Suchergebnisse

The idea of identifying and monitoring urinary excretion of illicit drugs and their metabolites in wastewater has been seen by governments and international organisations as 'promising'. It is claimed that such approaches will enable governments to effectively direct resources to priority areas, monitor the progress of demand and supply reduction strategies, as well as identify emerging trends. Drawing on poststructural approaches to policy analysis and insights from science and technology studies, we consider how the technology of wastewater analysis may be seen as a kind of proposal with productive capacity and constitutive effects. Through this analysis, we seek to raise ontopolitical questions about the production of data by interrogating the claims to 'accuracy' promoted in wastewater analysis, and illuminating the assumptions underpinning such pursuits. By taking an approach which sees method as performative rather than as descriptive of a pre-existing reality, we consider how wastewater analysis enacts realities into being in the drugs field. Taking Australia's National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program as a case example, we argue that wastewater analysis constitutes drug use as measurable, countable and comparable and, in doing so, enacts a homogenous drug using population in a bounded geographical space, with implications for drug policy. Furthermore, the claim to 'accuracy' constitutes people who use drugs as lacking in knowledge and unaware, and relates to a range of practices which work to continually re-produce people who use drugs as criminal, untrustworthy and in need of surveillance. Through this analysis, we seek to generate critical discussion about practices of 'evidence-making', the privileging of 'scientific data' in drug policy processes (especially as it relates to population prevalence of drug use), and the hitherto unexamined effects of wastewater analysis for drug policy.

This paper critically analyses the introduction of drug detection dogs as a tool for policing of illicit drugs in New South Wales, Australia. Using Kingdon's 'multiple streams' heuristic as a lens for analysis, we identify how the issue of drugs policing became prominent on the policy agenda, and the conditions under which the alternative of drug detection dogs for illicit drugs policing came to be endorsed by decision makers. By applying Kingdon's heuristic, we also consider how this approach may be used to illuminate the limitations of the evidence-based policy paradigm in the context of policing policy.

The aim of this paper is to describe a new comprehensive approach to studying illicit drug policy - one that integrates evidence, disciplinary approaches, drug use behaviours and policy making processes. The methods described here include systematic reviews of the evidence, studies of the ways in which policy decision-making actually occurs, and the use of modelling approaches that can explicate the multi-dimensional nature of drug policy responses and their dynamic interactions. The approach described has the potential to facilitate new drug policy that would not have been possible or apparent through the sole study of one aspect of drug policy, such as the evidence-base or the political context or the economics of drug markets. We believe this approach may be more likely to produce strategic drug policy because it reflects the richness and complexity of the real world of drug use, and drug policy. The purpose of employing an integrative methodology is to create the potential for new drug policy insights, ideas and interventions - not restricted to one body of evidence, nor to accidental or fortuitous policy-making processes.

Objectives: We investigated how a randomised controlled trial (RCT) could be designed to incorporate features known or thought likely to enhance the uptake of the new treatment into clinical practice post-trial. Method and Results: Between 1999 and 2001

The aim of this paper is to describe a new comprehensive approach to studying illicit drug policy - one that integrates evidence, disciplinary approaches, drug use behaviours and policy making processes. The methods described here include systematic reviews of the evidence, studies of the ways in which policy decision-making actually occurs, and the use of modelling approaches that can explicate the multi-dimensional nature of drug policy responses and their dynamic interactions. The approach described has the potential to facilitate new drug policy that would not have been possible or apparent through the sole study of one aspect of drug policy, such as the evidence-base or the political context or the economics of drug markets. We believe this approach may be more likely to produce strategic drug policy because it reflects the richness and complexity of the real world of drug use, and drug policy. The purpose of employing an integrative methodology is to create the potential for new drug policy insights, ideas and interventions - not restricted to one body of evidence, nor to accidental or fortuitous policy-making processes.

The payment of research participants raises ethical and empirical questions that have special importance in addictions research involving drug-dependent participants. Despite a now large literature on human subjects payment, what is still needed is practical guidance for investigators and ethics committees. This paper reviews the literature on: Current payment practices and guidelines; defining features of undue and due incentives and fair reimbursement; and the significance of risks and harms that may arise from paying drug using participants. We conclude that research payments are ethically acceptable in most circumstances of addictions research, but should be closely scrutinized in situations where these may exacerbate existing harms or create additional risks for participants and investigators. General principles, key questions and procedural options are highlighted for an applied approach to ethical research payments. Future research directions are identified.

