Abstract / Summary
Background Timely overdose response depends not only on surveillance systems that detect overdose clusters, but also on communication pathways that deliver actionable information to the professionals positioned to respond. Understanding which overdose-related communications are received, perceived as useful, and translated into action is essential for improving overdose prevention and response infrastructure. Objective We assessed which overdose-related communication channels professionals reported receiving, which they perceived as most helpful, how organizations reported responding to overdoses or overdose clusters, and whether these patterns differed by professional role, county, and funding source. Methods We conducted an exploratory descriptive survey in 2024 using a convenience sample of professionals across Connecticut whose jobs involved overdose prevention or response (N=149). Using this survey data, we summarized reported receipt and perceived utility of overdose-related communication channels, organizational response actions, and internal receipt of Connecticut Department of Public Health overdose alerts. Results were stratified descriptively by professional role, county, and funding source. We interpreted findings using a public health communication-to-action cascade focused on signal detection, communication receipt, internal dissemination, perceived utility, and response action. Results Reported communication receipt and perceived utility differed most clearly by professional role. Peer information sharing was the most commonly reported communication source and was frequently perceived as helpful, but respondents who reported receiving formal channels such as state alerts, local alerts, or platform-based information often identified those channels as most helpful. Internal receipt of Connecticut Department of Public Health overdose alerts also varied by role. SSPs/substance use treatment programs and first responders more often reported outreach to people who use drugs, whereas government and health district respondents reported a more even mix of public communication and outreach activities. Conclusions Overdose-related communication in Connecticut appears role-dependent and unevenly distributed. Informal peer networks are widely used and perceived as helpful, while formal alert systems may require improvements to reach and actionability. Practical improvements include opt-in communication pathways tailored to professional roles, clearer access points for state and local alerts, internal dissemination protocols that specify who should receive which alerts, and alert-to-action playbooks that connect specific alert types to recommended response steps.