Experiences of prison among injecting drug users in England: A qualitative study

Her village: experiences of drug-involved women in a female-only aftercare program in the Philippines

PURPOSE

Women are exposed to vulnerabilities that can lead to drug use or hinder recovery. However, there is a dearth of studies on recovery programs for women. This study aims to add to the literature by examining the feasibility of a women-only aftercare program for recovering users in the Philippines.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The study used a mixed-method design with pre and post-program surveys used to measure changes in participants' recovery capital. Focused group discussions elicited participants' context, their reactions, perceived outcomes and suggestions on the program.

FINDINGS

Women in the program shared narratives of pain, trauma and abuse before treatment. Participants reported significant improvements in personal, community and family recovery capital dimensions. The program enabled personal growth in the form of new knowledge, skills and self-confidence. The women-only program also provided a safe space for women, to receive support from other women, community members and family. However, the women continue to face continuing challenges related to stigma and discrimination and a lack of livelihood opportunities.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

A limitation of the study was its small sample size and the lack of a control group. Another limitation was the variability in treatment received by the women, which could have affected overall outcomes. Future studies using a randomized control trial and longitudinal designs may provide more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of the program.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Given punitive contexts, gender-sensitive and trauma-informed programs and services for women involved in drug use could potentially mitigate the abuse, stigma and vulnerabilities they experience.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This study contributes to the sparse literature on women-only aftercare, particularly in countries that criminalize drug use.

Dihydrocodeine for detoxification and maintenance treatment in individuals with opiate use disorders

BACKGROUND

Medical treatment and detoxification from opiate disorders includes oral administration of opioid agonists. Dihydrocodeine (DHC) substitution treatment is typically low threshold and therefore has the capacity to reach wider groups of opiate users. Decisions to prescribe DHC to patients with less severe opiate disorders centre on its perceived safety, reduced toxicity, shorter half-life and more rapid onset of action, and potential retention of patients. This review set out to investigate the effects of DHC in comparison to other pharmaceutical opioids and placebos in the detoxification and substitution of individuals with opiate use disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of DHC in reducing illicit opiate use and other health-related outcomes among adults compared to other drugs or placebos used for detoxification or substitution therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2019 we searched Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Trialsjournal.com. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effect of DHC for detoxification and maintenance substitution therapy for adolescent (aged 15 years and older) and adult illicit opiate users. The primary outcomes were abstinence from illicit opiate use following detoxification or maintenance therapy measured by self-report or urinalysis. The secondary outcomes were treatment retention and other health and behaviour outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard methodological procedures that are outlined by Cochrane. This includes the GRADE approach to appraise the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials (in five articles) with 385 opiate-using participants that measured outcomes at different follow-up periods in this review. Two studies with 150 individuals compared DHC with buprenorphine for detoxification, and one study with 235 participants compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy. We downgraded the quality of evidence mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. For the two studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine, we found low-quality evidence of no significant difference between DHC and buprenorphine for detoxification at six-month follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.39; P = 0.23) in the meta-analysis for the primary outcome of abstinence from illicit opiates. Similarly, low-quality evidence indicated no difference for treatment retention (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.68; P = 0.06). In the single trial that compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy, the evidence was also of low quality, and there may be no difference in effects between DHC and methadone for reported abstinence from illicit opiates (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.29). For treatment retention at six months' follow-up in this single trial, the RR calculated with an intention-to-treat analysis also indicated that there may be no difference between DHC and methadone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16). The studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine reported no serious adverse events, while the DHC versus methadone study reported one death due to methadone overdose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence that DHC may be no more effective than other commonly used pharmacological interventions in reducing illicit opiate use. It is therefore premature to make any conclusive statements about the effectiveness of DHC, and it is suggested that further high-quality studies are conducted, especially in low- to middle-income countries.

Exploring prison buprenorphine misuse in the United Kingdom: a qualitative study of former prisoners

The United Kingdom Ministry of Justice recently highlighted the extent of buprenorphine (Subutex) misuse in English andWelsh prisons, naming it the third most misused drug overall. Yet little is known regarding how illicit buprenorphine is obtained in prison and what influences prisoners to use it. Qualitative research was used to explore prison drug using practices. Thirty men who were former prisoners with a history of injecting drug use were interviewed in depth about their illicit prison drug use, including buprenorphine. Interviews were conducted over 18 months, from August 2006 to January 2008 and were analysed using Framework. The misuse of Subutex by snorting emerged as a significant theme. Accounts suggested that the diversion of prison prescribed Subutex was widespread and prisoners used various tactics to obtain the medication. Various complex and interlinked reasons were given to explain why Subutex was snorted in prison. The main motivation for snorting was to experience a prolonged euphoric opiate effect, believed to help to combat the boredom of being in prison. The price of illicit Subutex in prison was linked to its availability, but it was generally cheaper than heroin, thus contributing to its use. Participants'narratives identified the belief that snorting Subutex in prison was not risk free, but risks were lower than continuing to use other drugs, particularly injecting illicit opiates. The implications of prison Subutex misuse for prisoners, prison medical services, commissioners, and prescribing policy and practice are discussed.

Factors Associated with Leaving Hospital against Medical Advice among People Who Use Illicit Drugs in Vancouver, Canada

BACKGROUND

Leaving hospital against medical advice (AMA) is common among people who use illicit drugs (PWUD) and is associated with severe health-related harms and costs. However, little is known about the prevalence of and factors associated with leaving AMA among PWUD.

