No abstract

(1) The harm-reduction benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-established; however, the UK government’s emphasis on “recovery” may be contributing to a high proportion of people leaving treatment and low retention rates. We wanted to develop a rich and nuanced understanding of the factors that might influence the treatment journeys of people who use OAT. (2) We explored factors at each level of the socioecological system and considered the ways these interact to influence treatment journeys in OAT. We carried out semi-structured interviews with people who use OAT (n = 12) and service providers (n = 13) and analysed data using reflexive thematic analysis. (3) We developed three themes representing participant perceptions of treatment journeys in OAT. These were: (1) The System is Broken; (2) Power Struggles; and (3) Filling the Void. (4) Conclusions: The data suggest that prioritisation of treatment retention is important to preserve the harm-reduction benefits of OAT. Stigma is a systemic issue which presents multiple barriers to people who use OAT living fulfilling lives. There is an urgent need to develop targeted interventions to address stigma towards people who use OAT.

Background and Aims Recovery outcomes for opioid substitution treatment are poorer than those for alcohol and other drugs. In order to understand why this is and to synthesise the findings of a large number of qualitative studies, we conducted a systematic review and thematic synthesis to understand facilitators of and barriers to recovery from opioid dependency. Methods Electronic databases (Pubmed, PsychInfo, CINAHL and Embase) were searched. English language studies exploring the views of adult service user and stakeholders with experiences of opioid substitution treatment were considered for inclusion. Included studies were inductively analysed using thematic synthesis. During analysis, the socioecological model was selected as an analytical framework for organising and making links between themes as it captured the complexity of the topic well. ResultsFrom 3646 screened papers, we included 37 studies reporting the views of 1212 staff and service users. Studies highlighted complex interactions between factors influencing recovery across the five levels of the socioecological model (intrapersonal, inter-personal, organisational, community and policy). Early life experiences of trauma were common; lack of support (both psychological and social) was also a recurring theme resulting in feelings of disconnection and isolation. Stigma played a particularly important role in an individual’s capacity to recover from opioid dependency and cut-across all levels of the socioecological model. Conclusions Interventions targeted at the individual level fail to take account of the complexity of recovery within opioid substitution treatment and may ignore the complex socio-political context that service users and services exist within. Stigma permeates all levels of the opioid substitution treatment system; we suggest that addressing this is likely to improve healthcare encounters, help-seeking, increase access to social support and facilitate community reintegration for individuals receiving opioid substitution treatment.

Background In the UK, one in five households with children experienced food insecurity in 2022, defined as a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. Free school meals are a public health intervention aimed at reducing food insecurity amongst children. The provision of universal free school meals (UFSM) to secondary school-aged children is a novel and untested intervention in the UK. This study is a process evaluation of a pilot of UFSM in two secondary schools in England. The aim was to understand the feasibility, acceptability, cost implications and lessons for the implementation of UFSM. Methods 20 parents, 28 students and 8 school staff from two intervention schools participated in online qualitative interviews, as well as 4 staff from non-intervention schools. The Framework Method of thematic analysis was applied. These data were supplemented with student-led observations of school meal times, and school lunch uptake-data and cost information provided by the local authority delivering the pilot. Results UFSM in secondary schools is a feasible and acceptable intervention, with coherent goals of increased access to a healthy meal, reduced food insecurity and better nutrition. All participants perceived these goals were met. Acceptability was further enhanced by the perception that UFSM were supporting a greater proportion of low-income families than the national, targeted Free School Meal scheme, as well as being easier to implement. Potential barriers to implementation include limited school kitchen and dining infrastructure, meal quality and choice, and increased queuing times. Participants’ concerns that UFSM may benefit middle- and high- income families not in need were not as prevalent as the perception that UFSM was an effective way to support all families with secondary-aged children experiencing food insecurity. Conclusion This small-scale pilot study suggests that UFSM in secondary schools is feasible and acceptable, but more evidence is required from larger studies on the impact on long-term health, psychosocial and educational outcomes. Future, larger studies should also include detailed economic evaluations so this approach can be compared with other possible interventions.

Food insecurity amongst households with children is a growing concern globally. The impacts in children include poor mental health and reduced educational attainment. Providing universal free school meals is one potential way of addressing these impacts. This paper reports findings on the impact of a universal free school meals pilot in two English secondary schools. We adopted a mixed-methods, quasi-experimental design. The intervention schools were one mainstream school (n = 414) and one school for students with special educational needs (n = 105). Two other schools were used as comparators (n = 619; n = 117). The data collection comprised a cross sectional student survey during the pilot (n = 404); qualitative interviews with students (n = 28), parents (n = 20) and school staff (n = 12); and student observations of lunchtimes (n = 57). Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, and descriptive analyses and logistic regressions were conducted on the quantitative data. Self-reports of food insecurity were high at both intervention (26.6%) and comparator schools (25.8%). No effects of the intervention were seen in the quantitative findings on either hunger or food insecurity. Qualitative findings indicated that students, families and staff perceived positive impact on a range of outcomes including food insecurity, hunger, school performance, family stress and a reduction in stigma associated with means-tested free school meals. Our research provides promising evidence in support of universal free school meals in secondary schools as a strategy for addressing growing food insecurity. Future research should robustly test the impact of universal free school meals in a larger sample of secondary schools, using before and after measures as well as a comparator group.