A multicomponent psychosocial intervention to reduce substance use by adolescents involved in the criminal justice system: the RISKIT-CJS RCT.

Background: Substance use and offending are related in the context of other disinhibitory behaviours. Adolescents involved in the criminal justice system constitute a particularly vulnerable group, with a propensity to engage in risky behaviour that has long-term impact on their future health and well-being. Previous research of the RISKIT programme provided evidence of a potential effect in reducing substance use and risky behaviour in adolescents. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent psychosocial intervention compared with treatment as usual in reducing substance use for substance-using adolescents involved in the criminal justice system. Design: A mixed-methods, prospective, pragmatic, two-arm, randomised controlled trial with follow-up at 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Setting: The study was conducted across youth offending teams, pupil referral units and substance misuse teams across four areas of England (i.e. South East, London, North West, North East). Participants: Adolescents aged between 13 and 17 years (inclusive), recruited between September 2017 and June 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomised to treatment as usual or to treatment as usual in addition to the RISKIT-Criminal Justice System (RISKIT-CJS) programme. The RISKIT-CJS programme was a multicomponent intervention and consisted of two individual motivational interviews with a trained youth worker (lasting 45 minutes each) and two group sessions delivered over half a day on consecutive weeks. Main outcome measures: At 12 months, we assessed per cent days abstinent from substance use over the previous 28 days. Secondary outcome measures included well-being, motivational state, situational confidence, quality of life, resource use and fidelity of interventions delivered. Results: A total of 693 adolescents were assessed for eligibility, of whom 505 (73%) consented. Of these, 246 (49%) were allocated to the RISKIT-CJS intervention and 259 (51%) were allocated to treatment as usual only. At month 12, the overall follow-up rate was 57%: 55% in the RISKIT-CJS arm and 59% in the treatment-as-usual arm. At month 12, we observed an increase in per cent days abstinent from substances in both arms of the study, from 61% to 85%, but there was no evidence that the RISKIT-CJS intervention was superior to treatment as usual. A similar pattern was observed for secondary outcomes. The RISKIT-CJS intervention was not found to be any more cost-effective than treatment as usual. The qualitative research indicated that young people were positive about learning new skills and acquiring new knowledge. Although stakeholders considered the intervention worthwhile, they expressed concern that it came too late for the target population. Limitations: Our original aim to collect data on offences was thwarted by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and this affected both the statistical and economic analyses. Although 214 (87%) of the 246 participants allocated to the RISKIT-CJS intervention attended at least one individual face-to-face session, 98 (40%) attended a group session and only 47 (19%) attended all elements of the intervention. Conclusions: The RISKIT-CJS intervention was no more clinically effective or cost-effective than treatment as usual in reducing substance use among adolescents involved in the criminal justice system. Future research: The RISKIT-CJS intervention was considered more acceptable, and adherence was higher, in pupil referral units and substance misuse teams than in youth offending teams. Stakeholders in youth offending teams thought that the intervention was too late in the trajectory for their population. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN77037777. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

We explored how useful a psychological intervention was in reducing substance use among young people who had some involvement in the criminal justice system. We recruited young people aged between 13 and 17 years in four areas of England (i.e. South East, London, North West and North East). Young people were recruited from youth offending teams, pupil referral units and substance misuse teams. Those young people who were willing to participate were offered usual treatment and half, chosen at random, were offered an opportunity to take part in the RISKIT-Criminal Justice System (RISKIT-CJS) programme. The RISKIT-CJS programme had four distinct parts. The first was a 1-hour session that used an approach called motivational interviewing to explore the young person's substance use and discuss different strategies to change their behaviour. This was followed by two group sessions delivered over 2 consecutive weeks. These group sessions addressed risks associated with substance use, what triggers use and the health and social consequences. In addition, young people were taught new skills to help them manage in situations in which they might normally use substances. At the end of the group sessions, the young people had another motivational interview. Twelve months after participants started, we found that the frequency of substance use had decreased in both groups; however, the RISKIT-CJS intervention was no better than treatment as usual. When we spoke with young people who had taken part and staff involved with this population, we got a mixed picture. In some settings, particularly pupil referral units, the RISKIT-CJS intervention was well received by young people and staff, and staff felt that it was a useful additional resource to the work that they were currently undertaking. On the other hand, in the youth offending teams, the staff thought that the programme was too different from their normal work to be implemented easily and they considered the population they work with too established in their substance use and criminal activity to benefit from the programme.

