Safe inhalation pipe provision (SIPP): protocol for a mixed-method evaluation of an intervention to improve health outcomes and service engagement among people who use crack cocaine in England.

BACKGROUND: Over 180,000 people use crack cocaine in England, yet provision of smoking equipment to support safer crack use is prohibited under UK law. Pipes used for crack cocaine smoking are often homemade and/or in short supply, leading to pipe sharing and injuries from use of unsafe materials. This increases risk of viral infection and respiratory harm among a marginalised underserved population. International evaluations suggest crack pipe supply leads to sustained reductions in pipe sharing and use of homemade equipment; increased health risk awareness; improved service access; reduction in injecting and crack-related health problems. In this paper, we introduce the protocol for the NIHR-funded SIPP (Safe inhalation pipe provision) project and discuss implications for impact. METHODS: The SIPP study will develop, implement and evaluate a crack smoking equipment and training intervention to be distributed through peer networks and specialist drug services in England. Study components comprise: (1) peer-network capacity building and co-production; (2) a pre- and post-intervention survey at intervention and non-equivalent control sites; (3) a mixed-method process evaluation; and (4) an economic evaluation. Participant eligibility criteria are use of crack within the past 28 days, with a survey sample of ~ 740 for each impact evaluation survey point and ~ 40 for qualitative process evaluation interviews. Our primary outcome measure is pipe sharing within the past 28 days, with secondary outcomes pertaining to use of homemade pipes, service engagement, injecting practice and acute health harms. ANTICIPATED IMPACT: SIPP aims to reduce crack use risk practices and associated health harms; including through increasing crack harm reduction awareness among service providers and peers. Implementation has only been possible with local police approvals. Our goal is to generate an evidence base to inform review of the legislation prohibiting crack pipe supply in the UK. This holds potential to transform harm reduction service provision and engagement nationally. CONCLUSION: People who smoke crack cocaine in England currently have little reason to engage with harm reduction and drug services. Little is known about this growing population. This study will provide insight into population characteristics, unmet need and the case for legislative reform. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12541454  https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12541454.

A new approach to formulating and appraising drug policy: A multi-criterion decision analysis applied to alcohol and cannabis regulation.

BACKGROUND: Drug policy, whether for legal or illegal substances, is a controversial field that encompasses many complex issues. Policies can have effects on a myriad of outcomes and stakeholders differ in the outcomes they consider and value, while relevant knowledge on policy effects is dispersed across multiple research disciplines making integrated judgements difficult. METHODS: Experts on drug harms, addiction, criminology and drug policy were invited to a decision conference to develop a multi-criterion decision analysis (MCDA) model for appraising alternative regulatory regimes. Participants collectively defined regulatory regimes and identified outcome criteria reflecting ethical and normative concerns. For cannabis and alcohol separately, participants evaluated each regulatory regime on each criterion and weighted the criteria to provide summary scores for comparing different regimes. RESULTS: Four generic regulatory regimes were defined: absolute prohibition, decriminalisation, state control and free market. Participants also identified 27 relevant criteria which were organised into seven thematically related clusters. State control was the preferred regime for both alcohol and cannabis. The ranking of the regimes was robust to variations in the criterion-specific weights. CONCLUSION: The MCDA process allowed the participants to deconstruct complex drug policy issues into a set of simpler judgements that led to consensus about the results.