Alcohol dependence in public policy: towards its (re)inclusion

Public policy on alcohol in the UK relies on health promotion campaigns that encourage individuals who misuse alcohol to make healthier choices about their drinking. Individuals with alcohol-dependence syndrome have an impaired capacity to choose health. As a result, individuals with the worst alcohol misuse problems lie largely outside the reach of choice-based policy. However, such policy has been widely criticized and efforts to reform it are underway. This paper argues that the British Medical Association’s recent attempt to improve policy on alcohol in the UK by introducing strategies which have been shown to control drinking within populations still gives insufficient attention to alcohol dependence. This is because it fails accurately and consistently to characterize alcohol dependence and gives insufficient attention to the social challenges it presents

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Background: Considerable resources are spent on research to establish what works to improve the nation’s health. If the findings from this research are used, better health outcomes can follow, but we know that these findings are not always used. In public health, evidence of what works may not ‘fit’ everywhere, making it difficult to know what to do locally. Research suggests that evidence use is a social and dynamic process, not a simple application of research findings. It is unclear whether it is easier to get evidence used via a legal contracting process or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. Objective: To work in cocreation with research participants to investigate how research is utilised and knowledge mobilised in the commissioning and planning of public health services to reduce alcohol-related harms. Design, setting and participants: Two in-depth, largely qualitative, cross-comparison case studies were undertaken to compare real-time research utilisation in commissioning across a purchaser–provider split (England) and in joint planning under unified organisational arrangements (Scotland) to reduce alcohol-related harms. Using an overarching realist approach and working in cocreation, case study partners (stakeholders in the process) picked the topic and helped to interpret the findings. In Scotland, the topic picked was licensing; in England, it was reducing maternal alcohol consumption. Methods: Sixty-nine interviews, two focus groups, 14 observations of decision-making meetings, two local feedback workshops (n = 23 and n = 15) and one national workshop (n = 10) were undertaken. A questionnaire (n = 73) using a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale was issued to test the transferability of the 10 main findings. Given the small numbers, care must be taken in interpreting the findings. Findings: Not all practitioners have the time, skills or interest to work in cocreation, but when there was collaboration, much was learned. Evidence included professional and tacit knowledge, and anecdotes, as well as findings from rigorous research designs. It was difficult to identify evidence in use and decisions were sometimes progressed in informal ways and in places we did not get to see. There are few formal evidence entry points. Evidence (prevalence and trends in public health issues) enters the process and is embedded in strategic documents to set priorities, but local data were collected in both sites to provide actionable messages (sometimes replicating the evidence base). Conclusions: Two mid-range theories explain the findings. If evidence has saliency (relates to ‘here and now’ as opposed to ‘there and then’) and immediacy (short, presented verbally or visually and with emotional appeal) it is more likely to be used in both settings. A second mid-range theory explains how differing tensions pull and compete as feasible and acceptable local solutions are pursued across stakeholders. Answering what works depends on answering for whom and where simultaneously to find workable (if temporary) ‘blends’. Gaining this agreement across stakeholders appeared more difficult across the purchaser–provider split, because opportunities to interact were curtailed; however, more research is needed. Funding: This study was funded by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research

Treatment and Intervention for Opiate Dependence in the United Kingdom:Lessons from Triumph and Failure

The history of opiate treatment in the United Kingdom (UK) since the early 1980s is a rich source of learning about the benefits and pitfalls of drug treatment policy. We present five possible lessons to be learnt about how factors outside the clinic, including government, charities and researchers can influence treatment and outcomes. First, do not let a crisis go to waste. The philosophical shift from abstinence to harm reduction in the 1980s, in response to an HIV outbreak in injecting users, facilitated expansion in addiction services and made a harm reduction approach more acceptable. Second, studies of drug-related deaths can lead to advances in care. By elucidating the pattern of mortality, and designing interventions to address the causes, researchers have improved patient safety in certain contexts, though significant investment in Scotland has not arrested rising mortality. Third, collection of longitudinal data and its use to inform clinical guidelines, as pursued from the mid-1990s, can form an enduring evidence base and shape policy, sometimes in unintended ways. Fourth, beware of the presentation of harm reduction and recovery as in conflict. At the least, this reduces patient choice, and at worst, it has caused some services to be redesigned in a manner that jeopardises patient safety. Fifth, the relationship between the third and state sectors must be carefully nurtured. In the UK, early collaboration has been replaced by competition, driven by changes in funding, to the detriment of service provision

