Understanding people's experiences of the formal health and social care system for co-occurring heavy alcohol use and depression through the lens of relational autonomy: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Heavy alcohol use and depression commonly co-occur. However, health and social care services rarely provide coordinated support for these conditions. Using relational autonomy, which recognizes how social and economic contexts and relational support alter people's capacity for agency, this study aimed to (1) explore how people experience formal care provision for co-occurring alcohol use and depression, (2) consider how this context could lead to adverse outcomes for individuals and (3) understand the implications of these experiences for future policy and practice. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews underpinned by the methodology of interpretive description. SETTING: North East and North Cumbria, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine people (21 men and 18 women) with current or recent experience of co-occurring heavy alcohol use ([Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT] score ≥ 8]) and depression ([Patient Health Questionnaire test ≥ 5] screening tools to give an indication of their current levels of alcohol use and mental score). MEASUREMENTS: Semi-structured interview guide supported in-depth exploration of the treatment and care people had sought and received for heavy alcohol use and depression. FINDINGS: Most participants perceived depression as a key factor contributing to their heavy alcohol use. Three key themes were identified: (1) 'lack of recognition' of a relationship between alcohol use and depression and/or contexts that limit people's capacity to access help, (2) having 'nowhere to go' to access relevant treatment and care and (3) 'supporting relational autonomy' as opposed to assuming that individuals can organize their own care and recovery. Lack of access to appropriate treatment and provision that disregards individuals' differential capacity for agency may contribute to delays in help-seeking, increased distress and suicidal ideation. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with co-occurring heavy alcohol use and depression, lack of recognition of a relationship between alcohol use and depression and formal care provision that does not acknowledge people's social and economic context, including their intrinsic need for relational support, may contribute to distress and limit their capacity to get well.

Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation. Methods: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed. Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment. Interpretation: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term. Funding: Indivior.

Analysis of the UK Government's 10-Year Drugs Strategy-a resource for practitioners and policymakers.

In 2021, during a drug-related death crisis in the UK, the Government published its ten-year drugs strategy. This article, written in collaboration with the Faculty of Public Health and the Association of Directors of Public Health, assesses whether this Strategy is evidence-based and consistent with international calls to promote public health approaches to drugs, which put 'people, health and human rights at the centre'. Elements of the Strategy are welcome, including the promise of significant funding for drug treatment services, the effects of which will depend on how it is utilized by services and local commissioners and whether it is sustained. However, unevidenced and harmful measures to deter drug use by means of punishment continue to be promoted, which will have deleterious impacts on people who use drugs. An effective public health approach to drugs should tackle population-level risk factors, which may predispose to harmful patterns of drug use, including adverse childhood experiences and socioeconomic deprivation, and institute evidence-based measures to mitigate drug-related harm. This would likely be more effective, and just, than the continuation of policies rooted in enforcement. A more dramatic re-orientation of UK drug policy than that offered by the Strategy is overdue.

Experience and response to a randomised controlled trial of extended-release injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone for opioid use disorder: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and persistent disorder. The standard-of-care treatment is daily maintenance dosing of sublingual buprenorphine (BUP-SL) or oral methadone (MET). Monthly, extended-release, subcutaneous injectable buprenorphine (BUP-XR) has been developed to enhance treatment effectiveness. This study aims to investigate the experiences of participants who have been offered BUP-XR (evaluation 1), health-related quality-of-life among participants who have opted to receive BUP-XR longer term (evaluation 2) and the experiences of participants allocated to receive BUP-XR or BUP-SL or MET with the offer of adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention (evaluation 3). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three qualitative-quantitative (mixed-methods) evaluations embedded in a five-centre, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial of BUP-XR versus BUP-SL and MET in the UK. Evaluation 1 is a four-centre interview anchored on an OUD-related topic guide and conducted after the 24-week trial endpoint. Evaluation 2 is a two-centre interview anchored on medications for opioid use disorder-specific quality-of-life topic guide conducted among participants after 12-24 months. Evaluation 3: single-centre interview after the 24-week trial endpoint. All evaluations include selected trial clinical measures, with evaluation 2 incorporating additional questionnaires. Target participant recruitment for evaluations 1 and 2 is 15 participants per centre (n=60 and n=30, respectively). Recruitment for evaluation 3 is 15 participants per treatment arm (n=30). Each evaluation will be underpinned by theory, drawing on constructs from the behavioural model for health service use or the health-related quality-of-life model. Qualitative data analysis will be by iterative categorisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study protocol, consent materials and questionnaires were approved by the London-Brighton and Sussex research ethics committee (reference: 19/LO/0483) and the Health Research Authority (IRAS project number 255522). Participants will be provided with information sheets and informed written consent will be obtained for each evaluation. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2018-004460-63.

