support safer operations.
Four executive commitments can anchor the observance. Establish a no-wrong-door standard across participating entry points. Fund navigation and partner capacity rather than assuming referrals complete themselves. Use measures that reveal access and handoff reliability without setting unsupported clinical targets. Include people with lived and living experience, bereaved peers and families, and community organizations in governance with clear decision rights. These commitments turn one day of attention into an improvement system that can operate throughout the year.
Recognize
Give each entry point a current, role-appropriate way to identify an urgent need, a prevention request, a treatment question, a wound concern, or a grief-support need.
Respond
Use person-first language, explain choices, protect privacy, provide accessibility and language support, and follow current professional and local protocols.
Connect
Assign ownership for the handoff, confirm that the receiving service can respond, and offer an alternative when the first option is unavailable.
Learn
Track local denominators, incomplete handoffs, time, experience, access barriers, safety concerns, and corrective-action closure without inventing benchmarks.
The evidence landscape
Describe burden without turning a study estimate into a target
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized studies of nonfatal and fatal overdose among people who inject drugs in the United States and comparator countries. The review identified 143 studies and included 58 unique data sources in meta-analysis. For United States studies, the authors reported pooled rates of 32.9 nonfatal overdoses per 100 person-years and 1.7 fatal overdoses per 100 person-years. In a post-2016 subgroup, the corresponding reported rates were 41.0 and 2.5 per 100 person-years.14 These are pooled research estimates for a defined population and evidence set, not general-population rates and not an expected result for a local program.
The estimates carry substantial context. Included studies varied in sampling, measurement, geography, time, and definitions. A person can experience more than one nonfatal overdose, so a rate per 100 person-years is not the percentage of people affected. Fatal and nonfatal rates describe different outcomes and should not be added. The post-2016 subgroup reflects a period classification within the evidence, not a forecast for 2026. Executives can use the study to understand the scale and persistence of risk in studied populations while relying on local surveillance and community interpretation for operational decisions.
Figure 1. Reported pooled overdose rates in United States studies
| Population and period | Outcome | Reported pooled rate | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States studies, all included periods | Nonfatal overdose | 32.9 | Per 100 person-years |
| United States studies, all included periods | Fatal overdose | 1.7 | Per 100 person-years |
| United States post-2016 subgroup | Nonfatal overdose | 41.0 | Per 100 person-years |
| United States post-2016 subgroup | Fatal overdose | 2.5 | Per 100 person-years |
Other recent studies contribute different evidence. A retrospective descriptive analysis examined occupational differences in opioid-related overdose deaths.5 It may help leaders consider how job conditions, benefit access, injury, leave, stigma, and workforce outreach intersect, but occupational association does not establish a cause. A Rhode Island prescription monitoring analysis described dispensing patterns for opioids, buprenorphine, benzodiazepines, naloxone, and stimulants from 2022 through 2025.8 Dispensing trends in one state are not direct measures of treatment need, treatment retention, overdose prevention access, or outcomes.
A systematic review of published xylazine-associated wound cases included 17 studies describing 277 patients. Most published cases were concentrated in a recent period and one region, which limits generalization.7 Case reports and series can signal emerging clinical and operational concerns, but they cannot establish prevalence or compare treatment strategies reliably. Healthcare leaders should ensure that current clinical, infectious disease, surgical, wound care, toxicology, emergency, and public health expertise can coordinate when a concern arises. They should not convert a descriptive review into a one-size-fits-all protocol.
The evidence landscape therefore calls for disciplined translation. At every decision, label the study design, population, setting, exposure, comparator, outcome, period, and uncertainty. Separate evidence about public attitudes from evidence about implementation. Separate dispensing from access. Separate knowledge from behavior. Separate a campaign description from a measured clinical outcome. This prevents a compelling statistic from carrying more authority than its design can support.
The no-wrong-door pathway
Connect recognition, response, treatment, and sustained support
A no-wrong-door standard begins with a small promise: every participating entry point knows how to start the right route. That route may involve urgent emergency response, current overdose-prevention education, naloxone access under applicable rules, clinical assessment, a treatment conversation, harm reduction services, wound evaluation, mental health support, social-service navigation, or bereavement support. Staff do not need to perform every function. They need to recognize their role, communicate clearly, and transfer responsibility safely.
The pathway must distinguish emergency and nonemergency needs. An urgent event requires immediate action under current emergency protocols. A prevention request requires a different conversation and workflow. A person seeking treatment should be offered appropriate options without making a single program the only acceptable door. A person not seeking treatment should still be treated with dignity and connected to lawful, locally available health and safety resources. A family or peer asking after a loss needs a route that recognizes grief rather than treating the request as an administrative afterthought.
