# Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Opioid Sensor Devices: A Theory-Driven Cross-Sectional Survey of Community Responders and Healthcare Providers

## TL;DR

This study explores how healthcare providers and community responders in Alabama perceive and prefer features of a new opioid sensor device to help reduce opioid-related harms.

## Contribution

The study introduces a theory-driven survey to assess perceptions and preferences for opioid sensor devices among healthcare providers and community responders.

## Key findings

- Availability in hospital emergency departments was rated as the most important design element for opioid sensor devices.
- A detection time of 2–5 minutes and a cost of less than USD 15 per test were preferred by a majority of respondents.
- Perceived usefulness and resource availability were strong predictors of intention to use the device.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Identification of tools to minimize opioid-related harms is critical in the U.S. The purpose of this study was to better understand community responder and healthcare provider perceptions and preferences regarding the design and function of a potential new opioid sensor device (OSD). Methods: Adults aged ≥ 18 years employed as community responders or healthcare providers in Alabama were recruited via email to participate in an anonymous online cross-sectional survey informed by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Primary outcomes were assessed via multiple-choice and 7-point Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and included the following topics: (1) past OSD utilization (4 items); (2) perceived importance of OSD design elements (15 items); (3) OSD function and cost preferences (3 items); and (4) UTAUT measures including perceived usefulness of OSDs (3 items), ease of use (4 items), social factors (4 items), resources (4 items), concerns (3 items), and intentions (3 items). Differences in UTAUT measures across professions were assessed via Mann–Whitney U tests, and predictors of OSD utilization intention were analyzed via multiple linear regression. Results: Respondents (N = 145) included pharmacists (40.0%), nurses (23.4%), physicians (14.5%), behavioral health (4.8%), social work (4.8%), and law enforcement (0.7%). Availability in hospital emergency departments was rated as the most important device element (mean [SD] score: 6.66 [0.80]), followed by sensitivity and specificity of the test (6.42 [0.98]), rapid detection time (6.42 [0.88]), ability to detect opioids in a broad range of substance (6.42 [0.93]), and availability in law enforcement offices (6.33 [1.08]). A 2–5 min detection time was rated as reasonable by 32.6% of respondents, with 53.0% preferring to pay <USD 15 per test. There were no statistically significant differences in UTAUT scale scores across professions. Perceived usefulness (β = 0.493; p < 0.001), social acceptance (β = 0.281; p = 0.023), and resource availability (β = 0.708; p = 0.002) were positive predictors and perceived ease of use was a negative predictor (β = −0.472; p = 0.007) of intention to use an OSD. Conclusions: Newly developed OSDs should consider prioritizing accessibility in hospital emergency departments and law enforcement offices, ability to detect a broad range of opioids, detection time between 2 and 5 min, and cost less than USD 15 per test. Future research may explore perspectives from a more diverse sample across multiple states and different professional roles.