Background: The United Kingdom is experiencing an increase in drug-related deaths and serious bacterial infections among its most vulnerable citizens. Cuts to essential services, coupled with a growing homeless population, create a challenging environment to tackle this public health crisis. In this paper, we highlight an underexplored environmental constraint faced by people living and injecting drugs on the streets. Access to water for injection is restricted in the UK, due to legislative and financial barriers. Austerity measures, such as public toilet closures, further restrict the ability of people made homeless to access clean water and protect themselves from health harms. Methods: We generated questionnaire (n = 455) and in-depth qualitative interview (n = 32) data with people who inject drugs in London for the Care and Prevent study. Participants provided detail on their life history; drug use, injecting and living environments; health conditions and care seeking practices. Findings: A high proportion of the survey sample reported lifetime history of street homelessness (78%), bacterial infections (65%) and related hospitalisation (30%). Qualitative accounts highlight unsafe, potentially dangerous, injection practices in semi-public spaces. Multiple constraints to sourcing sterile water for injection preparation were reported. Alternatives to sterile water included puddle water, toilet cistern water, whisky, cola soda and saliva. Participants who injected heroin and crack cocaine together unanimously reported adding water at two stages during injection preparation: first, adding water as a vehicle for heroin (which was then heated); second, adding cold water to the heroin mixture prior to adding the crack cocaine. This new finding of a stage addition of solvent may represent an additional risk of infection.(Continued on next page)

BackgroundVenous access is a priority for people who inject drugs (PWID). Damage and scarring of peripheral veins can exacerbate health harms, such as skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), and promote transitions to femoral and subcutaneous injecting. Brown heroin available in Europe requires acidification for injection preparation. In this paper, we present mixed-methods data to explore our hypothesis of a link between overly acidic injection solutions, venous damage and SSTI risk.MethodsWe present a structured survey (n = 455) and in-depth qualitative interview (n = 31) data generated with PWID in London for the Care & Prevent study. Participants provided life history data and detail on injecting environments and drug preparation practices, including the use of acidifiers. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using a logistic regression for binary outcomes to explore associations between outcomes and excessive acidifier use. Grounded theory principles informed inductive qualitative analysis. Mixed-methods triangulation was iterative with results comparison informing the direction and questions asked of further analyses.ResultsOf the 455 participants, most (92%) injected heroin and/or crack cocaine, with 84% using citric as their primary acid for drug preparation. Overuse of acidifier was common: of the 418 who provided an estimate, 36% (n = 150) used more than ½ a sachet, with 30% (n = 127) using a whole sachet or more. We found associations between acidifier overuse, femoral injecting and DVT, but not SSTI. Qualitative accounts highlight the role of poor heroin quality, crack cocaine use, information and manufacturing constraints in acidifier overuse. Painful injections and damage to peripheral veins were common and often attributed to the use of citric acid.ConclusionsTo reduce injecting-related injury and associated consequences, it is crucial to understand the interplay of environmental and practice-based risks underpinning venous damage among PWID. Overuse of acidifier is a modifiable risk factor. In the absence of structural supports such as safe injecting facilities or the prescribing of pharmaceutical diamorphine, there is an urgent need to revisit injecting paraphernalia design and distribution in order to alleviate health harms and distress among the most marginalised.

ObjectivesConversion is a term for treatments that seek to suppress or change a person’s sexual orientation or gender. Our review focuses on transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people. Our aims were to (1) describe the frequency, nature and structure of conversion practices; (2) document difficulties in accessing transition-related healthcare and (3) evaluate the mental health consequences of such practices and access barriers.MethodSystematic review and narrative synthesis using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme and Joanne Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Data sources include Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES and Web of Science between 1990 and June 2017.ParticipantsStudies were included that (1) document use of conversion therapies or access barriers to transition-related healthcare; and/or (2) describe how such therapeutic practices and access barriers have been applied and/or (3) evaluate the mental health impacts of such therapies and difficulties accessing transition-related healthcare. Two reviewers screened papers for eligibility. Data were then grouped according to the objectives. Narratives and themes were presented per study.ResultsSeven studies met inclusion criteria. Four reports were on ‘realignment’, involving case studies or case series. Two involved psychoanalysis, one self-exposure therapy and one open-ended play psychotherapy. All four studies concerning ‘realignment’ were of poor methodological quality. The other three studies explored access barriers from the view point of TGD youth, their parents and healthcare providers. All papers reported access barriers, such as inability to access puberty-delaying medications. The papers concerning barriers to access were of good methodological quality.ConclusionWe found limited published evidence on use, nature, structure and/or health consequences of conversion therapies and access barriers to transition in TGD people. However, reports of restriction to access may indicate a more widespread problem. Research is needed into TGD people’s experiences of conversion therapy and access barriers to transition-related healthcareTrial registration numberCRD42017062149.

Background Transgender, or trans, people experience a number of barriers to accessing gender-affirming healthcare and have a range of barriers and facilitators to primary care and specialist services, commonly citing discrimination and cisgenderism playing a central role in shaping accessibility. The pathway through primary care to specialist services is a particularly precarious time for trans people, and misinformation and poorly applied protocols can have a detrimental impact on wellbeing. Method We recruited trans participants from an HIV Self-Testing Public Health Intervention (SELPHI) trial to interviews which explored contemporary gender-affirming service experiences, with an aim to examine the path from primary care services through to specialist gender services, in the UK. Results A narrative synthesis of vignettes and thematic analysis of in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with twenty trans individuals. We summarise positive and negative accounts of care under three broad categories: Experiences with primary care physicians, referrals to gender identity clinics (GICs), and experiences at GICs. Conclusions We discuss implications of this research in terms of how to improve best practice for trans people attempting to access gender-affirming healthcare in the UK. Here we highlight the importance of GP’s access to knowledge around pathways and protocols and clinical practice which treats trans patients holistically.