Background Novel Psychoactive Substance (NPS) use has increased in recent years and generated significant concern within public health. People who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk of blood borne viruses, in particular Hepatitis C virus (HCV). However, little is known about the extent of NPS injecting at a national level and its association with HCV. This study provides one of the first epidemiological analyses of the association between NPS injecting and HCV among a population level sample of PWID. Methods Five cross sectional surveys of almost 13,000 PWID attending services providing injecting equipment across Scotland between 2008 and 2016 were analysed. Logistic regression was used to determine associations between NPS injecting and HCV. Results The proportion of PWID reporting that they had injected NPS in the previous six months increased from 0.2% in 2008-09 to 11.0% in 2015-16. Those who reported injecting NPS were considerably more likely to be resident in the Lothian NHS Board area at the time of the study (AOR 5.6 (95% CI 4.1-7.5)) and to have had recent experience of homelessness (AOR 1.4 (95% CI 1.0-1.9)). People who injected NPS were also significantly more likely to be HCV positive (AOR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2-2.4)). In Lothian, HCV prevalence rose from around 30% between 2008 and 2012 to 41% and then 48% in { PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT } 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. Increases in prevalent HCV infection in Lothian may be partly attributed to increases in NPS injecting. Conclusion In Scotland, people who had injected Novel Psychoactive Substances were at increased risk of hepatitis C virus. Novel Psychoactive Substance injecting poses a threat to HCV elimination strategies.

The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

BackgroundThere is evidence to suggest that medically supervised drug consumption rooms (DCRs) may form part of responses to reduce drug-related harm. Although DCRs have been established globally, they are perceived by some to be a controversial approach in the UK, and Government has repeatedly rejected proposals to establish one in Glasgow, Scotland. As public support is an important component of policy development and enactment, we sought to investigate the effects of different types of message framing on public support for DCR. MethodsWe undertook a cross-sectional online study with a randomised design, conducted with a nationally representative sample. Participants were randomised to one of six message conditions comprising combinations of four components. All conditions included i) a basic description of a DCR, and conditions included combinations of ii) factual information; iii) preemptive refutation of common public concerns about DCR; and/or iv) a sympathetic narrative describing a mother whose son died from a heroin overdose. After reading each message, participants completed a bespoke measure assessing support for DCR. Data were analysed using ANCOVA. ResultsComplete data were obtained from 1591 participants (50.3% Female; mean age 44.9 ± 16.1 years). Compared to reading a basic description of DCR alone, there was greater support for DCR in participants receiving the refutation (p < .001); sympathetic + factual (p < .05); and sympathetic + factual + refutation (p < .001) message conditions. Presenting factual or sympathetic messages alone were not associated with increased support. ConclusionOur findings suggest that public support for DCRs is not improved through communication of factual statements outlining potential benefits of the intervention alone. Advocates seeking to foster public support, and thus influence policy making, should also consider communication campaigns that address common concerns that the public might have about DCRs, and present the intervention in relation to potential benefits that they hold for people indirectly affected by drug-related harm.