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.

Substance Use, Health, and Adverse Life Events amongst Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Users in North East England: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) are the second most commonly used class of illicit drugs globally, yet there is limited understanding of which factors contribute to different pathways of ATS use. We sought to compare current, former, and exposed non-ATS users' substance use, mental/physical health, and adverse life experiences. A cross-sectional survey, using computer-assisted personal interview software, was conducted between June 2018 and March 2019 in North East England. Quota-based sampling was used to recruit 389 individuals (aged 18 to 68; 52.6% male): 137 current ATS users; 174 former users; and 78 exposed non-users. Standardized screening questionnaires captured current/prior substance use. Participants self-reported diagnoses of selected physical and mental health disorders and specific adverse life experiences. Analysis used descriptive statistics and comparative tests (including chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U). Early exposure to illicit substances, challenging mental health, and certain adverse life experiences (such as growing up in statutory care) were more common in individuals currently using ATS compared to those who had never used or stopped using stimulants. Multi-level interventions are needed that address the mental health, social, and economic needs of people with dependent drug use. These could include targeted efforts to support children growing up under care, integrated mental health and substance use support, and joined-up substance use interventions reflective of wider structural factors.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of face-to-face and electronic brief interventions versus screening alone to reduce alcohol consumption among high-risk adolescents presenting to emergency departments: three-arm pragmatic randomized trial (SIPS Junior high risk trial).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol use increases throughout adolescence. Emergency department (ED) attendance is an opportunity for alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI), which is effective for adults. This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI compared with screening alone (SA) in high-risk adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-centre, three-group, single-blind, individually randomized trial with follow-ups after 6 and 12 months in 10 ED settings in England. From October 2014 to May 2015 we screened 3327 adolescents aged 14 to 18 years, of whom 756 (22.7%) scored at least 3 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: consumption (AUDIT-C) and consented to participate in this trial. Mean age was 16.1 years; 50.2% were female and 84.9% were white. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were personalized feedback and brief advice (PFBA), personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention (eBI) and SA. MEASURES: The primary outcome was the weekly alcohol consumed in standard UK units (8 g ethanol) at 12 months post-randomization, derived from extended AUDIT-C. Economic outcomes included quality of life and service use, from perspectives of both the National Health Service and personal social services (NHS&PSS) and society. FINDINGS: At 12 months, mean weekly consumption was 2.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.38-3.70] standard units for the SA group, 3.56 (95% CI = 2.90, 4.32) for PFBA and 3.18 (95% CI = 2.50, 3.97) for eBI, showing no significant differences. The PFBA group consumed mean 0.57 (-0.36, 1.70) units more than SA; and eBIs consumed 0.19 (-0.71, 1.30) more. Bayes factors suggested lack of effectiveness explained non-significance. From the NHS&PSS perspective, economic analysis showed that PFBA and eBI were not cost-effective compared with SA: PFBA yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £6213 (-£736 843, £812 884), with the intervention having 54% probability of being cost-effective compared with SA at the £20 000 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: In emergency departments in England, neither personalized feedback and brief advice nor personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention showed evidence of being effective or cost-effective when compared with screening alone in reducing alcohol consumption among adolescents.

Alcohol Misuse among English Youth, Are Harms Attributable to Alcohol or to Underlying Disinhibitory Characteristics?

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol use by young people is associated with a range of psychological and physical harms. However, similar harms are also reported with disinhibitory conditions such as conduct problems that are said to precede and predispose to alcohol misuse. We explored whether alcohol use or indicators of underlying disinhibition predict psychological and physical harms in a cohort of young people. METHODS: We used data from a randomised controlled intervention trial that identified young people who consumed alcohol (n = 756), mean age = 15.6 years, attending emergency departments (EDs) in England. Disinhibition was measured by the self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire hyperactivity and conduct problem items, and alcohol-related harms by questions from the ESPAD, a major European school survey. We conducted a mediation analysis with a primary outcome of frequency of engaging in alcohol-related harms 12 months after screening in ED, exploring for the mediating influence of alcohol consumed at six months. We included age, gender, allocated group and baseline consumption as covariates and adjusted for the multi-level nature of the study, where young people were nested within EDs. RESULTS: Conduct problems and to a lesser extent hyperactivity predicted harms at twelve months. This effect was not mediated by alcohol consumed at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Among young drinkers underlying behavioural attributes predict harm independently of alcohol use. This suggests that the harms associated with alcohol use are attributable more to underlying disinhibitory characteristics than the quantity of alcohol consumed.

