300 likes | 318 Views
This study aims to develop and test a psychosocial intervention to reduce BBV transmission risk behaviors and increase knowledge among people who inject drugs in the UK. The intervention is evidence-based and informed by the current influences on risk behaviors. The feasibility trial will explore the recruitment, delivery, and acceptability of the intervention.
E N D
Improving injecting skills and preventing blood borne virus infection in people who inject drugs in the UK: A feasibility randomised control trial of a psychosocial intervention (PROTECT) Gail Gilchrist Gail.Gilchrist@kcl.ac.uk Study funded by NIHR Health Technology Assessment ref: 13/17/04
Declarations • No conflicts of interest • Study funded by NIHR Health Technology Assessment ref: 13/17/04
The Research Team • King’s College London: Gail Gilchrist, Davina Swan, John Strang • University of the West of Scotland: April Shaw, Alison Munro, Avril Taylor • University of York: Ada Keding, Steve Parrott, Judith Watson • Betsi Cadwaladr University Hospital Trust: Sarah Towers • Public Health Wales: Noel Craine • University of Huddersfield: Elizabeth Hughes
Background • In the UK, 23%-61% of people who inject drugs (PWID) are hepatitis C (HCV) positive, the rates of HIV and hepatitis B (HBV) are much lower, 0%-1.4% for HIV and 6-18% for HBV (Hahné et al., 2013; PHE, 2015) • Recent outbreak of HIV among PWID in the UK • Increased risk of infection for those who inject amphetamines and amphetamine-type drugs, such as, mephedrone (Hope et al., 2016) 4
Background • Opiate substitution therapy and needle exchanges have reduced HIV and HCV among PWID (Degenhardt et al., 2010; Turner et al., 2011; Aspinall et al., 2014; MacArthur et al., 2014) • Public Health England’s, “Shooting Up”report highlighted that in 2014 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, sharing of needles in the previous month was reported by 17% of individuals attending drug treatment services, in Scotland this figure was 14% in 2013-2014. • Addressing risks and increasing knowledge to reduce BBV among PWID remains a public health priority 5
Aims of the PROTECT study • to understand current influences on PWID BBV risk behaviours • to develop an evidence-based psychosocial intervention aimed at reducing BBV transmission risk behaviours and increasing BBV transmission knowledge among PWID • to explore the feasibility of recruiting PWID to a trial comparing the intervention to control • to explore the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a psychosocial intervention to PWID 6
Aims of the PROTECT study • to understand current influences on PWID BBV risk behaviours • to develop an evidence-based psychosocial intervention aimed at reducing BBV transmission risk behaviours and increasing BBV transmission knowledge among PWID • to explore the feasibility of recruiting PWID to a trial comparing the intervention to control • to explore the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a psychosocial intervention to PWID 7
How the intervention was developed • Building on evidence of “what works” – review and adaptation of existing interventions [Gilchrist et al., 2017 AIDS & Behavior] • Focus on what is important to PWID from our indepth interviews: • Interplay of structural, situational and individual factors influenced injecting risk behaviours • Focus for PWID not on BBV rather on avoiding abscesses, finding a vein etc • Interventions should target other injecting-related priorities including improving injecting techniques and venous care to promote the use of sterile injecting equipment, and protective strategies to avoid risk 9
How the intervention was developed Current thinking – addressing “symbiotic ” goals for PWID, such as avoiding injecting related scars or marks and maintaining venous access, may result in the use of sterile injecting equipment (Harris & Rhodes, 2012) Inclusion of protective practices and strategies to avoid injecting risk situations such as withdrawal and lack of preparedness (Harris et al., 2012; McGowan et al., 2013; Mateu-Gelabert et al., 2014; Treolar et al., 2015). Co-development with experts (service providers, service users, peer educators, researchers, policy makers) 10
The PROTECT intervention (3 x 1 hr sessions) • Sessions used videos, games and exercises to facilitate discussion and build skills and strategies to reduce and avoid risk. • All sessions also included a short didactic education section. • Separate groups were held for women and men.