Abstract. Background: Harm reduction is an integral component of Australia's overall national drug policy. Harm reduction policy and interventions can be applied to any legal or illegal drug to mitigate harm without necessarily reducing use, but harm reduction is traditionally conceptualised in relation to injecting drug use. Early and comprehensive adoption of many innovative harm reduction interventions has meant that Australia has had significant success in reducing a number of drug related harms, avoided disease epidemics experienced in other countries, and established programs and practices that are of international renown. However, these gains were not easily established, nor necessarily permanent. Aim: In this paper we explore the past and present harm reduction policy and practice contexts that normalised and facilitated harm reduction as a public health response, as well as those converse contexts currently creating opposition to additional or expanded interventions. Importantly, this paper discusses the intersection between various interventions, such as needle and syringe distribution and drug treatment programs. Finally, we detail some of the practical lessons that have been learned via the Australian experience, with the hope that these lessons will assist to inform and improve international harm reduction implementation.

AbstractThe value of place‐based initiatives in the design and delivery of human services has long been recognised, but the need for hybrid service delivery to clients—that is any combination of online and in‐person modalities—has become more apparent in the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic. At face value, there may be a perceived contradiction between the reliance on geographical place in place‐based initiatives and online service delivery. Yet, it is inevitable that human services will increasingly be delivered in a hybrid form—even in the context of place‐based initiatives. This exploratory study included a modified Delphi method and deliberative panels with policymakers, service providers, and academics with experience and/or knowledge of hybrid place‐based initiatives. A central finding was the lack of respondents' shared understanding and ability to link the three central intersecting ideas being examined in this research: 'hybrid' and 'place‐based' and 'human services'. The principles underpinning place‐based initiatives need to be retained when incorporating online service delivery within place‐based initiatives. This reflects the need to develop a shared lexicon on hybrid place‐based initiatives and more creative understandings and interpretations of the relationship between people and place.Points for practitioners
Increasingly, human services are being designed, implemented, and delivered through place‐based initiatives, yet the success of place‐based initiatives often relies on more than just face‐to‐face service delivery.
The COVID‐19 pandemic shifted many human services online, but how this has impacted on place‐based initiatives and their defining features of co‐location, collaboration, and co‐design has not been explored to date.
Following the pandemic, both service providers and clients see the benefit in retaining and integrating face‐to‐face and online services, without understanding how best to achieve this with place‐based initiatives.
This study draws on practices developed during the pandemic to understand how to best provide hybrid services (integrating in‐person and online services) and shows the relevance of hybrid services to place‐based initiatives and considerations moving forward.

Naloxone is a well-established essential medicine for the treatment of life-threatening heroin/opioid overdose in emergency medicine. Over two decades, the concept of 'take-home naloxone' has evolved, comprising pre-provision of an emergency supply to laypersons likely to witness an opioid overdose (e.g. peers and family members of people who use opioids as well as non-medical personnel), with the recommendation to administer the naloxone to the overdose victim as interim care while awaiting an ambulance. There is an urgent need for more widespread naloxone access considering the growing problem of opioid overdose deaths, accounting for more than 100,000 deaths worldwide annually. Rises in mortality are particularly sharp in North America, where the ongoing prescription opioid problem is now overlaid with a rapid growth in overdose deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Using opioids alone is dangerous, and the mortality risk is clustered at certain times and contexts, including on prison release and discharge from hospital and residential care. The provision of take-home naloxone has required the introduction of new legislation and new naloxone products. These include pre-filled syringes and auto-injectors and, crucially, new concentrated nasal sprays (four formulations recently approved in different countries) with speed of onset comparable to intramuscular naloxone and relative bioavailability of approximately 40-50%. Choosing the right naloxone dose in the fentanyl era is a matter of ongoing debate, but the safety margin of the approved nasal sprays is superior to improvised nasal kits. New legislation in different countries permits over-the-counter sales or other prescription-free methods of provision. However, access remains uneven with take-home naloxone still not provided in many countries and communities, and with ongoing barriers contributing to implementation inertia. Take-home naloxone is an important component of the response to the global overdose problem, but greater commitment to implementation will be essential, alongside improved affordable products, if a greater impact is to be achieved.