Figure 2. Proposed no-wrong-door overdose safety continuum
Choice, consent, privacy, current professional guidance, and lived experience inform every stage.
Warm handoff is an operating behavior, not a slogan. The sending person explains the next step, confirms that the destination is available, identifies a receiver or reliable queue, addresses accessibility and transportation barriers where possible, and creates a backup if the first option fails. Information is shared only with appropriate permission and protection. If follow-up is part of the service, the pathway specifies who performs it, when, through which channel, and what happens when contact is not possible.
Each entry point needs a concise role card. It should identify urgent escalation, current local resources, after-hours coverage, language and disability access, documentation expectations, privacy boundaries, and an internal contact for unresolved questions. The card should be tested by the people who will use it. A policy stored on an intranet is not enough if a receptionist, pharmacist, nurse, physician, social worker, security officer, community health worker, or call-center representative cannot find the relevant step during a real interaction.
The pathway should also make refusal and delay visible. If a receiving service declines a referral, the reason should enter a protected improvement process without punishing the person seeking help. If a wait is longer than the operating standard, the sending team needs an escalation route and an interim safety option consistent with current guidance. If a partner program closes or changes eligibility, the directory must update quickly. Reliability depends as much on maintaining the route as on designing it.
A single contact may surface several needs at once. Someone may need clinical assessment, housing assistance, transportation, child care, legal support, language assistance, and treatment information. The standard should not require the first staff member to solve every issue. It should prevent one barrier from invalidating all other help. Leaders can start by testing one high-volume path and one after-hours path, then expand only after gaps are corrected.
Dignity, trust, and access
Treat stigma as a safety and reliability condition
Stigma changes whether people disclose risk, ask questions, accept services, return for care, or trust a referral. It also shapes policy decisions, workforce behavior, media messages, and the support available after a death. A no-wrong-door system must therefore treat language and experience as measurable operating conditions. Training matters, but training alone cannot correct inaccessible hours, unaffordable care, fragmented eligibility, missing transportation, inadequate privacy, or an unavailable receiving service.
A latent class analysis examined stigma and health among Black adults who use opioids.2 The study design can identify patterns and associations within its sample; it cannot prove that one stigma experience caused a health outcome. Its relevance to executives is the need to examine how race, stigma, trust, access, and health interact rather than treating people who use opioids as a homogeneous population. Measures should be stratified where lawful and statistically responsible, and interpretation should include affected communities.
Two recent studies examined public perceptions of harm reduction strategies. A Pennsylvania study focused on familiarity and support, while a national study used latent class analysis in a survey of about 6,500 respondents and reported distinct profiles of strong support, mixed support, neutral opinion, and strong opposition.34 These are perception studies, not demonstrations that a particular message changes behavior or outcomes. They do show why one generic awareness message may miss people who differ in familiarity, experience, and concern.
An organization should test messages with intended audiences before broad release. The review should ask whether the message is accurate, person-first, actionable, culturally responsive, accessible, and clear about where to go. It should avoid fear-based images, unsupported certainty, and language that implies moral failure. It should distinguish awareness from diagnosis and should not make a person disclose private information to obtain basic directions. Community reviewers need authority to stop or change a message, not merely an opportunity to react after publication.
Figure 3. Why an overdose safety pathway can fail
Bereavement belongs in the system. A qualitative study explored how six people bereaved by a peer's drug-related death experienced internalized stigma, social invalidation, shame, isolation, and difficulty finding support.9 Six interviews offer depth, not prevalence. The findings should not be generalized to every bereaved person. They do support a governance question: can peers, families, coworkers, and community members reach grief support that recognizes the relationship and does not require them to defend the legitimacy of their loss?
Leaders should review employee assistance, chaplaincy, behavioral health, peer support, community partnerships, crisis response, mortality review, and communications through that lens. A death may affect clinical staff, first responders, community health workers, outreach teams, friends, and family at the same time. Confidential support routes should be clear, and public communications should protect privacy and avoid narratives that assign blame. Operational review and human support can occur together, but they should not be confused.
Training should be linked to practice conditions. A Louisiana training evaluation examined changing risk-reduction perceptions among first responders.6 A scoping review examined interventions addressing stigma and opioid use disorder in medical schools.12 Training evaluations and scoping reviews can inform educational design, but they do not prove that a brief session changes long-term behavior, access, or health outcomes. Executives should pair education with scripts, supervision, policy alignment, observed practice, protected time, feedback, and correction of system barriers.
