Women in mid-life and older age in recovery from illicit drug use: connecting and belonging.

Background: Establishing and maintaining healthy social connections and relationships are important in encouraging a sense of belonging that can help mid-life and older aged women in recovery from illicit drug use. This paper contributes to an under-researched area of substance use recovery among women in mid-life and older age by asking what influence social relationships have on their sense of self as they age into recovery from illicit drugs. Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were undertaken with 19 women in the United Kingdom who self-identified as 'in recovery' from illicit drug use. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis techniques. The study received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow. Results: As their drug use progressed, the women experienced feelings of estrangement and separation from others. Entering and maintaining a healthy recovery from drug use required the women to break their connections to people considered disruptive or challenging. Creating and setting boundaries enabled some of the women to gain a sense of control over their relationships and recovery. Positive reinforcement from others was pivotal to the process of the women's self-acceptance, contributing to better self-concepts that helped them maintain their recovery. Discussion: This investigation into substance use recovery among women in mid-life and older age offers new insights into the relationship challenges they face. It offers suggestions for further research that could support the development of family support programs for mid-life and older age women in active drug use or recovery.

Paying Attention to Women's Ageing Bodies in Recovery From Substance Use.

Background: Health-related research on women who use drugs (WWUD) tends to focus on reproductive and sexual health and treatment. Missing from the picture is an exploration of mid-life and older women's bodily experiences of transitioning from long-term substance use into recovery. While there are a growing number of studies that explore the intersection of drug use and ageing, the gaps in analysis lie in the intersections between drug use, recovery, ageing, gender, and the body. Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were undertaken with 19 women in the UK who self-identified as "in recovery" from illicit drug use. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis techniques. The study received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow. Results: Key findings from the interviews relate to the women's personal sense of power in relation to current and future health status, the challenges they endured in terms of ageing in recovery and transitioning through the reproductive life cycle, and the somatic effects of trauma on women's recovery. The findings demonstrate that health in recovery involves more than abstinence from drugs. Discussion: Moving from the body in active drug use to the body in recovery is not without its challenges for mid-life and older women. New sensations and feelings-physical and mental-must be re-interpreted in light of their ageing and drug-free bodies. This study reveals some of the substantive sex-based differences that older women in active drug use and recovery experience. This has important implications for healthcare and treatment for women in drug services and women with histories of drug use more generally.

Correction to: Psychiatric comorbidity and intimate partner violence among women who inject drugs in Europe: a cross-sectional study.

The original version of this article unfortunately missed the Acknowledgment.

Psychiatric comorbidity and intimate partner violence among women who inject drugs in Europe: a cross-sectional study.

Women who inject drugs (WWID) are an especially vulnerable group of drug users. This study determined the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity and intimate partrner violence (IPV), and factors associated with psychiatric comorbidity among WWID recruited from drug treatment services (67%) and harm reduction services in five European regions in Austria, Catalonia, Italy, Poland, and Scotland. Psychiatric comorbidity was assessed among 226 WWID using the Dual Diagnosis Screening Instrument. IPV was assessed using the Composite Abuse Scale and injecting and sexual risk behaviors were assessed using a battery of questionnaires adapted and developed for the study. Eighty-seven percent met criteria for at least one lifetime psychiatric disorder. The most common disorders were depression (76%), panic (54%), and post-traumatic stress (52%). WWID recruited in drug treatment services were almost three times as likely (OR 2.90 95% CI 1.30-6.43; p = 0.007) to meet criteria for a lifetime psychiatric disorder than those recruited from harm reduction services, specifically dysthymia (OR 5.32 95% CI 2.27-12.48; p = 0.000) and post-traumatic stress disorder (OR 1.83 95% CI 1.02-3.27; p = 0.040). WWID who reported sharing needles and syringes were almost three times as likely to meet criteria for lifetime psychiatric comorbidity than those who did not (OR 2.65 95% CI 1.07-6.56). Compared to WWID who had not experienced IPV, victims (70%) were almost two times more likely to meet criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (OR 1.95 95% CI 1.10-3.48). Psychiatric comorbidity and IPV among WWID are common. Drug treatment and harm reduction services should address psychiatric comorbidity and IPV to improve treatment outcomes.

