The Well London program - a cluster randomized trial of community engagement for improving health behaviors and mental wellbeing: baseline survey results

Background The Well London programme used community engagement, complemented by changes to the physical and social neighbourhood environment, to improve physical activity levels, healthy eating and mental wellbeing in the most deprived communities in London. The effectiveness of Well London is being evaluated in a pair-matched cluster randomised trial (CRT). The baseline survey data are reported here. Methods The CRT involved 20 matched pairs of intervention and control communities (defined as UK census lower super output areas; ranked in the 11% most deprived LSOAs in London by Index of Multiple Deprivation) across 20 London boroughs. The primary trial outcomes, sociodemographic information and environmental neighbourhood characteristics were assessed in three quantitative components within the Well London CRT at baseline: a cross-sectional, interviewer-administered adult household survey; a self-completed, school-based adolescent questionnaire; a fieldworker completed neighbourhood environmental audit. Baseline data collection occurred in 2008. Physical activity, healthy eating and mental wellbeing were assessed using standardised, validated questionnaire tools. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data in the outcomes and other variables in the adult and adolescent surveys. Results There were 4107 adults and 1214 adolescent respondents in the baseline surveys. The intervention and control areas were broadly comparable with respect to the primary outcomes and key sociodemographic characteristics. The environmental characteristics of the intervention and control neighbourhoods were broadly similar. There was greater between cluster variation in the primary outcomes in the adult population compared to the adolescent population. Levels of healthy eating, smoking and self-reported anxiety/depression were similar in the Well London population and the national Health Survey for England. Levels of physical activity were higher in the Well London population but this is likely to be due to the different measurement tools used in the two surveys. Conclusions Randomisation of social interventions such as Well London is acceptable and feasible and in this study the intervention and control arms are well balanced with respect to the primary outcomes and key sociodemographic characteristics. The matched design has improved the statistical efficiency of the study amongst adults but less so amongst adolescents. Follow-up data collection will be completed 2012.

Conspicuous by their abstinence: the limited engagement of heroin users in English and Welsh Drug Recovery Wings

Background In recent years, an abstinence-focused, ‘recovery’ agenda has emerged in UK drug policy, largely in response to the perception that many opioid users had been ‘parked indefinitely’ on Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST). The introduction of ten pilot ‘Drug Recovery Wings’ (DRWs) in 2011 represents the application of this recovery agenda to prisons. This paper describes the DRWs’ operational models, the place of opiate dependent prisoners within them, and the challenges of delivering ‘recovery’ in prison. Methods In 2013, the implementation and operational models of all ten pilot DRWs were rapidly assessed. Up to three days were spent in each DRW, undertaking semi-structured interviews with a sample of 94 DRW staff and 102 DRW residents. Interviews were fully transcribed, and coded using grounded theory. Findings from the nine adult prisons are presented here. Results Four types of DRW were identified, distinguished by their size and selection criteria. Strikingly, no mid- or large-sized units regularly supported OST recipients through detoxification. Type A were large units whose residents were mostly on OST with long criminal records and few social or personal resources. Detoxification was rare, and medication reduction slow. Type B's mid-sized DRW was developed as a psychosocial support service for OST clients seeking detoxification. However, staff struggled to find such prisoners, and detoxification again proved rare. Type C DRWs focused on abstinence from all drugs, including OST. Though OST clients were not intentionally excluded, very few applied to these wings. Only Type D DRWs, offering intensive treatment on very small wings, regularly recruited OST recipients into abstinence-focused interventions. Conclusion Prison units wishing to support OST recipients in making greater progress towards abstinence may need to be small, intensive and take a stepped approach based on preparatory motivational work and extensive preparation for release. However, concerns about post-release deaths will remain.