Aims.The UK has one of the largest systems of immigration detention in Europe.. Those detained include asylum-seekers and foreign national prisoners, groups with a higher prevalence of mental health vulnerabilities compared with the general population. In light of little published research on the mental health status of detainees in immigration removal centres (IRCs), the primary aim of this study was to explore whether it was feasible to conduct psychiatric research in such a setting. A secondary aim was to compare the mental health of those seeking asylum with the rest of the detainees.Methods.Cross-sectional study with simple random sampling followed by opportunistic sampling. Exclusion criteria included inadequate knowledge of English and European Union nationality. Six validated tools were used to screen for mental health disorders including developmental disorders like Personality Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Intellectual Disability, as well as for needs assessment. These were the MINI v6, SAPAS, AQ-10, ASRS, LDSQ and CANFOR. Demographic data were obtained using a participant demographic sheet. Researchers were trained in the use of the screening battery and inter-rater reliability assessed by joint ratings.Results.A total of 101 subjects were interviewed. Overall response rate was 39%. The most prevalent screened mental disorder was depression (52.5%), followed by personality disorder (34.7%) and post-traumatic stress disorder (20.8%). 21.8% were at moderate to high suicidal risk. 14.9 and 13.9% screened positive for ASD and ADHD, respectively. The greatest unmet needs were in the areas of intimate relationships (76.2%), psychological distress (72.3%) and sexual expression (71.3%). Overall presence of mental disorder was comparable with levels found in prisons. The numbers in each group were too small to carry out any further analysis.Conclusion.It is feasible to undertake a psychiatric morbidity survey in an IRC. Limitations of the study include potential selection bias, use of screening tools, use of single-site study, high refusal rates, the lack of interpreters and lack of women and children in study sample. Future studies should involve the in-reach team to recruit participants and should be run by a steering group consisting of clinicians from the IRC as well as academics.

Opiate substitution treatment and needle exchanges have reduced blood borne virus (BBV) transmission among people who inject drugs (PWID). Psychosocial interventions could further prevent BBV. A systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether psychosocial interventions (e.g. CBT, skills training) compared to control interventions reduced BBV risk behaviours among PWID. 32 and 24 randomized control trials (2000-May 2015 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Collaboration and Clinical trials, with an update in MEDLINE to December 2016) were included in the review and meta-analysis respectively. Psychosocial interventions appear to reduce: sharing of needles/syringes compared to education/information (SMD −0.52; 95% CI −1.02 to −0.03; I2 = 10%; p = 0.04) or HIV testing/counselling (SMD −0.24; 95% CI −0.44 to −0.03; I2 = 0%; p = 0.02); sharing of other injecting paraphernalia (SMD −0.24; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06; I2 = 0%; p < 0.01) and unprotected sex (SMD −0.44; 95% CI −0.86 to −0.01; I2 = 79%; p = 0.04) compared to interventions of a lesser time/intensity, however, moderate to high heterogeneity was reported. Such interventions could be included with other harm reduction approaches to prevent BBV transmission among PWID.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10461-017-1755-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims To understand service users' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, views of a telephone behavioural modification intervention delivered by pharmacists and the use of Contingency Management (CM) to support acamprosate adherence following assisted alcohol withdrawal. Methods Four focus groups were conducted within four alcohol treatment and recovery groups across England (UK), with service users with lived experience of alcohol dependence (26 participants). Semi-structured topic guide was used to explore participants' views and experiences of alcohol relapse prevention medication, a telephone behavioural modification medication intervention delivered by pharmacists, and the use of CM to support acamprosate adherence. These were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed inductively and deductively. Results Four themes were identified: concerns about support and availability of alcohol relapse prevention medication; lack of knowledge and understanding about acamprosate treatment; positive perceptions of acamprosate adherence telephone support from pharmacists; and negative perceptions of CM to support acamprosate adherence. There were misunderstandings about acamprosate's mode of action and strong negative beliefs about CM. However, most were positive about pharmacists' new role to support acamprosate adherence. Conclusion This study highlighted challenges service users face to commence alcohol relapse prevention medication. It appears service users could benefit from a pharmacist-led telephone intervention to improve understanding about acamprosate medication, particularly, if delivered in an engaging and motivating way.

No abstract