METHODS

Data were collected through two Canadian prospective cohort studies involving PWUD between September 2005 and July 2011 and linked to a hospital admission/discharge database. Bivariable and multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to examine factors associated with leaving hospital AMA among PWUD who were hospitalized.

RESULTS

Among 488 participants who experienced at least one hospitalization, 212 (43.4%) left the hospital AMA at least once during the study period. In multivariable analyses, factors positively and significantly associated with leaving hospital AMA included: unstable employment (AOR = 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-3.03); recent incarceration (AOR = 1.63; 95%CI: 1.07-2.49); ≥ daily heroin injection (AOR = 1.49; 95%CI: 1.05-2.11); and younger age per year younger (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.04; 95%CI: 1.02-1.06).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a substantial proportion of PWUD in this setting left hospital AMA and that various markers of risk and vulnerability were associated with this phenomenon. Our findings highlight the need to address substance abuse issues early following hospital admission. These findings further suggest a need to develop novel interventions to minimize PWUD leaving hospital prematurely.

A comparison of risk factors for hepatitis C among young and older adult prisoners

Internationally, the prevalence of hepatitis C infection is higher among prisoners when compared to the general population, particularly among people who inject drugs. This study estimates the prevalence of, and compares the risk factors for, hepatitis C in young (< 25 years) and older (≥ 25 years) prisoners with a history of injection drug use. Participants were 677 sentenced prisoners in Queensland, Australia, with a lifetime history of injection drug use, recruited in the 6 weeks prior to release from custody. The prevalence of hepatitis C exposure was significantly lower in young prisoners than in older prisoners (20.7% vs. 29.4%, p = .03). Risk factors for hepatitis C varied between young and older prisoners. Young people who inject drugs and who have had shorter time at risk of hepatitis C exposure are an important target group for hepatitis C prevention efforts.

Comparison of methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification (LEEDS trial): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many opiate users require prescribed medication to help them achieve abstinence, commonly taking the form of a detoxification regime. In UK prisons, drug users are nearly universally treated for their opiate use by primary care clinicians, and once released access GP services where 40% of practices now treat drug users. There is a paucity of evidence evaluating methadone and buprenorphine (the two most commonly prescribed agents in the UK) for opiate detoxification.

AIM

To evaluate whether buprenorphine or methadone help to achieve drug abstinence at completion of a reducing regimen for heroin users presenting to UK prison health care for detoxification.

DESIGN

Open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in three prison primary healthcare departments in the north of England.

METHOD

Prisoners (n = 306) using illicit opiates were recruited and given daily sublingual buprenorphine or oral methadone, in the context of routine care, over a standard reduced regimen of not more than 20 days. The primary outcome measure was abstinence from illicit opiates at 8 days post detoxification, as indicated by urine test (self-report/clinical notes where urine sample was not feasible). Secondary outcomes were also recorded.

RESULTS

Abstinence was ascertained for 73.7% at 8 days post detoxification (urine sample = 52.6%, self report = 15.2%, clinical notes = 5.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the odds of achieving abstinence between methadone and buprenorphine (odds ratio [OR] = 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 3.51; P = 0.163). Abstinence was associated solely with whether or not the participant was still in prison at that time (15.22 times the odds; 95% CI = 4.19 to 55.28). The strongest association for lasting abstinence was abstinence at an earlier time point.

CONCLUSION

There is equal clinical effectiveness between methadone and buprenorphine in achieving abstinence from opiates at 8 days post detoxification within prison.

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) prisons project: a randomised controlled trial comparing dihydrocodeine and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

Background

Many opiate users entering British prisons require prescribed medication to help them achieve abstinence. This commonly takes the form of a detoxification regime. Previously, a range of detoxification agents have been prescribed without a clear evidence base to recommend a drug of choice. There are few trials and very few in the prison setting. This study compares dihydrocodeine with buprenorphine.

Methods

Open label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in a large remand prison in the North of England. Ninety adult male prisoners requesting an opiate detoxification were randomised to receive either daily sublingual buprenorphine or daily oral dihydrocodeine, given in the context of routine care. All participants gave written, informed consent. Reducing regimens were within a standard regimen of not more than 20 days and were at the discretion of the prescribing doctor. Primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opiates as indicated by a urine test at five days post detoxification. Secondary outcomes were collected during the detoxification period and then at one, three and six months post detoxification. Analysis was undertaken using relative risk tests for categorical data and unpaired t-tests for continuous data.

Results

64% of those approached took part in the study. 63 men (70%) gave a urine sample at five days post detoxification. At the completion of detoxification, by intention to treat analysis, a higher proportion of people allocated to buprenorphine provided a urine sample negative for opiates (abstinent) compared with those who received dihydrocodeine (57% vs 35%, RR 1.61 CI 1.02–2.56). At the 1, 3 and 6 month follow-up points, there were no significant differences for urine samples negative for opiates between the two groups. Follow up rates were low for those participants who had subsequently been released into the community.

Conclusion

These findings would suggest that dihydrocodeine should not be routinely used for detoxification from opiates in the prison setting. The high relapse rate amongst those achieving abstinence would suggest the need for an increased emphasis upon opiate maintenance programmes in the prison setting.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07752728