Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32917213›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2020

Identification of factors influencing tampering of codeine-containing medicines in England: a qualitative study.

Andreas Kimergård, Stephen Parkin, Stacey Jennings, Eileen Brobbin, Paolo Deluca

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andreas KimergårdAddictions Department, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8BB, UK. andreas.kimergard@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2080-9865
Stephen ParkinAddictions Department, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8BB, UK.
Stacey JenningsCentre for Psychiatry, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Eileen BrobbinAddictions Department, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8BB, UK.
Paolo DelucaAddictions Department, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8BB, UK.
King's College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTampering of psychoactive medicines presents challenges to regulation and public health. However, little is currently known about what influences the decisions to treat codeine-containing medicines (CCM) with cold water extraction (CWE) from the perspective of individuals employing these techniques. The article identifies factors influencing utilisation of CWE to separate codeine from compounded analgesics, such as paracetamol and ibuprofen, found in CCM.

methodsPurposive sampling of 27 participants residing in England who took part in a qualitative interview. Of these, 14 individuals (11 males and 3 females) reported tampering of psychoactive medicines, and the relevant transcripts were included in the analyses for the study. Participants were recruited from one addiction treatment service and from an online survey. The mean age of the participants was 31.5 years (range = 18-42 years). Qualitative data analysis followed the processes of iterative categorization (IC). The codes 'harm reduction', 'information sources' and 'changes on the drug markets' were grouped and summarised. The coding of the data was done in a Microsoft® Word document.

resultsTwo groups of participants were identified in the data analysis: (i) individuals who used CCM (n = 5), and (ii) individuals who used CCM and heroin (n = 9). Participants in both groups used CWE due to concerns of paracetamol overdose from the use of excessive dosages of CCM. For both of them, information obtained from the internet encouraged the use of CWE. Participants using CCM described how the many steps involved in conducting CWE, including sourcing codeine boxes from pharmacies (over the counter), presented a barrier against using CWE. Participants using CCM and heroin explained how reduced availability in the local heroin supply influenced utilisation of CWE techniques to maintain their use of opioids and avoid withdrawal. Withdrawal symptoms and cravings outweighed the concerns about the quality of the extracted codeine mixtures in this participant group, especially the ability of CWE to remove paracetamol and tablet fillers.

conclusionsUtilisation of CWE of codeine was influenced by several factors including drug market supply, the availability of detailed information on the internet about CWE and restrictions on codeine sourcing in pharmacies. Risks identified with CWE include consumption of unknown doses of paracetamol if the CWE techniques are not used correctly. Attempts at extracting codeine from CCM should be considered in risk assessments of opioid medicines.

Indexed as

AcetaminophenAdministration, OralAdolescentAdultAnalgesics, OpioidCodeineDrug CombinationsDrug OverdoseFemaleHumansMaleOpioid-Related DisordersSolid Phase ExtractionSolubilityWaterYoung AdultAcetaminophenacetaminophen, codeine drug combinationAnalgesics, OpioidCodeineDrug CombinationsWaterCodeineCold water extraction (CWE)Medicine regulationParacetamol OverdoseTampering

Identifiers

PMID32917213
PMCPMC7488478
OpenAlexW3084602098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.