Adapting the ASSIST model of informal peer-led intervention delivery to the Talk to FRANK drug prevention programme in UK secondary schools (ASSIST + FRANK): intervention development, refinement and a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Illicit drug use increases the risk of poor physical and mental health. There are few effective drug prevention interventions. Objective: To assess the acceptability of implementing and trialling two school-based peer-led drug prevention interventions. Design: Stage 1 – adapt ASSIST, an effective peer-led smoking prevention intervention to deliver information from the UK national drug education website [see www.talktofrank.com (accessed 29 August 2017)]. Stage 2 – deliver the two interventions, ASSIST + FRANK (+FRANK) and FRANK friends, examine implementation and refine content. Stage 3 – four-arm pilot cluster randomised control trial (cRCT) of +FRANK, FRANK friends, ASSIST and usual practice, including a process evaluation and an economic assessment. Setting: Fourteen secondary schools (two in stage 2) in South Wales, UK. Participants: UK Year 8 students aged 12–13 years at baseline. Interventions: +FRANK is a UK informal peer-led smoking prevention intervention provided in Year 8 followed by a drug prevention adjunct provided in Year 9. FRANK friends is a standalone informal peer-led drug prevention intervention provided in Year 9. These interventions are designed to prevent illicit drug use through training influential students to disseminate information on the risks associated with drugs and minimising harms using content from www.talktofrank.com. Training is provided off site and follow-up visits are made in school. Outcomes: Stage 1 – +FRANK and FRANK friends intervention manuals and resources. Stage 2 – information on the acceptability and fidelity of delivery of the interventions for refining manuals and resources. Stage 3 – (a) acceptability of the interventions according to prespecified criteria; (b) qualitative data from students, staff, parents and intervention teams on implementation and receipt of the interventions; (c) comparison of the interventions; and (d) recruitment and retention rates, completeness of primary, secondary and intermediate outcome measures and estimation of costs. Results: +FRANK and FRANK friends were developed with stakeholders [young people, teachers (school management team and other roles), parents, ASSIST trainers, drug agency staff and a public health commissioner] over an 18-month period. In the stage 2 delivery of +FRANK, 12 out of the 14 peer supporters attended the in-person follow-ups but only one completed the electronic follow-ups. In the pilot cRCT, 12 schools were recruited, randomised and retained. The student response rate at the 18-month follow-up was 93% (1460/1567 students). Over 80% of peer supporters invited were trained and reported conversations on drug use and contact with trainers. +FRANK was perceived less positively than FRANK friends. The prevalence of lifetime illicit drug use was 4.1% at baseline and 11.6% at follow-up, with low numbers of missing data for all outcomes. The estimated cost per school was £1942 for +FRANK and £3041 for FRANK friends. All progression criteria were met. Conclusions: Both interventions were acceptable to students, teachers and parents, but FRANK friends was preferred to +FRANK. A limitation of the study was that qualitative data were collected on a self-selecting sample. Future work recommendations include progression to a Phase III effectiveness trial of FRANK friends. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14415936. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 5, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The work was undertaken with the support of the Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer). Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK CRC, is gratefully acknowledged

Sentencing drug offenders under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act: Challenges for the probation service

