A framework for the evaluation of activities and programs with harm- reduction objectives

Substance Use and Misuse

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 69-82

  Ogborne, Alan C ^a   Birchmore Timney, Carol ^a  

^a CENTRE FOR ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Harm reduction; Policy; Stakeholders

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL; COCAINE; DIAMORPHINE; ILLICIT DRUG; METHADONE; PSYCHOTROPIC AGENT;

ABSTINENCE; ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG ABUSE; DRUG LEGISLATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; POLICE; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SMOKING; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; TOBACCO;

EID: 0032960183     PISSN: 10826084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10826089909035636     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. AMERICAN EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (1994). Guiding principles for evaluators. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, and C. Wye (Eds.). New Directions in Program Evaluation, No. 66. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 19-26.
2. AZJEN, I., and FISHBEIN, M. (Eds.) (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. BALL, J. C., and VAN DE WIJNGAART, G. F. (1994). A Dutch addict's view of methadone maintenance: An American and a Dutch appraisal. Addiction, 89(7): 799-802.
4. BECKER, H. M. (1974). The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Educ. Monogr. 2: 324-508.
5. BOTELHO, R. J., and RICHMOND, R. (1995). Secondary prevention of excessive alcohol use: Assessing the prospects of implementation. Fam. Prac. Res. 13(2); 182-193.
6. BUNING, E. C., VAN BRUSSEL, G. H. A., and VAN SANTEN, G. (1990). The "methadone by bus" project in Amsterdam. Br. J. Addict. 85(10): 1247-1250.
7. CAULKINS, J. (1994). Enforcement or Treatment. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug-Related Harm, Toronto, March 6-10.
8. CHEN, H.-T., and ROSSI, P. H. (1989). Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Eval. Program Plann. 12: 299-306.
9. CHEUNG, Y. W. (1994). Review/commentary of "The reduction of Drug-related Harm" (O'Hare et al., 1992) and "Psychoactive drugs and harm reduction: From faith to science" (Heather et al., 1993). Contemp. Drug Probl. 21: 341-349.
10. DEAR, L. (1995). Negotiated safety: What you don't know won't hurt you, or will it? Drug Alcohol Rev. (Special Issue: Harm Reduction) 14(3): 323-329.
11. FRENCH, M. T., BRADLEY, C. J., CALlNGAERT, B., DENNIS, M. L., et al. (1994). Cost analysis of training and employment services in methadone treatment. Eval. Program Plann. 17(2): 107-120.
12. GRUND, J. P. (1994). Peer-Driven Health Promotion to Combat HIV among Injection Drug Users: Project Description and Preliminary Results. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug-Related Harm, Toronto, March 6-10.
13. GUBA, E. G., and LINCOLN, Y. S. (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14. HAWKS, D. (1993). Impediments to the global adoption of harm-reduction policies. In N. Heather, A. Wodak, N. Nadelmann, and P. O'Hare (Eds.), Psychoactive Drugs and Harm Reduction: From Faith to Science. London: Whurr Publishers, pp. 93-102.
15. HAWKS, D., and LENTON, S. (1995). Harm reduction in Australia: Has it worked? A review. Drug Alcohol Rev. (Special Issue: Harm Reduction) 14(3): 291-304.
16. HEATHER, N. (1995). Groundwork for a research programme on harm reduction in alcohol and drug treatment. Drug Alcohol Rev. (Special Issue: Harm Reduction) 14(3): 331-336.
17. LEVIN, H. M. (1975). Cost-effectiveness analysis in evaluation research. In M. Guttentag and E. L. Struening (Eds.), Handbook of Evaluation Research. Vol. 2. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 89-124.
18. MAJOR, C. (1994). The NSW "Speedwise-Speedsafe" campaign. Connection 13: 14-16.
19. McDERMOTT, P., MATTHEWS, A., O'HARE, P., and BENNETT, A. (1993). Ecstasy in the United Kingdom: Recreational drug use and subcultural change. In N. Heather, A. Wodak, E. Nadelmann, and P. O'Hare (Eds.), Psychoactive Drugs and Harm Reduction: From Faith to Science. London: Whurr Publishers, pp. 230-246.