The United Kingdom's first unsanctioned overdose prevention site; A proof-of-concept evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom (UK) is currently experiencing a public health crisis of drug-related deaths. The government has rejected recommendations to open overdose prevention services, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. To report on the operation and use of an unsanctioned overdose prevention service which operated in Glasgow city centre from September 2020 to May 2021. METHODS: Description of the service, with analysis of data collected on its use. RESULTS: The service operated for nine months without permission or funding from official sources. We report on the 894 injections supervised and recorded, and nine successful interventions with overdose events (seven opioid/two cocaine). Powder cocaine injection predominated either alone (60.6%) or with heroin (22.1%). Injection was mostly in the groin (68.0%) or arm (16.8%). More injections were recorded by males (70.1%). Around 65% of injection events featured an individual who was on a buprenorphine/methadone prescription. CONCLUSION: It is feasible for an overdose prevention service to operate successfully in the UK without being shut down by the police or with negative consequences for the community. Future sites in the UK must tailor to the substances used by their potential clients, international trends (e.g. for fentanyl use) did not apply here. There is an urgent need and demand for these services in the UK to reduce harm, prevent and intervene during overdose, and provide vital psychosocial support for health and wellbeing in a highly marginalised population.

Different Paths and Potentials to Harm Reduction in Different Welfare States: Drug Consumption Rooms in the United Kingdom, Denmark, and France

The harm reduction approach entered British national policy after the Thatcher government-which was no friend of the welfare state-accepted the 1988 recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which asserted that preventing HIV transmission was more important than insisting that people stop using heroin.16 Rates of HIV and hepatitis C among people who inject drugs are still much lower in the United Kingdom than in the United States. Since the 1990s, support for harm reduction in UK policy and funding has waxed and waned. Cuts to treatment budgets, recommissioning of treatment services, and a push for people to leave treatment drug-free were followed byannual increases in drug-related deaths starting in 2013 and a decrease in the number of people in treatment.20 The most recent UK government drug strategy (published in December 2021) makes little direct mention of harm reduction but does include it in the wide range of services in which GBP780 million of new funding is to be invested from 2022 to 2025 in England.21 The UK government is also reviving punitive rhetoric alongside its new investment in treatment services, blaming drug users rather than blanket prohibition for the harms of organized crime and ruling out DCRs on spurious legal grounds.22 It was left to an activist with a lived experience of problematic drug use to set up the first overdose prevention service in the United Kingdom, which they did in a secondhand vehicle on the streets of Glasgow in 2020-2021. Graduated goals meant that treatment "should not only aim to 'heal' addiction, but to provide rehabilitating measures while drug abuse continues"28(p132) and should include basic improvement of physical health and improvement of the situation of those who use drugs, including through abstinence. Danish drug policy as It was developed during the 1960s and 1970s was based on the Ideas that criminal sanctions should reduce the supply of drugs and that social welfare measures should reduce the demand for drugs.29 This meant that possession of Illicit drugs for personal use was depenalized from 1969 to 2004.

The Double Effect of COVID-19 Confinement Measures and Economic Recession on High-Risk Drug Users and Drug Services.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have a profound impact on the lives of high-risk drug users and on the services responding to their needs in at least two important ways: first, through the restrictive measures introduced to mitigate the spread of the virus and, second, as a result of extensive economic downturn. Currently there is great uncertainty as to the future intensity and duration of the pandemic. In addition, the lessons we have been able to learn from previous economic downturns may be of limited applicability to the current situation, which differs in a number of significant respects. Experience nevertheless suggests that the potential consequences for drug users' health and well-being may be severe. The ongoing uncertainty serves to underline the importance of close monitoring of the drug situation and preparing flexible and innovative solutions to be able to meet new challenges which may arise.

Governments cannot just ‘follow the science’ on COVID-19

Politicians may present themselves as merely implementing scientific advice, but Alex Stevens argues that, when science meets politics, it can be a case of survival of the ideas that fit.