Working in a relational way is everything: Perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making network.

BACKGROUND: The development of drug policies has been a major focus for policy-makers across North America in light of the ongoing public health emergency caused by the overdose crisis. In this context, the current study examined stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making process in a North American city using qualitative, questionnaire, and social network data. METHODS: We interviewed 18 people who participated in the development of a drug policy proposal between October 2021 and March 2022. They represented different groups and organizations, including government (n = 3), people who use drugs-led advocacy organizations (n = 5), other drug policy advocacy organizations (n = 5), research (n = 3) and police (n = 2). Most of them identified as men (n = 8) and white (n = 16), and their ages ranged between 30 and 80 years old (median = 50). Social network analysis questionnaires and semi-structured qualitative interviews were administered via Zoom. Social network data were analysed using igraph in R, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The analyses explored perceptions of value and power within a drug policy-making network. RESULTS: The policy-making network showed that connections could be found across participants from different groups, with government officials being the most central. Qualitative data showed that inclusion in the network and centrality did not necessarily translate into feeling powerful or valued. Many participants were dissatisfied with the process despite having structurally advantageous positions or self-reporting moderately high quantitative value scores. Participants who viewed themselves as more valued acknowledged many process shortcomings, but they also saw it as more balanced or fair than those who felt undervalued. CONCLUSIONS: While participation can make stakeholders and communities feel valued and empowered, our findings highlight that inclusion, position and diversity of connections in a drug policy-making network do not, in and of itself, guarantee these outcomes. Instead, policy-makers must provide transparent terms of reference guidelines and include highly skilled facilitators in policy discussions. This is particularly important in policy processes that involve historical power imbalances in the context of a pressing public health emergency.

Implementation of time-limited parenteral hydromorphone in people with treatment-resistant injecting opioid use disorder: a protocol for a single-site, uncontrolled, open-label study to assess feasibility, safety and cost.

INTRODUCTION: Supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT) is an evidence-based intervention targeting opioid-dependent people for whom existing treatments have been ineffective. This project will primarily assess the feasibility and the acceptability of time-limited SIOT using injectable hydromorphone delivered in an existing Australian public opioid treatment programme, with secondary outcomes of safety, cost, changes in drug use and other health outcomes. If feasible, the goal is to scale up the intervention to be more widely available in Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Between 20 and 30 participants will be offered two times per day hydromorphone to inject under direct observation, in addition to their current opioid agonist treatment (OAT), for up to 2 years. At the end of 2 years of supervised hydromorphone treatment, participants will be continued on standard OAT only. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants included in the study. This is a single-site, uncontrolled, open-label study where quantitative and qualitative interview data will be collected at baseline, 12 months and lastly at 3 months following their final hydromorphone dose. The main outcome measures are feasibility, as assessed by recruitment, retention and participation in treatment, and acceptability to participants, clinic staff and other stakeholders assessed by qualitative interviews. Secondary outcome measures of safety, as assessed by adverse events, and cost will also be assessed, as well as a range of other drug and health outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the St Vincent's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00418). This will be the first study of time-limited SIOT in the Australian setting. All results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and local practice meetings. A preliminary report on outcomes will also be presented to local health policy makers. A consumer and community forum will also be held to feedback results to a broader audience. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001729819.

"It's going to get pretty tippy": Stakeholder perspectives on the (dys)function of a four pillars drug strategy.

A 'drug strategy' is a policy document that structures the priorities and directions for interventions for drug related issues within a particular jurisdiction and/or context. A 'pillars' drug strategy concentrates efforts through clustering separated columns of activity, such as law enforcement, harm reduction, treatment, and prevention. In this study, we examined drug policy stakeholders' perspectives on the structure, function, and fit of a four pillar drug strategy framework in Vancouver, Canada. Utilizing qualitative interview data from fifteen drug policy stakeholders, we examine perspectives on Vancouver's four pillar drug strategy that was implemented over 20 years ago. Our findings are organized under three main themes: (1) the notion of 'balance' of efforts, resources, and attention across the pillars; (2) how the pillars function as a cohesive whole; (3) whether the pillars' architecture is still fit-for-purpose. The architecture of four discrete pillars did not enable a sense of cohesion and collaboration of efforts, and instead elicited a sense of competition, conflict, fragmentation, simplicity, and rigidity of the strategy as a whole. These findings suggest that, in practice, a four pillars framework may be structurally dysfunctional in working towards a common goal. Our study questions the effectiveness of a commonly used 'pillars' framework and whether it needs to be reenvisaged.