A respectful pathway also protects the workforce. People may carry grief, secondary trauma, moral distress, or fear of saying the wrong thing. Role clarity and debriefing should not depend on a crisis. Leaders can establish confidential support, structured review, and escalation for unsafe workloads. Workforce safety does not justify excluding people from care. It means designing staffing, environments, partnerships, and protocols that support both the person seeking help and the people responding.
The operating system
Govern the interfaces around the person and community
No-wrong-door performance depends on interfaces. Emergency care cannot complete a treatment handoff without an available receiver. A pharmacy cannot maintain a prevention route if policies, supply, reimbursement, and community information diverge. A public health alert cannot improve practice if clinicians cannot see or interpret it. Community organizations cannot absorb navigation work indefinitely without funding, data agreements, and access to decision-makers. The operating model should make these dependencies explicit.
Figure 4. Proposed integrated overdose safety operating system
The governance forum needs an executive sponsor and an operational owner. It also needs community authority. People with lived and living experience and bereaved peers or families should help set priorities, review language, interpret experience data, test access routes, and decide whether corrective action is sufficient. Participation should be compensated and supported. A community advisory role without agenda influence, information, or follow-up is not shared governance.
Research on the development and implementation of a fentanyl-overdose health communication campaign emphasizes the contribution of harm reduction perspectives and peer safety practices.11 A campaign account can illuminate design and implementation but does not establish effectiveness across settings. Leaders should examine the conditions that made collaboration possible: who had decision rights, how messages were tested, how compensation and ownership were handled, which channels were used, and what feedback changed the work.
Higher education offers another interface. A PRISMA-guided scoping review examined approaches to preventing opioid-related harms in United States higher education.10 A scoping review maps the breadth and gaps of literature rather than estimating one pooled effect. Colleges and health systems should not assume that a campus campaign, emergency resource, or training will transfer unchanged to another institution. They can use the review to prompt an inventory of student health, counseling, campus safety, residence life, pharmacy access, disability support, confidential communication, and community referral routes.
| Interface | Accountable owner | Minimum operating control | Evidence of reliability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urgent recognition to emergency response | Clinical or emergency operations leader | Current role-specific escalation route with after-hours coverage | Scenario test and review of delays or failures |
| Emergency or clinical setting to treatment | Behavioral health or care-continuum leader | Named receiving options, acceptance rules, backup route, and follow-up ownership | Locally defined eligible encounters, offers, accepted connections, time, and reasons not completed |
| Healthcare to harm reduction and community services | Population health or community partnership leader | Funded agreements, accessible directory, privacy rules, and bidirectional escalation | Directory verification, partner feedback, connection experience, and unresolved barriers |
| Emerging wound or supply concern to expert review | Clinical safety and public health liaison | Current consultation and notification route without a fixed diagnosis shortcut | Timely expert review and updated guidance distribution |
| Loss to grief and workforce support | Behavioral health, human resources, or community benefit leader | Confidential, non-stigmatizing routes for peers, families, community members, and staff | Access review, experience feedback, and privacy-protected utilization patterns |
| Failure to corrective action | Quality or safety leader | Protected review, named owner, due date, evidence of closure, and escalation | Action aging, verified closure, recurrence, and community confirmation where appropriate |
Service conditions require the same scrutiny. An audit of 66 residential substance-use service providers in North Carolina found that 28 mandated labor and 20 used labor in agency-owned commercial enterprises.15 The findings describe a specific state, provider sample, and service context. They should not be generalized to all treatment programs. They do remind referring organizations to examine more than whether a program has an open bed. Contracting and referral review should address informed consent, fees, labor or work expectations, clinical credentials, rights, grievance processes, safety, discharge practices, accessibility, outcomes, and oversight.
A cross-sectional survey of 148 people with experience of homelessness who were engaging in opioid use disorder treatment examined perceived severity, susceptibility, treatment benefits, and other health beliefs.16 Associations in one program cannot establish causality or represent everyone who has experienced homelessness. The operational value is to ask people what they believe, what benefit they seek, and what barriers matter rather than assuming readiness from enrollment status. Flexible communication, transportation, low-barrier follow-up, and stable contact options may require cross-sector partnership.
The forum should maintain a single risk and action register. Risks may include expired directory entries, inconsistent language, service caps, after-hours gaps, privacy uncertainty, supply or reimbursement changes, staff turnover, missing interpretation, lack of grief support, and unreviewed community concerns. Each item needs an owner, due date, planned control, evidence of completion, and escalation route. The register should distinguish a resolved task from an improved outcome. Installing a new referral button closes a task only when the route has been tested and failures are visible.