Exploring pathways into and out of amphetamine type stimulant use at critical turning points: a qualitative interview study.

Amphetamine Type Stimulants (ATS) are increasingly used drugs globally. There is limited evidence about what shapes ATS use at critical turning points located within drug using pathways. Using turning point theory, as part of a life course approach, the ATTUNE study aimed to understand which social, economic and individual factors shape pathways into and out of ATS use. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews (n = 70) were undertaken with individuals who had used ATS, or had been exposed to them at least once. Our findings show that turning points for initiation were linked to pleasure, curiosity, boredom and declining mental health; increased use was linked to positive effects experienced at initiation and multiple life-stressors, leading to more intense use. Decreased use was prompted by pivotal events and sustained through continued wellbeing, day-to-day structure, and non-using social networks. We argue that the heterogeneity of these individuals challenges stereotypes of stimulant use allied to nightclubs and 'hedonism'. Further, at critical turning points for recovery, the use of services for problematic ATS consumption was low because users prioritised their alcohol or opioid use when seeking help. There is a need to develop service provision, training, and better outreach to individuals who need support at critical turning points.

Brief interventions to prevent excessive alcohol use in adolescents at low-risk presenting to Emergency Departments: Three-arm, randomised trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption and related harm increase rapidly from the age of 12 years. We evaluated whether alcohol screening and brief intervention is effective and cost-effective in delaying hazardous or harmful drinking amongst low-risk or abstaining adolescents attending Emergency Departments (EDs). METHODS: This ten-centre, three-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, pragmatic, individually randomised trial screened ED attenders aged between 14 and 17 years for alcohol consumption. We sampled at random one third of those scoring at most 2 on AUDIT-C who had access to the internet and, if aged under 16, were Gillick competent or had informed consent from parent or guardian. We randomised them between: screening only (control intervention); one session of face-to-face Personalised Feedback and Brief Advice (PFBA); and PFBA plus an electronic brief intervention (eBI) on smartphone or web. We conducted follow-up after six and 12 months. The principal outcomes were alcohol consumed over the 3 months before 12-month follow up, measured by AUDIT-C; and quality-adjusted life-years. FINDINGS: Between October 2014 and May 2015, we approached 5,016 eligible patients of whom 3,326 consented to be screened and participate in the trial; 2,571 of these were low-risk drinkers or abstainers, consuming an average 0.14 units per week. We randomised: 304 to screening only; 285 to PFBA; and 294 to PFBA and eBI. We found no significant difference between groups, notably in weekly alcohol consumption: those receiving screening only drank 0.10 units (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.18); PFBA 0.12 (0.06 to 0.21); PFBA and eBI 0.10 (0.05 to 0.19). INTERPRETATION: While drinking levels remained low in this population, this trial found no evidence that PFBA with or without eBI was more effective than screening alone in reducing or delaying alcohol consumption.