Exploring the relationship between solitary drinking and living without other adults on alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

When self-direction meets conformity: Surfacing Schwartz's 10 basic human values in drug policy dialogue with lived/living experience participants.

BACKGROUND: Research on values is gaining in popularity within drug policy scholarship. To date, research has focused on analysing values within policy, through documentary analysis and interviews with key stakeholders. We extend this research enquiry to investigate the values that emerge from drug policy debate with those who have lived and/or living experience of using drugs. METHODS: We used workshop data collected from the ESRC-funded Drug Policy Voices project as the basis for our analysis. Within the workshops, participants were given a range of drug policy scenarios to discuss. We selected three scenarios for this paper which discussed policies related to cannabis, heroin, and MDMA/ecstasy. We coded the workshop data using Schwartz's ten basic values, which is a framework that perceives values as the core 'motivators of action' that underpin choices, attitudes and behaviours. RESULTS: We found that the values of 'self-direction', 'security' and 'conformity' were prominent across this participant group, when discussing these policy topics. Yet the drug policy preferences discussed in the workshops revealed that it is the combinations of values that nuance preferences. Security combined with self-direction supports policies that enhance personal responsibility for change; self-direction combined with hedonism supports freedom to use drugs, whereas self-direction combined with conformity and achievement supports recovery policies; and conformity combined with tradition and power supports abstinence-based drug prevention. CONCLUSION: Schwartz's ten basic values provided a useful framework for surfacing values that underpin drug policy preferences. These exploratory findings demonstrate that identifying values within dialogue is a complex process and reinforces opposing values can explain policy preference differences. More importantly, policy preferences were underpinned by combinations of values including those that are apparently opposing in Schwartz's circumplex.

Post-retirement enlightenment syndrome: Worthy of investigation.

Post-Retirement Enlightenment Syndrome is a term used by some in illicit drug policy to reflect the experience of having politicians "come out" in favour of drug policy reform only after retirement. To date, the phenomenon has not been examined in any systematic manner. While discussions of the phenomenon on social media tend to be playful, they nevertheless express real frustration with the reluctance of privately supportive sitting politicians and policing officials to speak out in favour of non-punitive and/or harm reduction-oriented policies. In this commentary, we give an overview of the phenomenon of Post-Retirement Enlightenment Syndrome. We argue that these instances of sitting officials speaking out publicly in favour of drug policy reform, as well as instances in which such apparent "enlightenment" is not publicly expressed until after retirement, are potentially highly fruitful areas for investigation. Public positions on drug policy are invariably contoured by conditions of political possibility. We raise the call for both an unpacking and examination of the structural and relational aspects of "political will" and "political courage". Sitting and retired politicians each have a role in the drug policy landscape, whether as lawmakers or as high-profile and often respected commentators. This commentary argues that a more nuanced understanding of the conditions that may support or hinder the expression of public support for drug policy reform by political office bearers, whether sitting or former, has implications for advocates and researchers invested in policy change.

An overlooked effect: domestic violence and alcohol policies in the night-time economy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Restrictive late-night alcohol policies are aimed at reducing alcohol-related violence but, to date, no evaluations of their impact on family and domestic violence have been conducted. This study aimed to measure whether modifying the drinking environment and restricting on-site trading hours affected reported rates of family and domestic violence. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used a non-equivalent control group design with two treatment sites and two matched control sites with pre- and postintervention data on rates of family and domestic violence assaults within local catchment areas of four late-night entertainment precincts in New South Wales, Australia, covering a population of 27 309 people. Participants comprised monthly counts of police-recorded incidents of domestic violence assaults from January 2001 to December 2019. INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATORS: Two variations of restrictive late-night interventions were used: restricted entry to late-night venues after 1:30 a.m., trading ceasing at 3:30 a.m. and other restrictions on alcohol service (Newcastle); and restricted entry to late-night venues after 1 a.m. and a range of restrictions on alcohol service (Hamilton). The comparators were no restrictions on late-night trading or modifications of the drinking environment (Wollongong and Maitland). MEASUREMENTS: Measurements involved the rate, type and timing of reported family and domestic violence assaults. FINDINGS: Reported rates of domestic violence assaults fell at both intervention sites, while reported domestic violence assaults increased over time in the control sites. The protective effects in Newcastle were robust and statistically significant across three main models. The relative reduction associated with the intervention in Newcastle was 29% (incidence rate ratio = 0.71, 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.83) and an estimated 204 assaults were prevented across the duration of the study. The protective effects found in Hamilton were not consistently supported across the three main models. CONCLUSIONS: Increases to late-night alcohol restrictions may reduce rates of domestic violence.