Executive measurement
Measure the pathway without creating a misleading league table
An executive scorecard should help teams find barriers, not reward selective documentation. Begin with a locally defined eligible population and a clear purpose. For every percentage, show the numerator, denominator, period, source, exclusions, and missing-data rule. Display counts when numbers are small. Stratify only when privacy, law, sample size, and interpretation allow. Avoid ranking units whose populations, hours, services, or documentation differ.
Measures should cover structure, process, experience, access, safety, and learning. A structure measure asks whether a service or role exists. A process measure asks whether an action occurred. An experience measure asks whether people felt respected and understood their options. An access measure examines time, distance, cost, eligibility, language, or disability barriers. A safety measure identifies urgent failures and unintended harm. A learning measure shows whether corrective action closed. No single measure represents the whole system.
Figure 5. Proposed no-wrong-door executive scorecard
| Domain | Example local measure | Required denominator or context | Balancing question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Readiness | Participating entry points with a verified current role card | All entry points in the defined pilot, verification date, after-hours status | Can frontline staff use the route in a scenario? |
| Offer | Eligible encounters with a documented, appropriate service offer | Locally defined eligible encounters, exclusions, missing documentation | Was choice preserved, and did documentation become coercive? |
| Connection | Accepted warm handoffs within the locally defined interval | All accepted handoffs, destination, interval definition, noncompletion reasons | Who is excluded by hours, location, eligibility, cost, or technology? |
| Experience | Respondents reporting respect, clear options, privacy, and language access | Invited and responding population, collection method, nonresponse, privacy controls | Can people give feedback without affecting service? |
| Partner capacity | Referral partners reporting manageable volume and timely escalation | Contracted and informal partners, response rate, funding and staffing context | Is the health system shifting unfunded work? |
| Learning | High-priority corrective actions closed with verified evidence | All high-priority actions opened in the period, aging, recurrence | Did the correction improve the route for users and partners? |
A pediatric trauma-center study evaluated an education intervention concerning prescription opioid pain medication across 4,371 adolescents at 10 centers. The reported proportion receiving education rose from 20.9 percent to 37.3 percent, while prescribing changed from 54.7 percent to 48.8 percent.13 The pre-post implementation design does not prove that education caused the prescribing change or that either percentage should become a target elsewhere. It illustrates why implementation measures need denominators, setting, period, intervention exposure, and a defined outcome.
Measure interpretation should take place with community and frontline partners. A drop in completed referrals may reflect a broken link, a change in eligibility, a new documentation practice, a smaller eligible population, or stronger respect for individual choice. A higher service count may reflect improved access, greater need, wider coverage, or duplicate encounters. The scorecard should prompt questions before judgments. Narrative review and qualitative feedback can explain patterns that the count cannot.
Data governance is essential. Collect only information needed for the improvement purpose. Define access, retention, sharing, suppression, and breach response. Do not build a registry of stigmatized people simply because a dashboard is possible. When data cross health system, public health, emergency response, education, housing, or community boundaries, agreements should specify purpose and permitted use. Community representatives should help evaluate surveillance burden and unintended consequences.
Public reporting should be proportionate. Executives can report that a pathway was mapped, role cards were verified, community partners were funded, a scenario was tested, and corrective actions were closed without exposing individuals or implying that the observance itself changed overdose outcomes. Outcome trends require appropriate denominators, time, context, and analytic caution. Honest reporting builds more trust than an unsupported claim of impact.
The first 90 days
Build one pathway, exercise it, and prove that failures close
A 90-day agenda should improve a defined route rather than attempt to redesign every overdose-related service at once. Choose a scope that leadership can complete, such as one emergency-department-to-treatment handoff, one pharmacy and community prevention route, one after-hours call pathway, or one regional partner network. Define the population, participating sites, urgent escalation, exclusions, and the services that remain outside the pilot.
Figure 6. Proposed 90-day no-wrong-door build
Days 1-30: Charter and listen
Name the executive sponsor, operational owner, clinical and public health leads, and compensated community co-leads. Define the pilot, decision rights, urgent escalation, privacy, legal review, meeting cadence, and resource commitment. Conduct listening sessions with people who use services, peers, families, frontline staff, first responders, pharmacies, treatment providers, harm reduction organizations, and grief-support partners. Map the current route and record every handoff, wait, eligibility rule, access barrier, and after-hours gap.
Days 31-60: Build and verify
Create role cards, a verified service directory, warm-handoff standards, backup routes, accessible communication templates, partner agreements, and a protected issue register. Align training with workflow and supervision. Verify hours, acceptance rules, costs, transportation, interpretation, disability access, confidentiality, and urgent clinical contacts. Test every directory entry and use synthetic scenarios rather than real patient information.
