Keywords
Substance use, diversion scheme, interagency collaboration, partnership working, frame analysis, qualitative research
-
Views
4
Downloads
How to cite this article
Mills T, Jarrett M, Mallion J et al. Scoping the challenges and opportunities for a public health diversion pathway for substance use in a county district in England: a qualitative frame analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:100 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14123.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Research Article
Scoping the challenges and opportunities for a public health diversion pathway for substance use in a county district in England: a qualitative frame analysis
[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 15 Oct 2025
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Plain Language Summary
Corresponding author:
Thomas Mills
Competing interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.
How to cite: Mills T, Jarrett M, Mallion J et al. Scoping the challenges and opportunities for a public health diversion pathway for substance use in a county district in England: a qualitative frame analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:100 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14123.1)
First published: 15 Oct 2025, 5:100 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14123.1)
Latest published: 15 Oct 2025, 5:100 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14123.1)
Grant information:
This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme NIHR131568; Award ID; NIHR135411]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright:
© Crown copyright, 2025 Mills T et al.. This open access work is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
How to cite: Mills T, Jarrett M, Mallion J et al. Scoping the challenges and opportunities for a public health diversion pathway for substance use in a county district in England: a qualitative frame analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:100 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14123.1)
First published: 15 Oct 2025, 5:100 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14123.1)
Latest published: 15 Oct 2025, 5:100 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14123.1)
Introduction
Diversion schemes for addressing substance use in the Criminal Justice (CJ) system have been established globally since at least the 1970s1–3. While differences exist in the theory and practice of diversion, the fundamental idea is that service-users are diverted to assessment and/or support instead of arrest, prosecution, or formal caution4. Such schemes may be pre- or post-arrest, voluntary or mandatory, and offer diverse intervention types such as treatment for substance use, education, or employment support5. Recent years have seen an increased interest in public health approaches to diversion that favour voluntary entry points and aim to address service-users’ unmet health, social, and economic needs1.
Diversion schemes in the UK
In the UK, diversionary schemes have received renewed attention at the national level6. The nationally mandated Drug Intervention Programme (DIP) was introduced in the early 2000s to reduce crime linked to substance use. Underpinned by a multiagency approach that included the National Health Service (NHS), the DIP combined voluntary and mandatory approaches, with police officers having the option to manage service-users into treatment, depending on various trigger offences. Evidence for the effectiveness of DIP in the long-term is debated, but the programme is known to have reduced crime during service-users’ time in treatment7,8. However, the end to national funding for DIP in 2013, coupled with austerity measures, created major gaps in local service provision9,10.
In response to various independent reviews9,10, the UK Government published the policy paper ‘From Harm to Hope: a 10-year drugs plan to cut crime and save lives’, presenting a ten-year drug strategy consisting of increased funding and targets for diverting service-users into treatment6. Such renewed policy attention coincides with societal and organisational shifts towards public health approaches to policing1. The role of frontline police staff has been reappraised as part of the wider public health workforce by both policing11–13 and the public health profession14. The Policing Vision 2025, a ten-year plan for policing, highlights the importance of preventative activities within policing15. These developments present opportunities for public health approaches to diversion.
Overview of paper
This paper presents a formative evaluation of the development of a public health diversion pathway for substance use that spanned custody suites and community settings. The pathway was conceptualized by local government public health and senior management of the local substance use treatment provider, with the support of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC). The service context was the county district of Nottinghamshire. Rather than solely engaging service-users within the custody suite, the pathway features new community referral routes for treatment. The aspiration was for service-users to receive personalized interventions across the three levels of service-user needs (see Table 1). In this section, we discuss the challenges and opportunities of this pathway concept.
