Prof. Harry Sumnall: targeted and indicated prevention [March 7 ADEPIS seminar]
Transcript of Prof. Harry Sumnall: targeted and indicated prevention [March 7 ADEPIS seminar]
Prof Harry SumnallMentor UK Seminar Liverpool, March 2016
REFLECTIONS ON TARGETED AND INDICATED PREVENTION
SOCIOECOLOGICAL MODEL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Institute of Medicine, 2003
A model of health that emphasises the linkages and relationships among multiple factors (or determinants) affecting health.
Campbell, 2010
IOM, 1994
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SELECTIVE/INDICATED PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
Treatment is based on responding to a clinical diagnosis and quickly provides benefits including symptom reduction.
Indicated prevention refers to high r isk individuals who are identif ied as having minimal but detectable signs or symptoms of factors that predict drug use but who do not meet clinically relevant levels at the current time .
Selective interventions are targeted to individuals or a subgroup of the population whose risk of drug use is significantly higher than average .
The risk may be imminent or it may be a li fetime risk.
Both are probabilist ic interventions – a harder sell
Treatment Selective/indicated prevention
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-phg90
Drug prevention GuidelinesExpected publication February 2017
• A variety of evidence based interventions are offered across the EU
• Extent of provision and quality of implementation differs between countries
• Difference between highly research manualised programmes and informal adaptations and ‘kernels’
COMMON LIABILITY MODEL
9
Common liabil ity (CL) to substance use disorders involves mechanisms and biobehavioural characteristics that pertain to the entire course of development of the disorder and changes in the risk.
Problematic drug use/drug dependence can be located on the same dimension as premorbid (and even pre-drug-use) behaviours that are indicators of a highly heritable latent trait variably referred to as dysregulation, disinhibition, behaviour undercontrol or externalising behaviour, including risks for disruptive behaviour disorders.
CLA, a behavioural/psychological trait, manifests in a range of “gateway” behaviours grounded in the mechanisms of socialisation and affective/cognitive regulation with deep evolutionary roots
In simple terms drug use is a manifestation/indicator of an underlying behavioural trait
Vanyukov et al., 2012
MULTIPLE RISK BEHAVIOURS
In accordance with common liabil ity model of behaviour, there is a clustering of risk behaviours in YP
Multiple risk behaviours are associated with effects beyond the cumulative effects of individual health risk behaviour, including poorer emotional wellbeing, psychological distress, and injury
Associated with inequalitiesThere is early evidence for the cost-effectiveness of interventions for multiple
risk behaviours suggesting that they constitute a more cost-efficient means of preventing risk behaviours in adolescence
Hale and Viner, 2012
Bramley et al., 2015
Mental health problems
Behavioral disordersViolenceAlcohol
problems
D R U G U S E I S J U S T O N EP O S S I B L E P R E D I C TO R F O R
P R O B L E M S
13 Million
in last month
Cannabis users
Early intervention
Indicated prevention
70 Million Europeans
ever used (LTP) 3 Million daily
Problem escalation
Slide courtesy of G.Burkhart
Nuffield Council, 2007 - Intervention Ladder
HOW HAS OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF PREVENTION BEEN ‘CONSTRUCTED’
Drug prevention has been suggested to be an ideological ‘litmus test’ (Edman, 2012)
Drugs [and prevention] re-constructed as a problem to be handled by ‘experts’ rather than politics (Roumeliotis, 2013)
Drug prevention is connected with specific ways of governing society and problems (and ‘problem people’), therefore specific kinds of knowledge are used to construct and represent these problems
• In general public health, respecting autonomy involves not just attention to the protection of individual choice, but also the creation of a social/economic/polit ical environment that affords the conditions necessary to support and nurture such choices – does this hold true for il legal drug use?
• Individuals may have ‘forward looking’ relative to ‘backward looking’ responsibilit ies (responsibilities for certain already-existing behaviours) , but autonomy and capability are essential
• Some targeted populations are perhaps il l equipped for change
• Those who are already better resources are positioned better to benefit from universal and health promotion approaches.
