Participatory evaluation of a Dutch warning campaign for substance-users

Health, Risk and Society

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 283-295

  Keijsers, Loes ^a   Bossong, Matthijs ^b   Waarlo, Arend Jan ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Delphi technique; Drugs of abuse; Public health; Risk management; Warning campaign

Indexed keywords

ATROPINE; COCAINE;

ARTICLE; COCAINE DEPENDENCE; DELPHI STUDY; DRUG CONTAMINATION; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG INTOXICATION; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG USE; HEALTH HAZARD; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MASS COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NETHERLANDS; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 49549125378     PISSN: 13698575     EISSN: 14698331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13698570802160913     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Boermans, P. A. M. M., Go, H. S., Wessels, A. M. A. and Uges, D. R. A. (2006) Quantification by HPLC-MS/MS of atropine in human serum and clinical presentation of six mild-to-moderate intoxicated atropine-adulterated-cocaine users. Therapeutic drug monitoring, 28, pp. 295-298.
2. Brehm, J. W. (1966) A theory of psychological reactance, Academic Press, New York
3. Carey, M. A. (1995) Comment: Concerns in the analysis of focus group data. Qualitative health research, 5, pp. 487-496.
4. Crawford, I. W., Mackway-Jones, K., Russell, D. R. and Carley, S. D. (2004) Delphi based consensus study into planning for chemical incidents. Emergency medicine journal, 21, pp. 24-28.
5. Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1962) An experimental application of the Delphi-method to the use of experts, The RAND Corporation, (RM-727-PR) (Abridged), Santa Monica, CA
6. De Kort, M. and Cramer, T. (1999) Pragmatism versus ideology: Dutch drug policy continued. Journal of drug issues, 29, pp. 473-492.
7. De Rodes, D. M. (1994) Risk perception and risk communication in the public decision-making process. Journal of planning literature, 8, pp. 324-335.
8. Engel, P. A. (2001) In memoriam George L. Engel, M.D., 1913-1999. Remembering his life and work; rediscovering his soul. Psychosomatics, 42, pp. 94-99.
9. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2006) Annual report 2006: The state of the drugs problem in Europe, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal
10. Fearn-Banks, K. (2002) Crisis communications: A casebook approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey
11. Fischhoff, B. (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk analysis, 15, pp. 137-145.
12. Fleuren, M., Wiefferink, K. and Paulussen, T. (2004) Determinants of innovations whithin health care organisations. Literature review and Delphi study. International journal for quality in health care, 16, pp. 107-123.
13. Gendron, S. (2001) Transformative alliances between qualitative and quantitative approaches in health promotion research. Evaluation in health promotion: Principles and perspectives, pp. 107-122. World Health Organization, Copenhagen, Denmark
14. Moore, C. M. (1987) Group techniques for idea building, Sage Publications, Newbury Park
15. Morgan, D. L. (1996) Focus groups. Annual review of sociology, 22, pp. 129-152.
16. National Research Council (1989) Improving risk communication, National Academy Press, Washington
17. Powell, C. (2002) The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of advanced nursing, 41, pp. 376-382.
18. Rohrmann, B. (1992) The evaluation of risk communication effectiveness. Acta psychologica, 81, pp. 169-192.
19. Robson, C. (2000) Small scale evaluation, principles and practice, Sage Publications, London
20. Schwartz, R. and Mayne, J. (2005) Assuring the quality of evaluative information: Theory and practice. Evaluation and program planning, 28, pp. 1-14.
21. Sim, J. (1998) Collecting and analyzing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group. Journal of advanced nursing, 28, pp. 345-352.
22. Springett, J. (2001) Appropriate approaches to the evaluation of health promotion. Critical public health, 11, pp. 139-151.
23. Spruit, I. P. (2001) Monitoring synthetic drug markets, trends, and public health. Substance use and misuse, 36, pp. 23-47.
24. Van Amsterdam, J. G. C., Best, W., Opperhuizen, A. and De Wolff, F. A. (2004) Evaluation of a procedure to assess the adverse effects of illicit drugs. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 39, pp. 1-4.
25. Van Laar, M. W., Cruts, A. A. N., Verdurmen, J. E. E., Van Ooyen-Houben, M. M. J. and Meijer, R. F. (2006) National Drug Monitor, Annual Report 2005, Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
26. Winek, C. L., Wahba, W. W., Winek Jr, C. L. and Balzer, T. W. (2001) Winek's Drugs & Chemical Blood Level Data, Pittsburgh Criminalistics Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA
27. World Health Organization (2004) Prevention of mental disorders; Effective interventions and policy options, World Health Organization, Geneva