Scholarlink

Background <p>Provision of equipment for the purpose of stimulant inhalation is prohibited under UK law. Crack cocaine use is prevalent and rising in England, where the SIPP (safer inhalation pipe provision) study piloted and evaluated a crack equipment and workforce training intervention. We report mixed method findings from the baseline component of the study, prior to intervention implementation. The aim of this paper is to situate quantitative findings regarding respiratory risk through qualitative exploration of crack inhalation practice in a context of stimulant equipment prohibition.</p> Methods <p>In this paper we report descriptive findings from baseline survey data (<i>n</i> = 727) with a focus on thematic analysis of interview data (<i>n</i> = 33). Participants were recruited through drug treatment services and peer networks in six geographical locations in England, with survey eligibility criteria including crack use (injecting or smoking) in the past 28&#xa0;days.</p> Findings <p>Of the 733 participants who completed the baseline questionnaire, 727 (99%) smoked crack in the past month and were included for further analysis. A minority reported crack injection (28%). Over half (55%) used crack daily in the past month. Many (60%) reported respiratory symptoms, with one third experiencing a respiratory-related hospitalisation. Qualitative data illustrate ingenuity of crack equipment practice, with participants fashioning pipes out of materials ranging from umbrella handles, through to tin cans and plastic inhaler cases. Ash and stainless-steel scourer were primarily used as suspension materials. Accounts of practice illustrate connections between materials used and respiratory harms, the latter exacerbated by poor living conditions and limited availability of supports.</p> Conclusion <p>We evidence a high burden of respiratory harm among people who smoke crack in England. Stimulant inhalation equipment prohibition contributes to a constellation of respiratory risk, with use of unsafe materials and impoverished living environments exacerbating health harms among a highly marginalised population. There is a need to reorientate drug services to support safer crack inhalation practice and reduce respiratory risk. Legislative change can facilitate this process.</p> Trial registration <p>ISRCTN12541454 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12541454">https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12541454</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Innovation, respiration and drug paraphernalia policy: a mixed methods study of crack pipe practice and respiratory harm in England

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月9日

查看全文
  • Magdalena Harris,
  • Cedomir Vuckovic,
  • Caitlynne McGaff,
  • Casey Sharpe,
  • Sujit Rathod,
  • Alexandre Piot,
  • Mat Southwell,
  • Jenny Scott,
  • Vivian Hope,
  • Lucy Platt

摘要

Background

Provision of equipment for the purpose of stimulant inhalation is prohibited under UK law. Crack cocaine use is prevalent and rising in England, where the SIPP (safer inhalation pipe provision) study piloted and evaluated a crack equipment and workforce training intervention. We report mixed method findings from the baseline component of the study, prior to intervention implementation. The aim of this paper is to situate quantitative findings regarding respiratory risk through qualitative exploration of crack inhalation practice in a context of stimulant equipment prohibition.

Methods

In this paper we report descriptive findings from baseline survey data (n = 727) with a focus on thematic analysis of interview data (n = 33). Participants were recruited through drug treatment services and peer networks in six geographical locations in England, with survey eligibility criteria including crack use (injecting or smoking) in the past 28 days.

Findings

Of the 733 participants who completed the baseline questionnaire, 727 (99%) smoked crack in the past month and were included for further analysis. A minority reported crack injection (28%). Over half (55%) used crack daily in the past month. Many (60%) reported respiratory symptoms, with one third experiencing a respiratory-related hospitalisation. Qualitative data illustrate ingenuity of crack equipment practice, with participants fashioning pipes out of materials ranging from umbrella handles, through to tin cans and plastic inhaler cases. Ash and stainless-steel scourer were primarily used as suspension materials. Accounts of practice illustrate connections between materials used and respiratory harms, the latter exacerbated by poor living conditions and limited availability of supports.

Conclusion

We evidence a high burden of respiratory harm among people who smoke crack in England. Stimulant inhalation equipment prohibition contributes to a constellation of respiratory risk, with use of unsafe materials and impoverished living environments exacerbating health harms among a highly marginalised population. There is a need to reorientate drug services to support safer crack inhalation practice and reduce respiratory risk. Legislative change can facilitate this process.

Trial registration

ISRCTN12541454 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12541454.