Table 1. A levelled approach to intervention delivery.
| Level | Intervention |
|---|---|
| L1 | Universal provision of health-related advice in police custody for cases involving substance or alcohol use at any level, including via a tailored Welcome Pack. (The implementation of alcohol brief interventions in the custody suite is explored in a different paper17. |
| L2 | A voluntary referral into treatment services open to any service-user who wants it, either via custody or a community referral, for the standard treatment provided by the treatment provider. |
| L3 | A voluntary or mandatory route whereby police staff (either in custody or in community settings) identify people who they view as priority cases for extensive and proactive support in community settings. The resource intensive nature of L3 meant that numbers would be limited to 18 people over the 12-months delivery period. |
Methods
Local government public health successfully applied for evaluation support from Public Health Intervention Responsive Studies Teams (PHIRST) South Bank, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The PHIRST South Bank research team, two Public Patient Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) personnel, and representatives from local government public health, the OPCC, the police, and the local treatment provider co-produced the evaluation design16.
Data collection
Data collection featured two rounds. First, senior staff of the main commissioning agencies (local government public health and OPCC) and staff with implementation responsibilities were recruited via purposive sampling and interviewed at the midpoint of the 12-month delivery period. The interview schedule explored interviewees’ perceptions of the proposed pathway, their implementation efforts, the strengths and weaknesses of the custody suite, community settings as entry points for treatment, and national policy developments.
Second, a combination of purposive sampling and snowballing was used to recruit frontline staff towards the end of the delivery period, including substance use workers, custody police staff, neighbourhood police, and NHS Liaison & Diversion (L&D), a nationally commissioned treatment provider operating in the custody suite. Three senior stakeholders were interviewed for a second time because they were deemed to have vital insights for the evaluation. 22 participants were interviewed, with a total of 25 interviews ranging from 23 minutes to 1 h and 10 minutes (see Table 2).
Table 2. Interviews by staff group.
| Staff group | Quotation label | Number of staff | Number of interviews |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local government public health | LGPH (local government public health) | 3 | 5 |
| OPCC | PS (Police staff*) | 1 | 2 |
| Police | PS (Police staff) | 7 | 7 |
| Substance use workers | SW (substance user worker) | 7 | 7 |
| NHS L&D | L&D (NHS L&D) | 4 | 4 |
| Total | 22 | 25 | |
All interviews were conducted by experienced qualitative researchers and were professionally transcribed. Recruitment concluded once the research team considered that they had interviewed staff from all the roles that might support the pathway, and that saturation had been achieved in terms of understanding staff’s views of the pathway locally.
Data analysis
A frame analysis was conducted to understand the institutional basis of differences in participants’ views18. An established approach in public policy19, previous frame analyses in public health have drawn attention to contrasting frames of obesity (individualistic vs. systematic), which align with contrasting policy responses20,21. Here, we utilised frame analysis to unpick differences in a) participants’ views of substance use harm and their role in addressing this, and b) participants’ contrasting positions on pathway design.
The first phase of data familiarisation was followed by the development of a coding framework that was applied to all interview data using NVivo version 12. The coding framework was initially informed by established matrixes designed to identify and compare frames20. This was modified iteratively as the analysis progressed. Categories from the literature were incorporated to identify dominant frames, notably the distinction between public health and public safety22, whereas other categories were proposed and incorporated on an inductive basis.
Concurrent with the frame analysis, a situational analysis was undertaken to better understand the internal and external factors affecting the pathway’s design, which is commonly used by organisations to optimise performance through enhanced understanding of the Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses and Threats (SWOT) underpinning decisions23. A SWOT infographic was created and presented to senior stakeholders at a midpoint evaluation meeting, which was then revised following the second round of data collection. Each step of the analysis involved shared coding, member checking, and group analysis among the research team to ensure rigour and credibility, while the different perspectives within the team (which included public health and criminal justice research perspectives) enhanced reflexivity. The final presentation of the results is the end-product of this process.
Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement statement
The research team recruited two PPIE representatives who had experience of the custody suite and the local substance use support service. They attended coproduction meetings facilitated by the research team to decide on the research focus and methodological approach. The PPIE representatives supported the research team to develop interview topic guides, making important contributions about the need for accessible language. The PPIE representatives also advised on how to recruit service-users. However, it was not possible to sustain their engagement into the data analysis phase despite the research team’s efforts to support their involvement. It was also not possible to recruit more PPIE representatives from the custody suite or local substance use support service. Addressing challenges conducting PPIE in criminal justice and substance use settings should be a priority in future research.
