The name and frame matters when it comes to public support of opioid prevention programs

Abstract

BackgroundOpioid overdose is the second leading cause of accidental death. Safe Consumption Sites (SCSs) are very effective harm reduction, but skepticism persists in the U.S. In four U.S. states, legislative attempts failed, except for Rhode Island's “Harm Reduction Center,” (HRC), and New York City's “Overdose Prevention Centers” (OPP). MethodsWe hypothesized that compassion naming and framing would rate higher than safety/security or just-the-facts framing. Our mixed methods design included focus groups and a randomized experiment with an online panel of representative U.S. adults. All rated the title, description, and two or more images related to the program. Focus groups discussed impressions. ResultsOf four packets seen (SCS, OPP, HRC, and SIF), OPP was the clear favorite in both studies. Unexpectedly, offering facts and statistics improved favorability. Compassionate language was a primary driver of favorability, followed by life-saving medical messaging. Imagery of people helping and smiling was liked best. Focus groups’ primary concern was about “their backyards,” but also, they desired to save lives and reduce suffering. ConclusionStigma drove opposition to SCSs, as did conservative political affiliation. We provide finalized marketing packets which will reduce stigma and generate public support for SCSs.