Sociometric network analysis in illicit drugs research: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Sociometric or whole network analysis, a method used to analyze relational patterns among social actors, emphasizes the role of social structure in shaping behaviour. Such method has been applied to many aspects of illicit drug research, including in the areas of public health, epidemiology, and criminology. Previous reviews about social networks and drugs have lacked a focus on the use of sociometric network analysis for illicit drugs research across disciplines. The current scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the sociometric network analysis methods used in illicit drugs research and to assess how such methods could be used for future research. METHODS: A systematic search of six databases (Web of Science, ProQuest Sociology Collection, Political Science Complete, PubMed, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and PsycINFO) returned 72 relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria. To be included, studies had to mention illicit drugs and use whole social network analysis as one of their methods. Studies were summarized quantitatively and qualitatively using a data-charting form and a description of the studies' main topics. RESULTS: Sociometric network analysis in illicit drugs research has grown in popularity in the last decade, using mostly descriptive network metrics, such as degree centrality (72.2%) and density (44.4%). Studies were found to belong to three study domains. The first, drug crimes investigated network resilience and collaboration patterns in drug trafficking networks. The second domain, public health, focused on the social networks and social support of people who use drugs. Finally, the third domain focused on the collaboration networks of policy, law enforcement, and service providers. CONCLUSION: Future illicit drugs research using whole network SNA should include more diverse data sources and samples, incorporate mixed and qualitative methods, and apply social network analysis to study drug policy.

Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking.

INTRODUCTION: Most studies of alcohol policy have focussed on the role of industry. However, little is known about the evidence base used in alcohol policymaking or policymakers' actions in the field. Here, we mapped the different evidence types used in a case study to construct a classification framework of the evidence types used in alcohol policymaking. METHODS: Using a case study from the state-level in Australia, we used content analysis to delineate the evidence types cited across six phases of a policymaking process. We then grouped these types into a higher-level classification framework. We used descriptive statistics to study how the different evidence types were used in the policymaking process. RESULTS: Thirty-one evidence types were identified in the case study, across four classes of knowledge: person knowledge, shared knowledge, studied knowledge and practice knowledge. The participating public preferenced studied knowledge. Policymakers preferenced practice knowledge over all other types of knowledge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The classification framework expands on models of evidence and knowledge used across public health, by mapping new evidence types and proposing an inductive method of classification. The policymakers' preferences found here are in line with theories regarding the alcohol industry's influence on policymaking. The classification framework piloted here can provide a useful tool to examine the evidence base used in decision-making. Further study of evidence types used in policymaking processes can help inform research translation and advocacy efforts to produce healthier alcohol policies.

Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service-users.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: While many studies have examined outcome measurement as part of clinical trials and routine outcome collection at the person-level in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services, there has been limited attention to measures required to assess performance at the service-level. In Australia, non-government services are primarily funded by government using public funds; however, there is no standardized approach to performance measurement. This study sought to establish a finite list of performance measures that represented consensus between funders, treatment providers and service-users. METHOD: A three-round Delphi process was undertaken with (i) funders of treatment (n = 10), (ii) treatment providers (n = 10) and (iii) treatment service-users (n = 10). Participants were asked to rate a range of measures on a 10-point Likert scale on how important they were to be included in contracts with funders. Measures with a median score > 7 and agreement among participants above 70% were the criteria for inclusion in the final set of measures. Qualitative data in the form of text responses provided by participants for their ratings in rounds 1 and 2 were also analysed. RESULTS: Participants rated 93 measures in round 1, which reduced to 78 measures in round 2 and 32 measures in round 3. Fifteen service-level measures and two system-level measures met criteria for inclusion in the final set of performance measures. The final set of measures cover a range of measurement types: outcomes (n = 5), access (n = 3), structural (n = 3), experience (n = 2), input (n = 2), process (n = 1) and output (n = 1). CONCLUSION: In Australia, performance measures for alcohol and other drug treatment services that represent a consensus among service-users, providers and funders focus upon demonstrating accountability for public funds, improving services and communicating key measures of success to future service-users and the broader community.