Results
The frame analysis is summarised in two sections. Section 1 identifies the main frames underpinning participants’ perspectives. We identify a dual axis of Public Health (PH) versus Public Safety (PS) on the one hand, and custody versus community on the other, resulting in four main frames: PH-Custody, PS-Custody, PH-Community, and PS-Community. Section 2 explores the content of these frames in relation to questions about pathway design. Section 3 concludes with the SWOT infographic, which exhibits a commissioning dilemma that ultimately undermined the efforts to develop a diversion pathway.
Section 1: A dual axis of agency frames
Public Health vs Public Safety
Clear differences in perspective were evident between the police and those agencies whose primary role was to support public health. Figure 1 shows some of the key similarities and differences between PH and PS.
Figure 1. Public Health vs Public Safety.
The PH and PS frames shared assumptions about the multifaceted nature of the problem of substance use – and the importance of a multi-agency approach – but had contrasting values and assumptions about service-user motivation and the police role.
Many police staff supported a PH approach despite there being some “old-fashioned police officers who absolutely believe in enforcement, in detention” [PS1]. Police attitudes had purportedly shifted due to the recognition of the ineffectiveness of prison [PS2] and experiential learning:
As a young police officer there’s nothing more satisfying than when a perceived baddie, someone who’s causing chaos and carnage in the city centre [is arrested]: you arrest them, you detain them, you take them into custody, you interview them for whatever relevant offence, they are processed, they’re charged, they’re either remanded, or they go to prison. And you’re thinking: “I’ve done a good job there: that’s what my job is about”. And that is part of a police officer’s role, but then when you see that same person bounce out of prison in very short order … and then it happens a third and a fourth time, clearly there is something going wrong [PS4]
However, police staff saw their role as supporting other agencies to deliver a PH approach, whereas other agencies proposed that police staff deliver interventions directly, such as brief alcohol interventions, or service-user assessments and referrals. Furthermore, where local government public health and both treatment provider organisations were primarily concerned with health and well-being, police staff were concerned with addressing the needs of the victims of crime, who were notably absent in PH framings:
We need to be doing something right for that person [person with substance misuse needs] and right for the victims as well … [and] the victims’ families [PS5]
Senior managers recognised these differences and sought a compromise in pathway design. The following quotes capture differences in the question of how to engage service-users, with references to ‘good-natured’ disagreement and a desire to ‘merge’ with the contrasting frame:
Some of the criminal justice sector say, “These people are committing crime. We need to arrest them” …. Looking at it from a public health perspective, there’s a reason why these people are misusing substances: we need to help them and engage with them and bring them into treatment … We are on two different train tracks and it’s how we can sort of merge a little bit around the fundamentals [LGPH1]
The key point of disagreement … and it’s a very good-natured disagreement – we don’t agree on this and we know we don’t and we talk about it – it’s the bit about engagement … [Public health professionals] and most treatment providers will say, “People have to want to engage with the treatment in order for it to be successful”, and I do absolutely get that, but I also know for some offenders being mandated to do it, so they had to do it or they’d be back in prison, that mandatory aspect, also really works for some people [PS1]
Community vs Custody
Contrasting perspectives also existed within the two overarching PH and PS frames linked to staff positions across the community setting and the custody suite divide. A dual axis of PS vs. PH and Community vs. Custody can therefore be identified to situate various agencies (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. A dual axis of agency frames.
Stakeholder frames mapped onto a dual axis of PH vs PS – on the one hand – and the Community vs Custody – on the other.
While broadly aligning with the PH frame, local government public health and NHS L&D had contrasting perspectives. Local government public health staff exhibited a strong population-level outlook and emphasised the importance of upstream prevention in community settings, thus exhibiting a distinct PH-Community frame. In the following quote, a local government public health professional reflects on the difference between this perspective and the NHS’, based on their experiences of working on the NHS-commissioned Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT), which predated L&D:
It’s been a culture change for me [moving from the NHS to local government] because how the Drug and Alcohol Action Team versus how Public Health do business is very different. Public Health think a lot more strategically and a lot more across the life course. So, they’re a lot more interested in “How do we break the cycle of intergenerational substance misuse?” … [It’s] that Public Health, population-level, thinking … [whereas before] I was very used to being interested in the [operational] detail … We were far more hands-on when we were in the DAAT, compared to how Public Health like to do business [LGPH3]
By contrast, NHS L&D staff operating within the custody suite prioritised support for offenders and considered the community setting to be “quite a way from our service’ [L&D3]. Their preventative approach highlighted the importance of preventing further harm and supporting recovery in line with a more secondary understanding of prevention.