Preventing blood-borne virus infection in people who inject drugs in the UK: systematic review, stakeholder interviews, psychosocial intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid substitution therapy and needle exchanges have reduced blood-borne viruses (BBVs) among people who inject drugs (PWID). Some PWID continue to share injecting equipment. OBJECTIVES: To develop an evidence-based psychosocial intervention to reduce BBV risk behaviours and increase transmission knowledge among PWID, and conduct a feasibility trial among PWID comparing the intervention with a control. DESIGN: A pragmatic, two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility trial. Service users were Steering Group members and co-developed the intervention. Peer educators co-delivered the intervention in London. SETTING: NHS or third-sector drug treatment or needle exchanges in Glasgow, London, Wrexham and York, recruiting January and February 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Current PWID, aged ≥ 18 years. INTERVENTIONS: A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated participants to a three-session, manualised, psychosocial, gender-specific group intervention delivered by trained facilitators and BBV transmission information booklet plus treatment as usual (TAU) (intervention), or information booklet plus TAU (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment, retention and follow-up rates measured feasibility. Feedback questionnaires, focus groups with participants who attended at least one intervention session and facilitators assessed the intervention's acceptability. RESULTS: A systematic review of what works to reduce BBV risk behaviours among PWID; in-depth interviews with PWID; and stakeholder and expert consultation informed the intervention. Sessions covered improving injecting technique and good vein care; planning for risky situations; and understanding BBV transmission. Fifty-six per cent (99/176) of eligible PWID were randomised: 52 to the intervention group and 47 to the control group. Only 24% (8/34) of male and 11% (2/18) of female participants attended all three intervention sessions. Overall, 50% (17/34) of men and 33% (6/18) of women randomised to the intervention group and 47% (14/30) of men and 53% (9/17) of women randomised to the control group were followed up 1 month post intervention. Variations were reported by location. The intervention was acceptable to both participants and facilitators. At 1 month post intervention, no increase in injecting in 'risky' sites (e.g. groin, neck) was reported by participants who attended at least one session. PWID who attended at least one session showed a trend towards greater reduction in injecting risk behaviours, a greater increase in withdrawal planning and were more confident about finding a vein. A mean cost of £58.17 per participant was calculated for those attending one session, £148.54 for those attending two sessions and £270.67 for those attending all three sessions, compared with £0.86 in the control group. Treatment costs across the centres vary as a result of the different levels of attendance, as total session costs are divided by attendees to obtain a cost per attendee. The economic analysis suggests that a cost-effectiveness study would be feasible given the response rates and completeness of data. However, we have identified aspects where the service use questionnaire could be abbreviated given the low numbers reported in several care domains. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: As only 19% of participants attended all three intervention sessions and 47% were followed up 1 month post intervention, a future definitive randomised controlled trial of the intervention is not feasible. Exposure to information on improving injecting techniques did not encourage riskier injecting practices or injecting frequency, and benefits were reported among attendees. The intervention has the potential to positively influence BBV prevention. Harm reduction services should ensure that the intervention content is routinely delivered to PWID to improve vein care and prevent BBVs. FUTURE WORK: The intervention did not meet the complex needs of some PWID, more tailoring may be needed to reach PWID who are more frequent injectors, who are homeless and female. LIMITATIONS: Intervention delivery proved more feasible in London than other locations. Non-attendance at the York trial site substantially influenced the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66453696 and PROSPERO 014:CRD42014012969. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The acceptability and feasibility of a brief psychosocial intervention to reduce blood-borne virus risk behaviours among people who inject drugs: a randomised control feasibility trial of a psychosocial intervention (the PROTECT study) versus treatment as usual.

