Search

This paper provides a personal memoir of historical work at the Addiction Research Unit, in particular the genesis of the book Opium and the People. This topic had policy significance for US drug policy and a competing US study was funded. The development of the substance use history field is surveyed, and its expansion in recent times through a focused professional association and a critical mass of researchers in the area, covering a wide range of topics. The politics of using history in this area can be problematic. History now sits at the policy table more easily, but there is still a tendency for professionals in the field to use (and misuse) it, rather than calling on the interpretive and challenging approach they would obtain from professional historians. The paper calls for historians and others to move beyond a substance specific focus and to avoid the tendency for 'naive history' implicit in using only digitized industry archives as the sole source. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Public health policy development is subject to a range of stakeholders presenting their arguments to influence opinion on the best options for policy action. This paper compares stakeholders' positions in the discourse networks of two pricing policy debates in the United Kingdom: minimum unit pricing for alcohol (MUP) and the soft drinks industry levy (SDIL). Design Discourse analysis was combined with network visualization to create representations of stakeholders' positions across the two policy debates as they were represented in 11 national UK newspapers. Setting: United Kingdom. Observations: For the MUP debate 1924 statements by 152 people from 87 organizations were coded from 348 articles. For the SDIL debate 3883 statements by 214 people from 175 organizations were coded from 511 articles. Measurements Network analysis techniques were used to identify robust argumentative similarities and maximize the identification of network structures. Network measures of size, connectedness and cohesion were used to compare discourse networks. Findings The networks for both pricing debates involve a similar range of stakeholder types and form clusters representing policy discourse coalitions. The SDIL network is larger than the MUP network, particularly the proponents' cluster, with more than three times as many stakeholders. Both networks have tight clusters of manufacturers, think‐tanks and commercial analysts in the opponents' coalition. Public health stakeholders appear in both networks, but no health charity or advocacy group is common to both. Conclusion: A comparison of the discourse in the UK press during the policy development processes for minimum unit pricing for alcohol and the soft drinks industry levy suggests greater cross‐sector collaboration among policy opponents than proponents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Griffith Edwards played an important role in cannabis policy debates within government advisory committees in the United Kingdom from the early 1970s until the early 1980s. This has largely been hidden from public knowledge by the confidentiality of these committee discussions. The purpose of this paper is to use Griffith's writings and the results of recent historical scholarship to outline the views he expressed, the reasons he gave for them, and to provide a brief assessment of his contribution to the development of British cannabis policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the political origins of the National Treatment Outcomes Research Study (NTORS) and the outputs and impacts of the study. NTORS was designed to meet the request of the Health Secretary and of a Government Task Force for evidence about the effectiveness of the national addiction treatment services. NTORS was a prospective cohort study which investigated outcomes over a 5-year period of drug users admitted to four major treatment modalities: in-patient treatment, residential rehabilitation, methadone reduction and methadone maintenance programmes. The study investigated treatments delivered under day-to-day operating conditions. Outcomes showed substantial reductions in illicit drug use and reduced injecting risk behaviours. These changes were accompanied by improved psychological and physical health and by reductions in criminal behaviour. However, not all outcomes were so positive. There was a continuing mortality rate in the cohort of about 1% per year, and many clients continued to drink heavily throughout the 5-year follow-up. NTORS findings informed and influenced UK addiction treatment policy both at the time and subsequently. The findings were influential in supporting an immediate increase in funding for treatment, and Government Ministers have repeatedly cited NTORS as evidence of the effectiveness of addiction treatment. One finding that received political attention was that of the cost savings provided by treatment through reductions in crime. This important finding led to an unanticipated consequence of NTORS; namely, the greater focus on crime reduction that has increasingly been promoted as a political and social priority for drug misuse treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: To compare drug recovery outcomes in commissioning areas included in a ‘payment by results’ scheme with all other areas. Design: Observational and data linkage study of the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System, Office for National Statistics mortality database and Police National Computer criminal records, for 2 years before and after introduction of the scheme. Pre–post controlled comparison compared outcomes in participating versus non‐participating areas following adjustment for drug use, functioning and drug treatment status. Setting: Drug services in England providing publicly funded, structured treatment. Participants: Adults in treatment (between 2010 and 2014): 154 175 (10 716 in participating areas, 143 459 non‐participating) treatment journeys in the 2 years before and 148 941 (10 012 participating, 138 929 non‐participating) after the introduction of the scheme. Intervention: Scheme participation, with payment to treatment providers based on patient outcomes versus all other areas. Measurements: Rate of treatment initiation; waiting time (> or < 3 weeks); treatment completion; and re‐presentation; substance use; injecting; housing status; fatal overdose; and acquisitive crime. Findings: In participating areas, there were relative decreases in rates of: treatment initiation [difference‐in‐differences odds ratio (DID OR) = 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.14, 0.21]; treatment completion (DID OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.53, 0.67); and treatment completion without re‐presentation (DID OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.52, 0.77) compared with non‐participating areas. Within treatment, relative abstinence (DID OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.30, 1.72) and non‐injecting (DID OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.10, 1.59) rates were improved in participating areas. No significant changes in mortality, recorded crime or housing status were associated with the scheme. Conclusion: Drug addiction recovery services in England that are commissioned on a payment‐by‐results basis tend to have lower rates of treatment initiation and completion but higher rates of in‐treatment abstinence and non‐injecting than other services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from the author of the article "Widening the Debate on the Drug Policy Ratchet" in the previous issue is presented.