Days 61-75: Exercise and observe
Run a tabletop and one controlled workflow test. Include an urgent event, a nonurgent prevention request, a treatment question, a wound concern, an after-hours barrier, a language need, a declined referral, and a bereaved peer seeking support. Observe who takes ownership, whether choices are explained, what data are shared, how a backup route works, and whether community partners can challenge a decision.
Days 76-90: Correct and assure
Prioritize gaps by safety, access, dignity, likelihood, and controllability. Assign each correction an owner, due date, evidence of completion, and escalation route. Retest the highest-risk interfaces. Give executive and community governance a plain-language report of what changed, what remains open, which measures are trustworthy, and when the pathway will be reviewed again.
The executive sponsor should ask seven closing questions. Can every participating entry point identify urgent and nonurgent routes? Can staff find and use the current role card? Does the receiving service accept responsibility? Is there a backup when the first option fails? Can people obtain language, disability, privacy, and transportation support? Do community partners have authority and funding? Does every high-priority failure remain visible until closure is verified?
National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day should leave more than a campaign. A credible observance can produce a signed no-wrong-door charter, a verified directory, tested role cards, funded community participation, a working warm-handoff route, an accessible grief-support connection, a protected corrective-action register, and an executive review date. These are practical outputs. Together, they create the conditions for safer, more respectful action whenever someone reaches out.
Peer-reviewed evidence
References
References are ordered newest first by the database result order used for this review. All 16 records were reviewed with full-text, peer-reviewed, and date filters covering August 27, 2021 through August 27, 2026. DOI links resolve to publisher records when available. Study designs and limits are stated in the article so that reviews, surveys, qualitative studies, audits, descriptive analyses, and implementation evaluations are not treated as interchangeable.
- Suggestions from Clinicians and Harm Reduction Specialists to Mitigate the Impact of Xylazine on People Who Use Opioids. Substance Use & Misuse. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2026.2723590
- Stigma and Health Among Black Adults Who Use Opioids: A Latent Class Analysis. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/29768357261480543
- Familiarity and Support: Public Perceptions of Harm Reduction Strategies in Pennsylvania. Substance Use & Misuse. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2026.2613714
- Public Support for Harm Reduction Strategies to Address the Opioid Pandemic in the United States: A Latent Class Analysis. Substance Use & Misuse. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2026.2620618
- Occupational Differences in Opioid-Related Overdose Deaths: A Retrospective Descriptive Analysis. Substance Use & Misuse. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2026.2715129
- Changing Perceptions of Risk Reduction Among First Responders: Outcomes of a Training Program in Louisiana. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/29768357261477214
- Call CM, Lama CJ, Agrodnia SL, Liu J, Katarincic JA, Gil JA. Characteristics and Management of Xylazine-Associated Wounds: A Systematic Review of Published Cases. Rhode Island Medical Journal. 2026;109(8):24-31. PMID: 42520231
- Opioid, Buprenorphine, Benzodiazepine, Naloxone, and Stimulant Prescriptions Dispensed to Rhode Island Residents, 2022-2025. Rhode Island Medical Journal. 2026;109(8):54-61. PMID: 42520236
- O'Callaghan D, Lambert S. The Internalization of Stigma and the Shaping of the Grief Experience for Peers Bereaved by a Drug-Related Death. OMEGA: Journal of Death and Dying. 2026;93(3):2143-2170. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228241275728
- Approaches to Preventing Opioid-Related Harms in US Higher Education: A PRISMA-Guided Scoping Review. Journal of American College Health. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2026.2626148
- We Keep Each Other Safe: The Development and Implementation of a Harm Reduction Health Communication Campaign to Prevent Fentanyl Overdoses. Substance Use & Misuse. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2025.2605654
- Impact of Interventions Addressing Stigma and Opioid Use Disorder in Medical Schools: A Scoping Review. Substance Use & Misuse. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2025.2609290
- Implementing an Education Intervention for Prescription Opioid Pain Medication at Pediatric Trauma Centers. Substance Use & Misuse. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2025.2609292
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Estimate the Burden of Non-Fatal and Fatal Overdose Among People Who Inject Drugs Living in the United States and Comparator Countries: 2010-2023. Substance Use & Misuse. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2025.2609295
- If You're Willing to Work...We Can Work With You: Obligatory Labor at Residential Substance Use Services Providers in North Carolina. Substance Use & Misuse. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2025.2611422
- Perceived Opioid-Related Health Beliefs Among Homeless-Experienced Individuals Engaging in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment. Substance Use & Misuse. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2025.2612326