Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T12:35:11.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Harm-Reduction for Substance Misuse in Young People: A Service Evaluation of Southampton's Drug and Alcohol Support Hub (DASH)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Camilla Walker*
Affiliation:
Camden and Islington, London, United Kingdom
Charlotte Primavesi
Affiliation:
Sailsbury NHSFT, Sailsbury, United Kingdom
Pelumi Popoola
Affiliation:
University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
Emily Walmsley
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

This project aims to evaluate Southampton's Drugs and Alcohol Support Hub Service (DASH) for young people (YP) provided by the charity, No Limits. It aims to produce insights and recommendations for No Limits to improve their service for YPs and positively influence local commissioning and governmental bodies. This project was part of the Wessex Public Health Fellowship for Junior Doctors, which aims to provide experience of working in public health and teach relevant research skills.

Methods

An adapted-Donabedian framework was implemented and a review of the literature informed a ‘harm-reduction’ lens for analysis. Mixed methods were used: Quantitative analysis reviewed data from 50 (anonymised) YPs. All data were routinely collected by No Limit's staff as Young People Outcome Records (YPORs) and Client Information Reviews (CIRs), as well as outcome measures collected quarterly for the National Drug Treatment Monitoring Service (NDTMS). Qualitative methods included a thematic analysis of five semi-structured interviews with service providers.

Results

Cannabis and alcohol were the most commonly reported problem drugs for YP (48% and 36%, respectively). In terms of smoking per weekdays, 67% of YPs were using cannabis for the same number of days and 15% had decreased smoking days. For smoking in grams, 26% were smoking the same amount of cannabis compared with 41% smoking less. For alcohol, 41% consumed fewer units and 44% had increased alcohol-free days. Importantly, 63% of YPs reported increased quality of life and 59% increased happiness.

Thematic analysis generated seven themes: harm reduction, mental health, relationships and trust, inter-agency working, YP-led care, individual outcomes and differences between reported outcomes and care provided. Harm reduction for most meant helping the YP build healthier relationships with drugs vis-à-vis enforcing abstinence. Trust was necessary for service providers to support YP reach their goals and YP-led, individualised goals benefitted most. Next, service providers often supported YP with mental health and sometimes this created challenges beyond their professional capabilities, thus emphasising the importance of collaborative inter-agency working. Lastly, providers were frustrated with required NDTMS outcome measures given they failed to capture service benefits.

Conclusion

DASH service's ‘harm reduction’ approach to supporting YP with substance misuse is in-line with evidence-based best practice guidance. However, reported NDTMS outcomes remain driven by an abstinence-informed agenda. This policy is grounded in governmental policies that do not consider the nuance of substance misuse disorders and are reflective of Nancy Reagan's 1980s ‘Just say No’ campaign. To prioritise the health and mental health of young people, government must reframe their policy on substance misuse.

Type
4 Service Evaluation
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.