BACKGROUND: While opiate substitution therapy and injecting equipment provision (IEP) have reduced blood-borne viruses (BBV) among people who inject drugs (PWID), some PWID continue to share injecting equipment and acquire BBV. Psychosocial interventions that address risk behaviours could reduce BBV transmission among PWID. METHODS: A pragmatic, two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility study of PWID attending drug treatment or IEP in four UK regions. Ninety-nine PWID were randomly allocated to receive a three-session manualised psychosocial group intervention and BBV transmission information booklet plus treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 52) or information booklet plus TAU (n = 47). The intervention was developed from evidence-based literature, qualitative interviews with PWID, key stakeholder consultations, and expert opinion. Recruitment rates, retention in treatment, follow-up completion rates and health economic data completion measured feasibility. RESULTS: Fifty-six percent (99/176) of eligible PWID were recruited. More participants attended at least one intervention session in London (10/16; 63%) and North Wales (7/13; 54%) than in Glasgow (3/12; 25%) and York (0/11). Participants who attended no sessions (n = 32) compared to those attending at least one (n = 20) session were more likely to be homeless (56 vs 25%, p = 0.044), injected drugs for a greater number of days (median 25 vs 6.5, p = 0.019) and used a greater number of needles from an IEP in the last month (median 31 vs 20, p = 0.056). No adverse events were reported. 45.5% (45/99) were followed up 1 month post-intervention. Feedback forms confirmed that the intervention was acceptable to both intervention facilitators and participants who attended it. Follow-up attendance was associated with fewer days of injecting in the last month (median 14 vs 27, p = 0.030) and fewer injections of cocaine (13 vs 30%, p = 0.063). Analysis of the questionnaires identified several service use questionnaire categories that could be excluded from the assessment battery in a full-randomised controlled trial. CONCLUSIONS: Findings should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes. A future definitive RCT of the psychosocial intervention is not feasible. The complex needs of some PWID may have limited their engagement in the intervention. More flexible delivery methods may have greater reach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN66453696.

How do policy advisors and practitioners prioritise the protection of children from secondhand smoke exposure in a country with advanced tobacco control policy?

OBJECTIVES: The aim is to extend understanding of the policy and practice discourses that inform the development of national tobacco control policy to protect children from secondhand smoke exposure (SHSE) in the home, particularly in a country with successful implementation of smoke-free public places legislation. The Scottish experience will contribute to the tobacco control community, particularly those countries at a similar level of tobacco control, as normalising discourses about protecting children from SHSE are becoming more widespread. DESIGN: Case study design using qualitative interviews and focus groups (FGs) with policy makers, health and childcare practitioners during which they were presented with the findings of the Reducing Families' Exposure to Secondhand Smoke (REFRESH) intervention and discussed the implications for their policy and practice priorities. SETTING: Scotland, UK PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative interviews and FGs were conducted with 30 policy makers and practitioners who were purposively recruited. RESULTS: Participants accepted the harm of SHSE to children; however, action is limited by political expedience due to-the perception of a shift of the public health priority from smoking to alcohol, current financial constraints, more immediate child protection concerns and continuing unresolved ethical arguments. CONCLUSIONS: In a country, such as Scotland, with advanced tobacco control strategies, there continue to be challenges to policy and practice development in the more contentious arena of the home. Children's SHSE in their homes is unequivocally accepted as an important health priority, but it is not currently perceived to be a top public health priority in Scotland.

Creating smoke-free homes for children.

This article describes a tool that was designed to help nurses deliver health education on the subject of passive smoking. The tool is based on a Scottish study, which encouraged mothers to identify their own strategies for reducing smoking in the home in order to protect their children from being exposed to second-hand smoke. It is designed to give nurses and other health professionals who work with families and children the knowledge, skills and confidence they need to raise the issue of second-hand smoke with parents and help them to find their own solutions to reducing smoking in the home. This article also takes into consideration the implications for nursing practice that relate to raising the issue of exposing children to second-hand smoke with parents and carers.