TARGETED PREVENTION AND AUTONOMY
Wardrope, 2015
CAREFUL WITH HIGH-RISK RECIPIENTS
Drug use and risk is functional in some networks – ‘bonding capital’ in Social Capital research
People consider messages contradicting their opinion as unfair and propagandistic
Strong persuasive intent leads to reactance:Logical deconstruction of the argumentDerogation of the message source
‘FUNCTIONAL’ RISK TAKING
Impulsive, Risk seeking,
Affective intensive, Peer-oriented
Social Primacy
It makes sense: Mating success, social statusFast adaptation to hostile & unstable environmentsPleasure and learning opportunities
Slide courtesy of G.Burkhart
The shared rituals of smoking are a valued means of expressing group identity and belonging (over and above acute pharmacological effects), and smoking helps forge and maintain group solidarity
Important for socially excluded groups and individualsPrevention programmes that do not consider the social meanings of
health behaviours into their approach may struggle to engage target groups
Illegal drugs? Identity and synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRA); ketamine?
EXAMPLE OF SMOKING
Voigt, 2010
Social inequalit ies are differences in income, resources, power and status within and between societies, and are maintained via institutions and social processes.
Health inequalities are differences in health between people or groups due to social, geographical, biological or other factors.
Some factors are fixed, whereas others are dynamic In public health, tend to be a focus on socio-economic differentiationClosely linked to social exclusionSubstance use is also a symbolic behaviour and is generally stigmatised, and this
is also another source of inequality
WHAT ARE INEQUALITIES?
CSEW (2015):Use of any drug (mostly cannabis) was highest for those living in the areas
defined to be the most deprived (10.2%), and lowest for those living in areas defined to be the least deprived (6.9%).
However, use of any Class A drug does not vary with Indices of Deprivation, with similar levels of use in all areas (3.1% in the most deprived areas, 3.3% in middle areas, and 2.9% in the least deprived areas).
DRUG USE IS RELATIVELY EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS UK SOCIETY
Individuals at risk of mental health disorder more likely to experience problems with substances
Adverse outcomes from drug (and alcohol) use are more strongly related to socio-economic status (SES) than patterns of substance use
Deprivation associated with lower age of first use, progression to dependence, injecting drug use, risky use, health and social morbidity and criminal involvement.
Resilience factors (e.g. strong social support, employment) negated by patterns of deprivation
Inequalities may mediate level of drug involvement
…BUT ADVERSE OUTCOMES ARE NOT EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED
e.g. Bergen et al., 2008; Galea and Vlahov, 2002; Jones et al., 2015; Williams and Latkin, 2007
Effectiveness may be determined by factors such as intervention efficacy, service provision, uptake and compliance
Individuals and subpopulations have differential access to personal and structural ‘resources’ which determine compliance and uptake
Universal and poorly implemented individual level programmes may therefore lead to inequalities
Interventions and actions that do not rely as much on access to resources may reduce inequalities – upstream/population level interventions E.g. Alcohol MUP, tobacco control – for drugs??
PREVENTION AS A SOURCE OF INEQUALITIES
After McGill et al., 2014
CHALLENGES FOR TARGETED PREVENTION AS A RESPONSE TO INEQUALITIES
e.g. ACMD, 2015; Faggiano et al., 2008; Brotherhood and Sumnall, 2013
• Prevention programmes that are best evidenced are targeted at (universal) populations
• Mixed evidence for individualised approaches, e.g. MI, and MET• In UK, often informal adaptation of prevention ‘principles’ and ‘pall iative
approaches’• Targeted at a narrowly defined ‘problem’ – ‘drug use’• Research rarely includes ‘meaningful’ prevention outcomes• Rarely address determinants of inequality, which are often also determinants of
substance use
25
Professor Harry SumnallCentre for Public Health
Liverpool UK
[email protected]@profhrs@euspr
CONTACT