Naloxone is a well-established essential medicine for the treatment of life-threatening heroin/opioid overdose in emergency medicine. Over two decades, the concept of 'take-home naloxone' has evolved, comprising pre-provision of an emergency supply to laypersons likely to witness an opioid overdose (e.g. peers and family members of people who use opioids as well as non-medical personnel), with the recommendation to administer the naloxone to the overdose victim as interim care while awaiting an ambulance. There is an urgent need for more widespread naloxone access considering the growing problem of opioid overdose deaths, accounting for more than 100,000 deaths worldwide annually. Rises in mortality are particularly sharp in North America, where the ongoing prescription opioid problem is now overlaid with a rapid growth in overdose deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Using opioids alone is dangerous, and the mortality risk is clustered at certain times and contexts, including on prison release and discharge from hospital and residential care. The provision of take-home naloxone has required the introduction of new legislation and new naloxone products. These include pre-filled syringes and auto-injectors and, crucially, new concentrated nasal sprays (four formulations recently approved in different countries) with speed of onset comparable to intramuscular naloxone and relative bioavailability of approximately 40–50%. Choosing the right naloxone dose in the fentanyl era is a matter of ongoing debate, but the safety margin of the approved nasal sprays is superior to improvised nasal kits. New legislation in different countries permits over-the-counter sales or other prescription-free methods of provision. However, access remains uneven with take-home naloxone still not provided in many countries and communities, and with ongoing barriers contributing to implementation inertia. Take-home naloxone is an important component of the response to the global overdose problem, but greater commitment to implementation will be essential, alongside improved affordable products, if a greater impact is to be achieved. ; publishedVersion

Naloxone is a well-established essential medicine for the treatment of life-threatening heroin/opioid overdose in emergency medicine. Over two decades, the concept of 'take-home naloxone' has evolved, comprising pre-provision of an emergency supply to laypersons likely to witness an opioid overdose (e.g. peers and family members of people who use opioids as well as non-medical personnel), with the recommendation to administer the naloxone to the overdose victim as interim care while awaiting an ambulance. There is an urgent need for more widespread naloxone access considering the growing problem of opioid overdose deaths, accounting for more than 100,000 deaths worldwide annually. Rises in mortality are particularly sharp in North America, where the ongoing prescription opioid problem is now overlaid with a rapid growth in overdose deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Using opioids alone is dangerous, and the mortality risk is clustered at certain times and contexts, including on prison release and discharge from hospital and residential care. The provision of take-home naloxone has required the introduction of new legislation and new naloxone products. These include pre-filled syringes and auto-injectors and, crucially, new concentrated nasal sprays (four formulations recently approved in different countries) with speed of onset comparable to intramuscular naloxone and relative bioavailability of approximately 40–50%. Choosing the right naloxone dose in the fentanyl era is a matter of ongoing debate, but the safety margin of the approved nasal sprays is superior to improvised nasal kits. New legislation in different countries permits over-the-counter sales or other prescription-free methods of provision. However, access remains uneven with take-home naloxone still not provided in many countries and communities, and with ongoing barriers contributing to implementation inertia. Take-home naloxone is an important component of the response to the global overdose problem, but greater commitment to implementation ...

Abstract

Aims
The COVID-19 pandemic presents the opportunity to learn about solitary drinking as many people were forced to spend time at home. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between solitary drinking and living without other adults on alcohol consumption.


Methods
A longitudinal study with four survey waves (between May and November 2020) obtained seven-day drinking diary data from Australian adults living in New South Wales. In May, a convenience sample of 586 participants (Mage = 35.3, SD = 14.8; 65.3% women) completed the first wave. Participants then completed a survey in June (n = 319, 54.4% response rate), July/August (n = 225, 38.4% response rate), and November (n = 222, 37.9% response rate). Information about alcohol consumption including risky drinking (more than four drinks on one occasion), household structure, solitary drinking, and demographics were collected. We conducted random-effects panel bivariate and multivariable regression analyses predicting the number of standard drinks and risky drinking.


Results
Participants with solitary drinking occasions consumed more and had more risky drinking occasions than participants with no solitary drinking occasions, which was also found to be the case during lockdown. Living without other adults was associated with less consumption and less risky drinking than living with other adults. However, participants who lived without other adults and had frequent solitary drinking occasions (solitary drinking in >50% drinking occasions) reported more consumption than participants without a solitary drinking occasion.


Conclusions
Individuals who consume alcohol alone and live without other adults or spend long periods of time at home may be more at risk of alcohol-related harm.