Substance use workers, highlighted in blue in Figure 2, worked across the Community and Custody divide and sought to balance efforts to address health needs in the custody suite with preventative efforts in the community.
This secondary distinction between Custody and the Community also underpinned differences in police perspectives, with custody police staff adhering to a PS-Custody frame that reflected their positioning in the custody suite. Although oriented towards crime prevention and supportive of mandatory entry points into treatment (in line with the PS frame), neighbourhood police shared the local government’s public health interest in upstream, community-centred prevention:
Section 2: Contrasting agency frames on pathway design
The four frames revealed in Section 1 had distinct and sometimes clashing perspectives on pathway design, notably regarding whether specialist substance use workers should be deployed in custody suites or community settings. First, we present the PH-Community frame, as the frame of the local government public health commissioners who led the pathway’s redesign. We then consider how this contrasts with the other frames (PS-Custody, PH-Custody, and PS-Community).
PH-Community
Local government public health commissioners proposed that custody police staff manage referrals for treatment within the custody suite. They argued that this would enable the adoption of a more preventative, PH-Community approach by freeing up the time of substance use workers (who previously worked only in the custody suite) to engage in community outreach. Local government public health argued that this was important because having substance use workers in the custody suite was inefficient due to low footfall in the county. They also believed that repositioning substance use workers in the community would facilitate a more personalised service, as service-users already in treatment could be met in community locations, while substance use workers could engage in upstream prevention by identifying and supporting substance users prior to entry into police custody. This implied a more proactive approach than the previous model based on police custody, although local government public health recognised that the effectiveness of their favoured approach needed testing:
In order to take that proactive approach, people can’t be just sitting in custody: we don’t have the capacity to have two [substance use] teams, one solely based in custody and one solely being assertive outreach. So, it’s where the bang for the buck is and what’s the best approach to test out in terms of, how do we engage people better into treatment? Is it sat in custody or is it being more proactive? … We have to take a punt and think about where resources will be best to test out this process [LGPH1]
PS-Custody
Police adherents of the PS-Custody frame rejected local government public health’s call for an enhanced police role in the management of referrals in the custody suite. While police staff professed support for a PH approach, role congruency issues and skill gaps were highlighted as barriers to police staff performing an enhanced assessment of service-users on entry into police custody. In this regard, police staff reluctance was linked to how they are perceived by service-users. Having “taken away their liberty” [PS5], police believed that service-users may not be truthful due to the criminal status of substance use. For police staff, forming a trusting relationship is challenging.
I’ve spoken to quite a few different sergeants and detention officers and they’ve said exactly the same: it’s difficult to switch from being the ‘jailor’ to being someone who wants to help them. And I think it’s a real skill. Some people are able to do that and some people just can’t, or the service-user is just not receptive [SW2]
As such, custody police staff called for concentrating the substance use workforce in police custody because, they argued, independence from the police was important for gaining trust:
An independent person, doing that interaction or intervention around substance misuse [would be better], someone who understands the individual to actually gain some trust to then say, “Right: you’d benefit from support” [PS5]
PH-Custody
The NHS L&D staff had a broader remit than the substance use treatment provider, aiming to support people in the CJ system with vulnerabilities, including but not limited to substance use needs. Operating in the custody suite 12-hours a day, 7-days a week, NHS L&D staff recognised opportunities to engage with service-users but highlighted skills gaps in relation to substance use support. Hence, their position on pathway design was to call for substance use workers to be positioned in police custody, so NHS L&D could undertake joint assessments with them. In the absence of a specialist presence, NHS L&D staff were concerned that some service-users would not obtain the support they needed:
There are discussions and queries about people on methadone … I’m not a specialist in any of that kind of thing and the different systems and where to get it from and signpost. I think having someone with that knowledge based in custody would be an advantage [L&D3]
Substance use workers had a nuanced perspective on the question of where they might utilise their specialist expertise, voicing frustrations with unused time in the custody suite, while also highlighting the unique person-centred support which, they argued, only substance use workers can provide in police custody. An important part of their role there was picking up people with substance use needs who were missed in police-led booking in assessments, via informal ‘cell sweeps’:
