Evidence Base for Drug Evidence Base for Drug Prevention Service Gaps Prevention Service Gaps in Rural Areas in Rural Areas Professor Mark Bellis Dr Harry Sumnall Yuko M c Grath Karen Hughes Centre for Public Healt
Apr 02, 2015
Evidence Base for Drug Prevention Evidence Base for Drug Prevention Service Gaps in Rural AreasService Gaps in Rural Areas
Professor Mark Bellis
Dr Harry Sumnall
Yuko McGrath
Karen Hughes
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Brief OverviewBrief Overview
• Drug Use in England and Wales
– Recreational
– Problematic
• Some Rural Issues in Drug Use
• Rural Issues in Drug Prevention
• Evidence Base to date from the HDA
• Collaborating Centre for Drug Prevention
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
% u
sed in
last
yea
r
16-2425-3435-59
Prevalence of Drug Use in the Last Year among the Prevalence of Drug Use in the Last Year among the General PopulationGeneral Population
Estimated number of users
(16-59) Thousands
3,357 613 486 642 63 45
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
British Crime Survey 2003
• Over 1 in 4 (16-24) used drugs in last year • Around 50% of population ever used illegal drugs
Source: ESPAD survey of 15-16 year olds(1999)
• Levels of lifetime use of any illegal drugs: UK vs Europe (36% vs 16%)
School use of DrugsSchool use of DrugsComparison between UK and EuropeComparison between UK and Europe
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Amphetamine Cannabis Ecstasy Cocaine Heroin
General Population (age 16-24) Nightclubs Techno clubs
BCS 2000; Deehan and Saville 2004; O’Hagan 2000
Lifetime Drug Use among Young PeopleLifetime Drug Use among Young PeopleGeneral Population, Club Goers and Techno-Club GoersGeneral Population, Club Goers and Techno-Club Goers
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Frischer et al, 2004, Hickman et al, 2004
Estimated Prevalence of Problematic Drug UseEstimated Prevalence of Problematic Drug Use
• Problematic drug use– 0.6% Total population – 0.9% 15-64 Year olds
• Injecting drug use– 0.2% Total population – 0.3% for 15- 64 Year olds
• Locality Estimates (Injecting, 15-44 Year olds)– Brighton 2.0%– Liverpool 1.5% – London 1.2%
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Rates/100,000 Numbers
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Estimated rates and numbers of Problematic Drug Use Estimated rates and numbers of Problematic Drug Use per 100,000 population for English DATs (2001)per 100,000 population for English DATs (2001)
Frischer et al 2004
Estimates are generally based on urban studies and relatively little is known about levels in rural communities
Drug Prevention is a mechanism for reducing Inequalities and Social Exclusion
The effects it has on these issues should help prioritise action
Bundles of Rural DisadvantageBundles of Rural Disadvantage• Employment
– Access – Quality – Vulnerability– Low incomes
• Environment– Housing unaffordable
• Transport– Poor– Expensive
• Definition of Rurality unclear • ~ 28% of UK population • Standards generally
– Better health– Higher educational
qualifications– Incomes higher
• Deprivation – 1 in 4 living in low income– Dispersed
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Characteristics of Rural Drug Characteristics of Rural Drug UseUse
• National Surveys too small to measure local variation• Research data:
– Use follows National trends– Cannabis and amphetamine available and cheaper– Access to magic (psilocybin) mushrooms and veterinary
drugs (e.g. ketamine) • Increasing Nationally
– Varies between villages and proximity to urban centres– Dance Drugs availability depends upon cultural
participation • Increased with mobility and youth culture
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
1992
1993
1994
1995
McVeigh et al, 2003
Mean year of First Use of Crack Mean year of First Use of Crack NW National Drug Treatment Monitoring SystemNW National Drug Treatment Monitoring System
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Heroin only
Cocaine only
Heroin and Cocaine
Crack only
Heroin and Crack
Cocaine and Crack
All Three
Drugs Use by Drug Treatment Clients by PCTDrugs Use by Drug Treatment Clients by PCTNW National Drug Treatment Monitoring SystemNW National Drug Treatment Monitoring System
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
McVeigh et al, 2003
Have a Party in the Country
“Imagine being shacked up in a remote setting, with all your mates, a thumping sound system and a stash of stimulants. The worst that can happen is that you tread in a freshly-laid
cow pat”
Tourism and Festivals• Glastonbury
– Three days– 140,000 people (official
only)– Reported drug offences – 85 – 2C-i –65 (largest seizure)– 4,000 tickets for locals
• BBC 15th August 2004 – Thousands at illegal parties– Neighbours Complain
• Exposure to Drug Culture– Festivals– Tourism– Holiday Work
"I was on E for 2 weeks. On the way back I couldn't find words for things I saw or type on my phone."
