Search

• UK law changed in 2018 to permit cannabis prescribing. Cannabis remains otherwise criminalised. Participants experienced benefits from cannabis across a broad range of conditions. • Most people who need a cannabis prescription in the UK still cannot access one. • Poor implementation of cannabis prescribing policy creates heath inequalities. • Intractable prohibition policy context continues to create social harms. This paper reports on the first qualitative study to interview people prescribed cannabis in the UK. Cannabis is a class B controlled substance under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs (MoD) Act, but a 2018 change to UK regulations provided for the prescription of cannabis for medical purposes. Relatively few people have been able to access a prescription, despite this policy change. This paper examines their experiences. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 people with a prescription for cannabis, or their carers. Data was analysed using a reflextive thematic analysis approach. The findings are discussed using a zemiology (social harms) perspective which provides a language for critical reflection on the current cannabis policy context. All participants reported that cannabis had significantly improved their mental and/or physical health, across a broad range of conditions. Many had been able to reduce their use of conventional medicines and reported that cannabis had relatively few side effects. Despite the potentially life-enhancing benefits of cannabis medicine, patients in the UK face multiple barriers to access. These include a lack of funding streams, bureaucratic supply problems, and a lack of training for doctors and police. Even for the few people able to obtain a prescription, the ongoing criminalisation of cannabis in the UK contributed to their experiences of stigmatisation. This often made it difficult and anxiety-inducing to take their medicine in public spaces. The UK government's lack of implementation of medical cannabis legalisation, combined with their ongoing prohibition position, is producing multiple harms to people who need cannabis medicine. The policy context is perpetuating stigmatising attitudes to cannabis which, as we demonstrate, contribute to social harms. We make recommendations on equality of patient access, and highlight the importance of education and policy change as means of combatting stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is limited provision of inpatient detoxification relative to other treatments for alcohol and other drug (AOD) use. This means people often need to wait prior to detoxifying. However, waiting for healthcare is generally perceived as negative and stressful. This paper aims to understand patients' experiences of waiting for inpatient AOD detoxification to ascertain whether and how service-level policies and practices might be improved. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 32 people (20 males, 12 females; aged 25–67 years) who were waiting for inpatient detoxification. Data collection was part of a wider evaluation of a policy initiative started in 2021 to increase detoxification service capacity in England, UK. Interviews were professionally transcribed and data on waiting experiences were coded using qualitative software. Analyses were informed by new materialist thinking and undertaken via Iterative Categorisation. We found that waiting was constituted through five dimensions: i. duration; ii. support; iii. information; iv. preparations; and v. emotions. These five dimensions were multi-faceted and operated in and through wider interacting social, material, and affective forces (e.g., professional judgements, formal and informal relationships, the availability of beds and funding, bureaucratic procedures, the utility and relevance of information, and participants' diverse feelings, including desperation for treatment). Not all accounts of waiting were negative. The experience was complex, non-uniform and variable over time. Moreover, it affected how people felt and how they behaved. Changes to service-level policies and practices can potentially minimise the stress of waiting for inpatient AOD detoxification. The negative impact of waiting may be reduced if professionals more consistently engage patients in a wider range of constructive pre-treatment activities, offer regular 'check-ins' to mitigate any anxiety, explain changes in wait duration to help with planning and demonstrate fairness, and facilitate contact between those waiting to lessen feelings of isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Testosterone is used therapeutically in medical settings. Non-prescribed testosterone use is typically illegal, described as 'enhancement' or 'doping', and considered a problem. However, research has found that some non-prescribed testosterone use may be therapeutic (i.e. self-medication). Little is known about testosterone self-medication. It has been noted among individuals who use image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs), but never systematically explored.Approach: This paper describes the findings of a 4-year ethnographic study in online forums and social media groups frequented by people who use IPEDs. It focusses on 31 men who used enhancement doses of testosterone, but who described some of their testosterone use as 'testosterone replacement therapy' (TRT). In particular, it focuses on the 26 (84%) of these individuals who self-medicated TRT. Data was analysed thematically (using NVivo) in order to answer the question: 'how and why is testosterone self-medicated?'. Using Bacchi's (2016) problematization approach to policy analysis, this paper also asks, 'what happens to the 'problem' of non-prescribed testosterone use if such use is therapeutic?'.Findings: Self-medicated TRT was found to be very similar to TRT as practised in medical contexts. Self-medication was often practised because of an inability to access testosterone through health practitioners (who were either reluctant or unable to prescribe). However, some individuals were found to prefer self-medication because of price, ease of access, reliability of supply, and because health practitioners were perceived as lacking expertise regarding testosterone use.Conclusion: By documenting the therapeutic use of testosterone outside of medical settings, this paper calls into question previous conceptualisations of all illicit testosterone use as 'abuse', and the utility of the repair/enhancement dichotomy as a foundation for discussions of drug use. It suggests that in some cases the problem may not be non-prescribed testosterone use per se, but policies that prevent access to medical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New evidence with regard to a previously undocumented practice - self phlebotomy, known as 'bloodletting' - incontemporary injecting performance and image enhancing drug (PIED) culture is the subject of this paper. While self phlebotomy has been evidenced in psychiatric patients previously, it was performed here in people who inject AAS as a self directed health care procedure.Methods: Data was collected from five publicly accessible internet discussion forums and coded using NVivo software. For the purposes of this study, posts in relation to bloodletting were extracted from the final set of records for analysis RESULTS: Motivation to perform bloodletting or to 'self - bleed' was largely grounded in experiencing symptoms of high blood pressure or a high red blood cell count (RBC).Instructions on how to perform bloodletting were found within discussion threads.Conclusion: This study is intended to provide the first snapshot of online communal activity around practice of self-phlebotomy or bloodletting amongst people who inject AAS. Further research in this area is warranted, and will be of benefit to healthcare workers, treatment providers and policy makers particularly as this relates to evidence informed and targeted harm reduction policies and effective public health interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current opioid overdose crisis in North America is heightening awareness of the need for and the challenges of implementing harm reduction, notably within complex and diverse settings such as homeless shelters. In this paper, we explore the implementation of harm reduction in homeless shelters during an emerging overdose emergency.Methods: The objective of this qualitative study was to identify and understand micro-environment level factors within emergency shelters responding to homelessness and substance use, and the macro-level influences that produce and sustain structural vulnerabilities. We conducted eight focus groups with a total of 49 participants during an emerging overdose emergency. These included shelter residents (n = 23), shelter staff (n = 13), and harm reduction workers (n = 13).Results: The findings illustrate the challenges of implementing an overdose response when substance use is prohibited onsite, without an expectation of abstinence, and where harm reduction services are limited to the distribution of supplies. In this context, harm reduction is partially implemented and incomplete. Shelters can be a site of risks and trauma for residents and staff due to experiencing, witnessing, and responding to overdoses.Conclusion: The current overdose crisis heightens the challenges of implementing harm reduction, particularly within complex and diverse settings such as homeless shelters. When harm reduction is limited to the distribution of supplies such as clean equipment and naloxone, important principles of engagement and the development of trust necessary to the provision of services are overlooked with negative implications for service users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]