Preoperative behavioural intervention to reduce drinking before elective orthopaedic surgery: the PRE-OP BIRDS feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and extended hospital stay. Alcohol consumption therefore represents a modifiable risk factor for surgical outcomes. Brief behavioural interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption among increased risk and risky drinkers in other health-care settings and may offer a method of addressing preoperative alcohol consumption. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of introducing a screening process to assess adult preoperative drinking levels and to deliver a brief behavioural intervention adapted for the target population group. To conduct a two-arm (brief behavioural intervention plus standard preoperative care vs. standard preoperative care alone), multicentre, pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility of proceeding to a definitive trial. To conduct focus groups and a national web-based survey to establish current treatment as usual for alcohol screening and intervention in preoperative assessment. DESIGN: A single-centre, qualitative, feasibility study was followed by a multicentre, two-arm (brief behavioural intervention vs. treatment as usual), individually randomised controlled pilot trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. Focus groups and a quantitative survey were employed to characterise treatment as usual in preoperative assessment. SETTING: The feasibility study took place at a secondary care hospital in the north-east of England. The pilot trial was conducted at three large secondary care centres in the north-east of England. PARTICIPANTS: Nine health-care professionals and 15 patients (mean age 70.5 years, 86.7% male) participated in the feasibility study. Eleven health-care professionals and 68 patients (mean age 66.2 years, 80.9% male) participated in the pilot randomised trial. An additional 19 health-care professionals were recruited to one of three focus groups, while 62 completed an electronic survey to characterise treatment as usual. INTERVENTIONS: The brief behavioural intervention comprised two sessions. The first session, delivered face to face in the preoperative assessment clinic, involved 5 minutes of structured brief advice followed by 15-20 minutes of behaviour change counselling, including goal-setting, problem-solving and identifying sources of social support. The second session, an optional booster, took place approximately 1 week before surgery and offered the opportunity to assess progress and boost self-efficacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was assessed using rates of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The progression criteria for a definitive trial were recruitment of ≥ 40% of eligible patients and retention of ≥ 70% at 6-month follow-up. Acceptability was assessed using themes identified in qualitative data. RESULTS: The initial recruitment of eligible patients was low but improved with the optimisation of recruitment processes. The recruitment of eligible participants to the pilot trial (34%) fell short of the progression criteria but was mitigated by very high retention (96%) at the 6-month follow-up. Multimethod analyses identified the methods as acceptable to the patients and professionals involved and offers recommendations of ways to further improve recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention in reducing preoperative alcohol consumption and for secondary outcomes of surgical complications if recommendations for further improvements are adopted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36257982. 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. 24, No. 12. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Most patients undergoing knee and hip replacements are over 65 years old. Older patients have an increased risk of complications following surgery. Heavy alcohol consumption in the weeks before surgery increases the risk of complications after surgery, which can extend recovery times. Advice that helps patients reduce their alcohol consumption before surgery may have benefits for recovery. The PRE-OP BIRDS study had two parts: a feasibility study followed by a pilot randomised controlled trial with focus groups and an electronic survey used to characterise usual care in the preoperative assessment clinic. The feasibility study took place at one hospital. It aimed to develop materials that help health-care professionals provide brief advice to patients on how to reduce alcohol consumption before surgery. This brief advice was delivered to eligible patients and the acceptability to staff and patients was assessed in interviews. The pilot trial took place in three hospitals. Patients who agreed to take part were placed, by equal chance, into either a group that received usual care or a group that received usual care plus brief advice about reducing alcohol use. The aim was to count how many people agreed to take part and how many also agreed to complete a follow-up 6 months later. Interviews were carried out with patients and staff to explore their views on the intervention and the trial as a whole. All of this information was collected to help decide if a future larger trial was possible. This work found that the tools used were acceptable to both patients and staff. Although the number of people who agreed to take part was smaller than hoped, almost all of those who took part also completed the 6-month follow-up. Therefore, a future larger trial was found to be possible, but some changes could be made to encourage more people to take part.

The Association Between Adverse Child Health, Psychological, Educational and Social Outcomes, and Nondependent Parental Substance: A Rapid Evidence Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Between 5% and 30% of children in high-income countries live with a substance misusing parent, the majority of which is below dependent levels. However, little is understood about the impact of nondependent parental substance misuse upon children. METHODS: We searched the international literature using rigorous systematic methods to identify studies examining parental substance misuse and adverse outcomes in children. The inclusion criteria were cross-sectional, longitudinal, case-control, and cohort studies; of children aged 0-18 years whose parents are high-risk substance misusers; reporting on their health, psychological, substance use, educational, and social outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 36 papers (from 33 unique studies), most of which were assessed as being of medium to high methodological quality (N= 28). Parental nondependent substance misuse was found to be associated with adversity in children, with strong evidence of an association with externalizing difficulties (N = 7 papers, all finding an association) and substance use (N = 23 papers, all finding an association) in adolescents and some evidence of adverse health outcomes in early childhood (N = 6/8 papers finding an association). There is less evidence of an association between parental substance misuse and adverse educational and social outcomes. The body of evidence was largest for parental alcohol misuse, with research examining the impact of parental illicit drug use being limited. CONCLUSION: Methodological limitations restrict our ability to make causal inference. Nonetheless, the prevalence of adverse outcomes in children whose parents are nondependent substance misusers highlights the need for practitioners to intervene with this population before a parent has developed substance dependency.