For the most part the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, which came into effect in England and Wales in April 2005, was accepted by the probation service with relatively little opposition. Given the enormity of its impact acquiescence to this degree of change ought to come as something of a surprise. The 2003 Act changed fundamentally the nature of community supervision, it brought to an end the traditional range of non-custodial penalties and replaced them with a single community order to which sentencers could add any of 12 possible requirements. This paper considers the impact of the 2003 legislation on one particular offender group - drug misusers. Drug misusing offenders have the potential to pose serious difficulties for probation officers; the habitual nature of drug addiction and a tendency toward an irregular lifestyle make drug misusers particularly susceptible to breach. Under the new legislation courts have significantly fewer options available to them when responding to incidents of offender non-compliance. This paper argues that many of the provisions of the 2003 Act together with developments elsewhere in the UK are likely to have impacted disproportionately on those groups whose lifestyles are chaotic and whose routines are incompatible with the terms and conditions of modern day probation practice. It concludes that greater flexibility towards non-compliance, supported by regular and consistent judicial review, would encourage improved rates of compliance and retention in treatment and improved outcomes for offenders

A cluster randomised trial, cost-effectiveness analysis and psychosocial evaluation of insulin pump therapy compared with multiple injections during flexible intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes: the REPOSE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin is generally administered to people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) using multiple daily injections (MDIs), but can also be delivered using infusion pumps. In the UK, pumps are recommended for patients with the greatest need and adult use is less than in comparable countries. Previous trials have been small, of short duration and have failed to control for training in insulin adjustment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pump therapy compared with MDI for adults with T1DM, with both groups receiving equivalent structured training in flexible insulin therapy. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial, including economic and psychosocial evaluations. After participants were assigned a group training course, courses were randomly allocated in pairs to either pump or MDI. SETTING: Eight secondary care diabetes centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with T1DM for > 12 months, willing to undertake intensive insulin therapy, with no preference for pump or MDI, or a clinical indication for pumps. INTERVENTIONS: Pump or MDI structured training in flexible insulin therapy, followed up for 2 years. MDI participants used insulin analogues. Pump participants used a Medtronic Paradigm(®) Veo(TM) (Medtronic, Watford, UK) with insulin aspart (NovoRapid, Novo Nordisk, Gatwick, UK). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 2 years in participants whose baseline HbA1c was ≥ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Key secondary outcome - proportion of participants with HbA1c ≤ 7.5% at 2 years. Other outcomes at 6, 12 and 24 months - moderate and severe hypoglycaemia; insulin dose; body weight; proteinuria; diabetic ketoacidosis; quality of life (QoL); fear of hypoglycaemia; treatment satisfaction; emotional well-being; qualitative interviews with participants and staff (2 weeks), and participants (6 months); and ICERs in trial and modelled estimates of cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: We randomised 46 courses comprising 317 participants: 267 attended a Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating course (132 pump; 135 MDI); 260 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, of which 235 (119 pump; 116 MDI) had baseline HbA1c of ≥ 7.5%. HbA1c and severe hypoglycaemia improved in both groups. The drop in HbA1c% at 2 years was 0.85 on pump and 0.42 on MDI. The mean difference (MD) in HbA1c change at 2 years, at which the baseline HbA1c was ≥ 7.5%, was -0.24% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53% to 0.05%] in favour of the pump (p = 0.098). The per-protocol analysis showed a MD in change of -0.36% (95% CI -0.64% to -0.07%) favouring pumps (p = 0.015). Pumps were not cost-effective in the base case and all of the sensitivity analyses. The pump group had greater improvement in diabetes-specific QoL diet restrictions, daily hassle plus treatment satisfaction, statistically significant at 12 and 24 months and supported by qualitative interviews. LIMITATION: Blinding of pump therapy was not possible, although an objective primary outcome was used. CONCLUSION: Adding pump therapy to structured training in flexible insulin therapy did not significantly enhance glycaemic control or psychosocial outcomes in adults with T1DM. RESEARCH PRIORITY: To understand why few patients achieve a HbA1c of < 7.5%, particularly as glycaemic control is worse in the UK than in other European countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61215213. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information