Dutch Person returning from Spain (IREFREA)
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
<1 day perweek
1 day per week 2-4 days =>5 daysfrequency of use
% o
f u
sers
UK Ibiza
Frequency of Ecstasy Use in UK and IbizaFrequency of Ecstasy Use in UK and Ibiza(1999 & 2002 Users only)(1999 & 2002 Users only)
Hughes et al, 2004; Hennink et al 1999
Seasonal staff in Holiday ResortsSeasonal staff in Holiday ResortsDrug use among British Casual workers in Bars and Clubs in IbizaDrug use among British Casual workers in Bars and Clubs in Ibiza
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Drug
Workers Holidaymakers
• Seasonal workers Abroad see increased drug and sexual activity
• Seasonal workers in UK holiday centres see significant increases in sexual activity whilst at holiday centre
• Initiation into Drug Use
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Holiday Work
No. of tablets taken in a usual night
3.0 4.75
Greatest no. of tablets ever taken in one night
4.0 8.0
No. of tablets safe to take in one night
2.0 5.0
No. of tablets safe to take in one week
5.0 18.5
• Casual Workers are ideally placed to influence holidaymakers• Health messages should target Casual Workers
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Ecstasy use - Casual Workers vs. HolidaymakersEcstasy use - Casual Workers vs. Holidaymakers
Drug PreventionDrug Prevention
“Speak to someone you trust, who knows about
drugs, whenever you feel you need to speak to
them”Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
RuralRuralGoldfish Goldfish
BowlBowl
• Access to Services
– High Visibility
– Low Confidentiality
– Low Confidence – High Self Reliance
• Community Involvement
– Everyone Knows
• Distant Services
– Difficult to Access
• Deprivation Dispersed
• Generation Gap Bubble
– Schools
– Media
– Community
Rural Drug Use – Added ImpactRural Drug Use – Added Impact• Urban schools
– Higher deprivation, lower achievement but– Not reflected in life-time drug use
• Rural heroin users– Higher injecting
• Health Service– Non Specialist – Limited Options (Stimulants)– Staff recruitment poor but wide skills required– Isolated Services and Workers (Progress)– Variation in Services (Syringe Exchange)
(Forsyth & Barnard, 1999)
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Major Review
(Category 1 White & Pitts, 1998)
Evidence Base for School Based PreventionEvidence Base for School Based Prevention• School based drugs education accounts for
0.14% of the variance in drug use– i.e. 3.7% of young people who would use drugs
delay onset or never use • Methodologically strongest
– alcohol, tobacco and cannabis• Targeting hard to reach
– Poorly evaluated – Need peer recruitment and outreach (Rural Issue)
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Best Evidence for Drug PreventionBest Evidence for Drug Prevention• Interactive Teaching Techniques
– Facilitators- training/support from programme developers • Rural – initial support difficult
• Positive effects Short Lived– Decline with time without booster sessions
• Rural - continued support stretched• Multiple Joined up components for health education
– Involve schools, communities, health initiatives, media, and take into account cultural sensitivities• Rural - may be better as community often better integrated?• Parish councils, local business involvement, District councils,
Countryside Agency• Generational Bubble and Communications Issues
Health Development Agency - Canning et al., 2004
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
FRANK
Countryside Agency, 2003
BT exchanges ADSL enabled, August 2004 Internet AccessInternet Access
• Availability of affordable rural broadband (2003):– Urban population: 95%– Rural villages: 7%– Remote rural areas: 1%
• Regular personal internet use:– Urban areas: 47%– Rural areas: 45%– Deprivation Gradient
• Television Coverage
Qualities of Best ProgrammesQualities of Best Programmes• Young People’s Perspective
– Including the most marginalized - Dispersed– Ways back when off track – Special Support
• Planned, focused and persistent– Early intervention, intensive, sustained – Long term management difficult
• Understanding risk and protective factors – Why start, What stops some, How some exit– Poor Local Research
• Use data and local knowledge – Target action and monitor their success– University Support
Coomber et al., in press
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
Quarterly Report
April to September 2004 rapid summary report oneffective drug prevention evidence
Yuko McGrath
Dr Harry SumnallProfessor Mark Bellis
ContactNCCDP,
Centre for Public Health,Liverpool JMU,8 Marybone,
Liverpool,L3 2AP
[email protected] 231 5818
Technical Updates Generic Communications
Collaborating Centre Collaborating Centre for Drug Preventionfor Drug Prevention
• Information Service– Provides answers to questions
on drug prevention evidence base
– Frequently Asked Questions System
– National 2005• Effective Action Briefing
– Evidence into Action – May 2005
SummarySummary• Missing– Scale and Nature of Rural Drug Use
• Very Large and Dispersed• Could glean some picture from National Data
– Likely to be changing rapidly• Internet, Parties, Tourism• May even lead in some recreational areas
• Problematic– Tendency to follow urban but little use made– NDTMS routinely examine this
• Goldfish Bowl– Kept out – Generic National messages?– Isolated within
• Drug Users• Service Access & Confidentiality• Movement to distant services difficult
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
SummarySummary• Prevention Issues– School Services
• Specialist Support – Training, Availability and Sustainability• Generation Difference – Better understood
– Other Prevention • Stimulant services poor even in urban areas• Syringe Exchange needed and cost effective• Long Term Management an issue with individuals multi-tasking
• Rural Possibilities– Good Community Development– Link Media, School, Police, Council, Parish, DAAT– Peer-led and social/familial work effective and suited to rural setting– Mobile Services and Support needs examining
Cen
tre
for
Pub
lic
Hea
lth
National Collaborating Centre for Drug Prevention
Centre for Public Health
Marybone 8,
Liverpool JMU,
Liverpool
L3 2AP
UK
www.cph.org.uk/nccdp
Professor Mark Bellis