Download the PROTECT interventionhttps://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/depts/addictions/research/drugs/PROTECT-download-page-form.aspxor email Gail.Gilchrist@kcl.ac.uk
Recruitment • Researcher recruited; posters/flyers; staff facilitated recruitment in London, York, Glasgow and North Wales • PWID (not just PEDs) in past month, ≥ 18 years from community substance use and harm reduction services, and needle exchange programmes; able to speak English 14
Assessment • Demographic data • Injecting and sexual risk behaviours and self-efficacy • Withdrawal Prevention Tactics scale tactics to avoid withdrawal episodes: saved a bag for the next morning; put aside additional drugs; stored methadone; or put aside money for getting the next bag in an emergency (Vazan et al., 2012). A fifth item asked about use of other substances, such as painkillers, to avoid withdrawal symptoms until they are able to obtain their drug of choice. • BBV transmission knowledge • Motivation to change behaviour • Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) (Rabin & Charro, 2001) • Health and social resource used
Intervention groups trial • After baseline assessment, randomised to: • Treatment group • PROTECT 3 x 1 hr sessions of psychosocial interventionplus Hep C Info booklet & leaflet about HIV outbreak • Control group • Hep C Info booklet & leaflet about HIV outbreak only Both groups also received treatment as usual 16
Contingency management • £10 for attendance at each of the 3 PROTECT intervention sessions + “Bonus” £10 if attended all 3 sessions • Participants in each treatment arm received £10 for research interview/ and participants in treatment arm received £10 for participating in focus group • Cash (London) versus Voucher (all other areas)
Settings and facilitators • London • Co-facilitated by drugs worker & peer educator (gender matched) • Recruited from 2 drug treatment services/ NEX, and one homeless hostel with prescribing clinic • Delivered in one drug treatment service/ travel reimbursed • York • Groups due to be facilitated by male BBV nurse for male group and female drug worker • Due to be delivered in a drug treatment service 18
Settings and facilitators • Glasgow • Men’s group co-facilitated by 1 female service coordinator/1 male group worker (no female group took place) • Recruited from 1 drug treatment services/ NEX • Delivered in one drug treatment service • North Wales • Groups co-facilitated by 1 x male & 1 x female harm reduction worker • Recruited from drug treatment service, homeless drop in centre and needle exchange & mobile harm reduction van • Delivered at homeless drop-in/ travel reimbursed 19
Feasibility • 56% (99/176) of eligible participants were randomised into the feasibility trial during January and February 2016; 52 randomised to intervention and 47 to control group [34 men and 18 women] • 38% (20/52) PWID attended at least one session [18 attended one session, 15 attended two sessions and 15 attended three sessions] • Men were more likely to attend at least one intervention session than women (44% versus 28%). • Attendance to at least one intervention session was highest in London (63%) and North Wales (54%), whereas only 25% attended in Glasgow, and no participants attended in York.
Results • Those who did not attend any sessions (n=32) were more likely to be homeless (56% vs 25%, p=0.044), have injected on a greater number of days in the last month (median 25 vs 6.5, p=0.019) and used a greater number of needles from a Needle Exchange in the last month (median 31 vs 20, p=0.056). • Glasgow and York had higher levels of homelessness (68% and 52% respectively) compared to London (27%) and North Wales (29%). In addition, participants injected for a greater number of days and used more needles from a Needle Exchange
Follow-up • 42% (22/52) of PWID in intervention group and 49% (23/47) of PWID in control group were followed-up one month post intervention • Follow-up was also highest in London (83%) and North Wales (63%), and significantly lower in Glasgow (55%) and York (43%) • Follow-up was associated with fewer days of injecting in the last month (median 14 vs 27, p=0.030) and fewer injections of cocaine (13% vs 30%, p=0.063)
Feasibility trial outcomes • Improved (fewer) injecting risk practices, improved self-efficacy, better hepatitis C and hepatitis B transmission knowledge and greater use of withdrawal prevention techniques in the intervention arm. • At one month post-intervention amongst participants who had attended at least one session of the intervention: • no increase in self-reported injecting in more “risky” sites (e.g. groin, neck) • trend towards injecting on fewer days in the past 28 days • Intervention does not appear to encourage riskier injecting practices or increase frequency of injecting
Acceptability to staff and participants • Separate focus groups with facilitators and participants • Evaluation sheets following each session completed by facilitators and participants
Possible explanations for site differences • participants in some areas more complex needs (homeless, more frequent injectors etc) • peer-educators co-facilitated the intervention in the London site only • reimbursement for travel costs (London and North Wales), time and contingency management were paid in cash in the London site versus high street vouchers at the other three sites
Implications • Complex needs of many PWID may have limited engagement of those potentially most at risk of engaging in BBV transmission behaviours • women, homeless, more frequent injectors least likely to attend • some participants were in prison, hospital or residential rehabilitation and therefore did not attend sessions and were not followed-up • Alternative intervention delivery modes/ local solutions/ flexibilityin delivery required to ensure greater reach • Need for a greater embedding of BBV risk reduction in the work of substance use services/ needle exchanges
Conclusions • Intervention was acceptable to both facilitators and attending participants and 57% of eligible participants agreed to be randomised, suggesting support for addressing BBV risk behaviours among PWID • Considerable difficulties recruiting particular groups of PWID, mainly women and new injectors. • additional barriers for women • secondary distribution for new injectors • PROTECT intervention has potential to positively influence some PWID BBV risk behaviour, non-attendance at the York site substantially influenced the results
Download the PROTECT interventionhttps://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/depts/addictions/research/drugs/PROTECT-download-page-form.aspxor email Gail.Gilchrist@kcl.ac.uk