20. MOORE, L. D., and WENGER, L. D. (1995). The social context of needle exchange and user self-organization in San Francisco: Possibilities and pitfalls. J. Drug Issues 25(3): 583-598.
21. NEWCOMB, R. (1992). The reduction of drug-related harm: A conceptual framework for theory, practice and research. In P. O'Hare, R. Newcomb, A. Matthews, E. C. Buning, et al. (Eds.), The Reduction of Drug-Related Harm. London: Routledge.
22. OGBORNE, A. C., and RUSH, B. R. (1994). Program logic models: Tools for program planning and evaluation. In J. Lloyd-Jones and F. Simyar (Eds.), Strategic Management, Program Evaluation and Accountability for Health Service Professionals. Ottawa: CHA Press, pp. 61-72.
23. PATTON, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 2nd ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24. PLOMP, H. N., VAN DER HEK, H., and ADER, J. H. (1996). The Amsterdam Methadone Dispensing Circuit: Genesis and effectiveness of a public health model for local drug policy. Addiction 91(5): 711-721.
25. PROCHASKA, J., and DICLEMENTI, C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking toward an integrative model of change. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 51: 390-395.
26. RILEY, D. (1994). The Harm-Reduction Model: Pragmatic Approaches to Drug Use from the Area between Intolerance and Neglect. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
27. ROTHENBERG, J. (1975). Cost-benefit analysis: A methodological exposition. In M. Guttentag and E. L. Struening (Eds.), Handbook of Evaluation Research, Vol. 2. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 55-88.
28. RUSH, B., and OGBORNE, A. C. (1991). Program logic models: Expanding their role and structure for program planning and evaluation. Can. J. Program Eval. 6(2): 93-105.
29. RUSSELL, M. (1993). Reduction of smoking-related harm: The score for nicotine replacement. In N. Heather, A. Wodak, E. Nadelmann, and P. O'Hare (Eds.), Psychoactive Drugs and Harm Reduction: From Faith to Science. London: Whurr Publishers, pp. 153-167.
30. RUTMAN, L. (1980). Planning Useful Evaluations: Evaluability Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 208 pp.
31. RYCHTARIK, R., FOY, D. W., SCOTT, T., LOKEY, L., et al. (1987). Five-six year follow-up of broad-spectrum behavioural treatment for alcoholism: Effects of training in controlled drinking skills. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 55: 106-108.
32. SAMARASINGHE, D. (1995). Harm reduction in the developing world. Drug Alcohol Rev. (Special Issue: Harm Reduction) 14(3): 305-309.
33. SANCHEZ-CRAIG, M. (1980). Random assignment to abstinence or controlled drinking in a cognitive-behavioural program: Short term effects on drinking behaviour. Addict. Behav. 5: 35-39.
34. SINGLE, E. (1995). Defining harm reduction. Drug Alcohol Rev. (Special Issue: Harm Reduction) 14(3): 287-290.
35. SMART, R. G. (1996). The effects of alcohol control policies. In R. G. Smart and A. C. Ogborne (Eds.), Northern Spirits: A Social History of Alcohol in Canada, 2nd ed. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, pp. 153-170.
36. STAKE, R. E. (1975). Evaluating the Arts in Education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
37. STIMSON, G. V. (1996). Has the United Kingdom averted an epidemic of HIV-1 infection among drug injectors. Addiction 91: 1085-1088.
38. STRANG, J. (1993). Drug use and harm reduction: Responding to the challenge. In N. Heather, A. Wodak, E. Nadelmann, and P. O'Hare (Eds.), Psychoactive Drugs and Harm Reduction: From Faith to Science. London: Whurr Publishers, pp. 3-20.
39. TOEPELL, A. R. (1997). Harm reduction efforts inside Canadian prisons: The example of education. In P. A. Erickson, D. M. Riley, Y. W. Cheung, and P. A. O'Hare (Eds.), Harm Reduction; A New Direction for Drug Policies and Programs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
40. WARD, J., MATTICK, R. P., and HALL, W. (1994). The effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment: An overview. Drug Alcohol Rev. 13(3): 327-336.
41. WEINSTEIN, N. D. (1988). The precaution adoption hypothesis. Health Psychol. 12: 235-245.
42. WEISS, C. H. (1987). Where politics and evaluation research meet. In D. J. Palumbo (Ed.), The Politics of Program Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 47-70.