We’ve had more success by doing our own, a bit more confidential and private, cell sweeps, when the person’s been in their cell [SW3]
PS-Community
Neighborhood police in the community recognised that their knowledge of neighbourhoods meant they could identify individuals with substance use needs who might commit crimes. They also recognised opportunities for them to signpost people towards treatment and highlighted the potential for referrals to be generated at local Vulnerable People Panels attended by the local substance use provider. However, neighbourhood police saw their role as supporting other agencies within a PH approach, rather than delivering health interventions directly. They argued that referrals into the new pathway would have to be generated by substance use workers working ‘face-to-face’ with neighbourhood police, rather than by neighbourhood police alone, via electronic systems:
Neighbourhood policing teams … should be able to identify people who’ve got issues or require support. And, if they’ve got a means to directly refer them in … they [would] take that. The issue is … [neighbourhood police staff] get confused with what’s out there and don’t get the feedback. So, it’s almost like, “Oh … I’ve put a form in or an electronic referral in and I didn't get anything back. I didn't know if they received it or not.” So, outreach and being part of those operational meetings … would work, face-to-face [PS3]
Section 3: A commissioning dilemma
Figure 3 presents the fundamental commissioning dilemma faced by local government public health commissioners as they sought to balance the contrasting frames explored in Section 1 and Section 2. As we saw in Section 2, stakeholders disagreed over frontline police staff roles in the pathway and the linked issue of where and how to utilise the substance use workforce. Reallocating substance use staff to community settings promised prevention through more proactive community engagement (as identified by the PH-Community frame), but risked gaps in custody support (as identified by the PH-Custody and PS-Custody frames), as custody police staff resisted a lead role in pathway delivery. Retaining substance use staff in police custody to support custody police staff addressed health needs there but preserved reactive provision that precluded community outreach.
Figure 3. SWOT: A Commissioning Dilemma.
Local government public health commissioners – who were the primary commissioner of the local substance use support service – faced a commissioning dilemma as the substance use workers were requested in both the community and custody settings but there were too few staff resources to meet this demand. Clear trade-offs – including contrasting weaknesses and strengths – were identified to concentrating substance use workers in the community or the custody suite.
Opportunities were identified to develop NHS L&D staff’s role in substance use assessments, referrals, and support that might enable substance use workers to spend more time in the community, but this was aspirational. As such, the substance use workforce was pulled back into reactive mode in police custody. Furthermore, because neighbourhood police (in the PS-Community frame) insisted that they, like custody police, needed the direct support of the substance use workforce in the community, opportunities to utilise neighbourhood police’s community intelligence in preventative efforts could not be utilised.
Discussion section
Diversion pathways for substance use have long been discussed in many countries, and evidence on service utilisation and recidivism is equivocal7,8,24,25. Amidst the ongoing discussion about public health approaches to substance use1,26, our findings indicate that a comprehensive public health pathway for substance use diversion would entail diverse prevention, treatment, and recovery options, with entry points into treatment across the custody suite and community settings. With primary prevention resting with public health and neighbourhood police to be provided in collaboration with specialist substance use workers in the community, secondary prevention would be within police custody. In England, such secondary prevention requires collaboration between custody police staff, substance user workers, and NHS L&D (who have broader remits than substance use treatment providers).
However, we find that precise staff roles in such a multiagency pathway, as well as the interrelationships between the agencies mentioned, are yet to be established. In this study, considerable differences in opinions regarding the roles and contributions of frontline police meant that progress was limited. We identified a commissioning dilemma (see Figure 3) linked to decisions about where to allocate the substance use workforce, which entailed unavoidable trade-offs. Commissioned primarily by local government public health, this workforce had specialist substance use support skills that were highlighted as vital by the adherents of each of the four frames we identified: PH-Custody, PS-Custody, PH-Community, and PS-Community. This created a push and pull dynamic across the custody suite and community settings, as substance use workers were needed in both settings to support police staff who did not accept the enhanced health roles required for the pathway to function.