Adolescent perspectives about their participation in alcohol intervention research in emergency care: A qualitative exploration using ethical principles as an analytical framework.

AIMS: To explore adolescents' experiences of consenting to, and participating in, alcohol intervention trials when attending for emergency care. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews with 27 adolescents (16 males; aged 14-17 years (Mage = 15.7)) who had taken part in one of two linked brief alcohol intervention trials based in 10 accident and emergency departments in England. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Research and intervention methods were generally found to be acceptable though confidentiality was important and parental presence could hinder truthful disclosures regarding alcohol use. Participants discussed the importance of being involved in research that was relevant to them and recognised alcohol consumption as a normative part of adolescence, highlighting the importance of having access to appropriate health information. Beyond this, they recognised the benefits and risks of trial participation for themselves and others with the majority showing a degree of altruism in considering longer term implications for others as well as themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol screening and intervention in emergency care is both acceptable and relevant to adolescents but acceptability is reliant on confidentiality being assured and may be inhibited by parental presence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Number: 45300218.

Opportunistic screening for alcohol use problems in adolescents attending emergency departments: an evaluation of screening tools.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare the optimal cut-off score of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT-C in identifying at-risk alcohol consumption, heavy episodic alcohol use, ICD-10 alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence in adolescents attending ED in England. DESIGN: Opportunistic cross-sectional survey. SETTING: 10 emergency departments across England. PARTICIPANTS: Adolescents (n = 5377) aged between their 10th and 18th birthday who attended emergency departments between December 2012 and May 2013. MEASURES: Scores on the AUDIT and AUDIT-C. At-risk alcohol consumption and monthly episodic alcohol consumption in the past 3 months were derived using the time-line follow back method. Alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence was assessed in accordance with ICD-10 criteria using the MINI-KID. FINDINGS: AUDIT-C with a score of 3 was more effective for at-risk alcohol use (AUC 0.81; sensitivity 87%, specificity 97%), heavy episodic use (0.84; 76%, 98%) and alcohol abuse (0.98; 91%, 90%). AUDIT with a score of 7 was more effective in identifying alcohol dependence (0.92; 96%, 94%). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-item AUDIT-C is more effective than AUDIT in screening adolescents for at-risk alcohol use, heavy episodic alcohol use and alcohol abuse. AUDIT is more effective than AUDIT-C for the identification of alcohol dependence.

Which individual, social and environmental influences shape key phases in the amphetamine type stimulant use trajectory? A systematic narrative review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is limited evidence on what shapes amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use trajectories. This systematic narrative review and qualitative synthesis aimed to identify individual, social and environmental influences shaping key phases in the ATS use trajectory: initiation, continuation, increase/relapse and decrease/abstinence. METHODS: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and PROQUEST (social science premium collection) were searched from 2000 to 2018. Studies of any qualitative design were eligible for inclusion. Extracted data were analysed according to four key phases within drug pathways, and then cross-analysed for individual, social and environmental influences. RESULTS: Forty-four papers based on 39 unique studies were included, reporting the views of 1879 ATS users. Participants were aged 14-58 years, from varied socio-economic and demographic groups, and located in North America, Europe, Australasia and South East Asia. Reasons for initiation included: to boost performance at work and in sexual relationships, promote a sense of social 'belonging' and help manage stress. Similar reasons motivated continued use, combined with the challenge of managing withdrawal effects in long-term users. Increased tolerance and/or experiencing a critical life event contributed to an increase in use. Reasons for decrease focused on: increased awareness of the negative health impacts of long-term use, disconnecting from social networks or relationships and financial instability. CONCLUSIONS: Amphetamine-type stimulant users are a highly diverse population, and their drug use careers are shaped by a complex dynamic of individual, social and environmental factors. Tailored, joined-up interventions are needed to address users' overlapping economic, health and social care needs in order to support long-term abstinence.