REFRESH--reducing families' exposure to secondhand smoke in the home: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To study a novel intervention (REFRESH) aimed at reducing children's exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in their homes. DESIGN: A randomised feasibility study. SETTING: Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 59 smoking mothers with at least one child younger than 6 years. Participation took place between July 2010 and March 2011. INTERVENTION: Four home visits over a 1-month period, which involved two 24-h measurements of home air quality (PM2.5) and a motivational interview to encourage changes to smoking behaviour within the home in order to reduce child SHS exposure. The enhanced group received their air quality data as part of their motivational interview at visit 2; the control group received that information at visit 4. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were comparisons of the data from visits 2 and 4 on the 24-h average concentration of PM2.5, the peak concentration of PM2.5, the percentage of time when household PM2.5 concentrations exceeded a health-based threshold of 35 µg/m(3) and child's salivary cotinine (in nanograms per millilitre). The views of the mothers from the enhanced group about their understanding of the intervention and the measures used were also analysed to assess the acceptability and utility of the intervention. RESULTS: Of the recruited 54 participants, 48 completed the study: 27 from the control group and 21 from the enhanced group. Both groups experienced reductions in PM2.5 concentrations. When testing paired samples for the enhanced group, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between visit 2 and visit 4 values for maximum PM2.5 (p=0.006) and for percentage of time over 35 µg/m(3) (p=0.017), with average PM2.5 approaching significance (p=0.056). There was no significant difference for salivary cotinine. The qualitative findings showed that mothers were able to understand the data they were shown and were shocked by the values measured in their homes despite being aware of the effects of SHS exposure. They appreciated the intervention taking place in their homes as it allowed them to have personalised data. Many mothers described how they had changed their smoking behaviours in their home and in particular were motivated to protect their own children as a result of the knowledge they had gained. CONCLUSIONS: Providing mothers who smoke with personalised results about the indoor air quality of their homes along with a motivational interview is feasible and has an effect on improving household air quality. Participants found the intervention understandable and acceptable. Taken overall, the results suggest that a future large-scale trial using measurements of indoor air quality as part of a complex intervention to reduce children's SHS exposure should be explored.

'I'm not doing this for me': mothers' accounts of creating smoke-free homes.

This article explores mothers' narratives of changing home smoking behaviours after participating in an intervention (Reducing Families' Exposure to Smoking in the Home [REFRESH]) aimed at reducing families' exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in homes in Scotland. An analysis of qualitative findings illuminates quantitative changes in levels of SHS exposure. Prospective quantitative and qualitative data were drawn from 21 smoking mothers with at least one child under 6 years. Quantitative change was measured by home air quality, i.e. fine particulate matter <2.5µg (PM(2.5)). These measurements guided the organization of mothers into categories of change (smoke-free home at baseline [SFB], smoke-free home at final, some change and no change [NC]). Qualitative data from 17 mothers with non-SFB were analysed thematically within and across these categories. Three comparative case studies illustrate the varying changes made, barriers to change and how mothers valued such changes. The outcomes varied post-intervention, with homes smoke-free, partially smoke-free or making NC. The changes in home smoking behaviour were incremental, yet beneficial to reducing SHS exposure, and related to the nature of the restrictions and personal circumstances in the home pre-intervention. Across all change categories, mothers valued the changes they had made and expressed an intention to increase the changes.

Factors influencing exposure to secondhand smoke in preschool children living with smoking mothers.

INTRODUCTION: The health effects on young children of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) are well described. Recent work suggests that over one quarter of school-aged children in Scotland are regularly exposed to SHS in the home. The study was designed to describe SHS exposure in preschool children whose mothers smoked and identify factors that influence exposure. METHODS: Smoking mothers with at least one child aged 1-5 years were recruited to the Reducing Families' Exposure to Secondhand Smoke in the Home study. Concentrations of airborne particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in size (PM(2.5)) in the home were measured together with child's salivary cotinine. Demographics including age, accommodation type, socioeconomic status, and number of cigarettes smoked at home were recorded. RESULTS: Data were collected from 54 homes. In 89% of the homes, concentrations of PM(2.5) exceeded health-based guidance values at some point of the day. Household PM(2.5) concentrations were highest during the evening hours of 6 p.m. to midnight. Younger children had higher salivary cotinine concentrations than older children, and the geometric mean of salivary cotinine was 2.36 ng/ml. Household smoking restrictions and maternal confidence in enforcing smoking restrictions in their own home were strongly associated with child's SHS exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Preschool children's exposure to SHS in homes where the mother smokes is considerable. Interventions and policy development to increase parental awareness of the health effects of SHS and provide parents with the confidence to implement smoke-free households are required to reduce the SHS exposure of preschool age children.