Thus, our findings have significant implications for recent calls for collaboration between the police and public health. Leading public health and police organisations promote active involvement of frontline police staff in the delivery of health interventions11–14. While we detected clear trends among police staff towards support for a public health approach, this did not correspond to their direct involvement in the delivery of health interventions. Custody and neighbourhood police staff rejected calls to implement substance use assessments, referrals, and brief advice, insisting on substance use workers leading on these tasks with police support.
Crucially, police staff highlighted that service-users may not be truthful with the police when discussing substance use because of the potential criminal implications, suggesting that some barriers to police engagement link to broader debates about drug criminalisation. Because use and possession remain criminalised in England, disclosure to police may be perceived as risky by service-users, reducing the feasibility of police-led assessment, even when police support the overall public health approach. It is interesting to note that Portugal’s national strategy approach, arguably the leading international example of a public health approach to substance use, combined drug criminalisation (in terms of use, purchase, and possession27) with the introduction of diversion pathways. Even here, however, the responsibility for assessment lies not with the police, but with ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’27. These commissions comprise a small group of individuals, usually social workers, psychologists, and lawyers, all of whom have expertise in substance use. The police’s role is primarily crime prevention rather than health intervention delivery27.
The Portuguese example suggests that a more cautious approach to changing police roles may be needed, with non-police staff being more suited to delivering health interventions. This resonates with the more cautious approach in the ‘Right Care, Right Person’ strategy in England, which suggests a more indirect and supportive role for police when collaborating with health agencies, including in substance use support28.
These findings, highlighting the well-established challenges to effective collaboration in the area29–31, have significant national-level implications. With diverse agencies professing support for a public health approach to diversion, a cross-agency consensus is needed regarding what this entails for frontline staff as a precursor to developing more precise service specifications. In addition to the question of the role of frontline police, national policy documents suggest that referrals into treatment will proceed via NHS L&D6. However, NHS L&D staff highlighted skills gaps to fulfil such a role, which saw them request direct collaboration with specialist substance use workers. Clarity is therefore required, and any resourcing and skill development needs met if NHS L&D staff manage substance use referrals in police custody.
Limitations
Qualitative research involving a single case has limited transferability although we sought to ensure ‘thick description’ through the results section to partially offset this. A further limitation is the reliance on staff perspectives: recruitment of service-users from the custody suite was challenging and our two-person PPIE panel, formed at the start of the evaluation and helpfully involved in study design, could not be sustained through data collection and analysis.
Conclusion
Public health approaches to diversion are challenging to develop in a context of contrasting agency understandings of what ‘public health’ entails, resource constraints and unclear national policy. There is a need for national-level multi-agency discussions to develop a shared understanding of a public health approach to diversion. We found contrasting opinions regarding the role of frontline police in assessments, referrals, and brief intervention delivery. A more realistic and sustainable approach may be to reposition the police as facilitators of referral while health professionals take the lead in assessment and intervention delivery. Addressing these questions openly at the national level will be critical if public health diversion pathways are successfully developed locally. Future research should engage service-users in questions of pathway design and aim to establish optimal agency roles and processes for coordinating interventions across custody suites and community settings.
Ethical considerations
This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institute of Health and Social Care Ethics Panel at London South Bank University (ETH2122-0131 and ETH2122-0176). All the participants provided written informed consent for participation.
Consent to publication
All interview participants provided written informed consent for publication.
Copyright
© Crown copyright, 2025 Mills T et al.. This open access work is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0
Download
Export To
CITE
how to cite this article
Mills T, Jarrett M, Mallion J et al. Scoping the challenges and opportunities for a public health diversion pathway for substance use in a county district in England: a qualitative frame analysis [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:100 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14123.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEW
HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations -
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Competing Interests Policy
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests'
- Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
- You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
- You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
- You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
- You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
- You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests'
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
- You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.
Stay Updated
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Register with NIHR Open Research
Already registered? Sign in
Comments on this article Comments (0)