"It's professional but it's personal": Participation, personal connection, and sustained disagreement in drug policy reform.

While there is widespread agreement as to the importance of increasing participation in drug policy design, drug policy literature contains limited reflection on the practices that may support inclusion and collaboration amongst policy actors, particularly when disagreement and difference are an intrinsic part of participation. Drawing on qualitative interviews and ethnographic fieldwork with actors engaged in an Australian illicit drug policy reform campaign, this paper examines how particular modes of personal connection mattered in establishing and maintaining working relationships between a range of differently situated actors. Through engagement with this case study, we argue that modes of personal connection marked by qualities such as being frank; engaged; not forcing consensus; enacting respect; listening in order to understand; and acting in ways that respected the obligations and limits that came with people's roles while also recognising one another as more than those roles, were particularly important qualities that supported connection across difference. Such personal connections seem to have been even more important for the engagement of people representing more marginal positionalities. Arguing that personal connection is already an element of both inclusion and exclusion in drug policy creation, we suggest that policy actors interested in contributing to a more diverse and rigorous policy participation space attend to how people connect, with whom, and with what space for disagreement, while also taking seriously the labour of such connection across difference.

Navigating the grey: Experiences of incremental cannabis reform in Australia.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: There have been many changes to cannabis laws across the globe, some dramatic but more often incremental. This study explored the experiences after an incremental cannabis law reform in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews (n = 30) were conducted in March and April 2021, 14 months after the introduction of cannabis law reform, with people aged 18 and over who had grown and/or consumed cannabis in the previous 12 months. Participants were asked about recent and past cannabis use, growing cannabis and changes to their practices after the introduction of the legislation. RESULTS: Incremental cannabis law change resulted in regulatory grey areas. How people interpreted and navigated such grey areas were connected to their relative privileges, circumstances and histories. Those who were highly policed were more likely to experience the grey areas negatively. Those who were not highly policed found the grey areas confusing or 'half-arse' (insufficiently executed), but mostly experienced the new laws positively through new cannabis cultivation or perceived reduction in stigma and fear of arrest. Those with self-identified privilege were unconcerned with grey areas of the legislation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Incremental policy change can result in grey areas that require some navigation. Vulnerable populations appear less likely to experience the full benefits of such incremental drug law reform. It is vital to attend to the inequities that can arise from incremental law reform so that positive experiences are shared across the population regardless of relative privilege.

Distinguishing personal use of drugs from drug supply: Approaches and challenges.

The ability to fairly and justly distinguish between drug possession for personal use and drug possession for supply is a central feature of drug laws across the globe. Whether such distinctions pertain to decriminalisation of simple possession, or to the penalties associated with drug offences, such differentiation remains a core problem for policymakers. In this commentary, taking 91 different jurisdictions into consideration, we identify five different approaches to distinguishing personal use from supply: four of these involved quantification of an amount of drug (whether in weight or number of doses). The other approach relied on case-by-case judgement. Drawing upon survey data of drug use from nine countries, we provide an example of how the quantity bears little resemblance to drug use patterns, and does not take heterogeneity of drug use into account. While the non-quantified approach can lead to discriminatory and racialised policing, all of the quantification approaches also pose problems, largely concerned with arbitrary amounts. There appears to be no perfect way to differentiate possession for personal use from intentions to supply. This commentary opens up a number of important policy-relevant research questions given this central feature of drug policy design.

The details of decriminalization: Designing a non-criminal response to the possession of drugs for personal use.

Internationally, policymakers are considering alternative, non-criminal responses to the possession of drugs for personal use, or 'simple possession'. We show that 'decriminalization' is not a simple, unified model; rather, there are meaningful differences in policies and options available as part of a non-criminal response. Responses include various decriminalization, diversion, and depenalization approaches. However, what details need to be considered in developing these approaches? In this paper, we eschew these labels and present an overview of key design features of non-criminal responses to simple possession and consider some of the equity considerations of the choices available, including reform architecture (the objectives and legal framework); eligibility criteria (population-, place-, and drug-based criteria); and actions taken (deterrence, therapeutic, and enforcement strategies). This paper does not evaluate individual features or models, but instead offers a practical framework that can be used to deliberate on potential reform decisions.