Preoperative Behavioural Intervention versus standard care to Reduce Drinking before elective orthopaedic Surgery (PRE-OP BIRDS): protocol for a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that increased preoperative alcohol consumption increases the risk of postoperative complications; therefore, a reduction or cessation in alcohol intake before surgery may reduce perioperative risk. Preoperative assessment presents an opportunity to intervene to optimise patients for surgery. This multicentre, two-arm, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial will investigate whether a definitive trial of a brief behavioural intervention aimed at reducing preoperative alcohol consumption is feasible and acceptable to healthcare professionals responsible for its delivery and the preoperative elective orthopaedic patient population. METHODS: Screening will be conducted by trained healthcare professionals at three hospitals in the North East of England. Eligible patients (those aged 18 or over, listed for elective hip or knee arthroplasty surgery and scoring 5 or more or reporting consumption of six or more units on a single occasion at least weekly on the alcohol screening tool) who enrol in the trial will be randomised on a one-to-one non-blinded basis to either treatment as usual or brief behavioural intervention delivered in the pre-assessment clinic. Patients will be followed up 1-2 days pre-surgery, 1-5 days post-surgery (as an in-patient), 6 weeks post-surgery, and 6 months post intervention. Feasibility will be assessed through rates of screening, eligibility, recruitment, and retention to 6-month follow-up. An embedded qualitative study will explore the acceptability of study methods to patients and staff. DISCUSSION: This pilot randomised controlled trial will establish the feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures reducing uncertainties ahead of a definitive randomised controlled trial to establish the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention to reduce alcohol consumption in the preoperative period and the potential impact on perioperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Reference number ISRCTN36257982.

Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Police Custody Suites: Pilot Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (AcCePT).

AIMS: There is a clear association between alcohol use and offending behaviour and significant police time is spent on alcohol-related incidents. This study aimed to test the feasibility of a trial of screening and brief intervention in police custody suites to reduce heavy drinking and re-offending behaviour. SHORT SUMMARY: We achieved target recruitment and high brief intervention delivery if this occurred immediately after screening. Low rates of return for counselling and retention at follow-up were challenges for a definitive trial. Conversely, high consent rates for access to police data suggested at least some outcomes could be measured remotely. METHODS: A three-armed pilot Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial with an embedded qualitative interview-based process evaluation to explore acceptability issues in six police custody suites (north east and south west of the UK). Interventions included: 1. Screening only (Controls), 2. 10 min Brief Advice 3. Brief Advice plus 20 min of brief Counselling. RESULTS: Of 3330 arrestees approached: 2228 were eligible for screening (67%) and 720 consented (32%); 386 (54%) scored 8+ on AUDIT; and 205 (53%) were enroled (79 controls, 65 brief advice and 61 brief counselling). Follow-up rates at 6 and 12 months were 29% and 26%, respectively. However, routinely collected re-offending data were obtained for 193 (94%) participants. Indices of deprivation data were calculated for 184 (90%) participants; 37.6% of these resided in the 20% most deprived areas of UK. Qualitative data showed that all arrestees reported awareness that participation was voluntary, that the trial was separate from police work, and the majority said trial procedures were acceptable. CONCLUSION: Despite hitting target recruitment and same-day brief intervention delivery, a future trial of alcohol screening and brief intervention in a police custody setting would only be feasible if routinely collected re-offending and health data were used for outcome measurement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN number: 89291046.

How does Economic Recession Affect Substance Use? A Reality Check with Clients of Drug Treatment Centres.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between economic downturns and substance use has been studied in numerous economic crises occurring worldwide, but the precise relationship between the two remains unclear. AIMS: The aim of the present study was to undertake a survey on behaviour and perspectives related to the latest European economic crisis among illegal drug users attending substance treatment services. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire-based survey in drug dependence treatment settings, in three geographically different jurisdictions (England, Catalonia and Poland), including 180 drug users. RESULTS: Most of the participants of the survey (58.3%) reported an increase in drug use during the crisis, compared with only 25.6% of the sample who reported a decrease in drug use. The main reason given for increasing drug use was greater amount of free time available. Other important reasons were greater substance availability during this period, more stress at work and seeking comfort in response to the loss of a stable source of income, social status and/or family. Those who reported cutting down on the amount of drug use during the economic recession, reported economic difficulties as the main reason. Other important factors were family and friends' economic problems and the fear of losing their job. Illegal drug use reduction was compensated by increased smoking in 46.3% of the patients, and increased alcohol use in 39.4%. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: While this result has potential interest for those developing policies and interventions to reduce drug-related harm, longitudinal studies and future research involving a broader population of drug-users (including those not in treatment) could shed further light on these behavioural mechanisms linking changes in drug use with economic recessions.