Scientific evidence alone is not sufficient basis for health policy

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 344, Issue 7854, 2012, Pages

  Humphreys, Keith ^a   Piot, Peter ^b  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

3,4 METHYLENEDIOXYMETHAMPHETAMINE; BUPRENORPHINE; DIAMORPHINE; METHAMPHETAMINE; WART VIRUS VACCINE;

CIRCUMCISION; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE CONTROL; DISEASE TRANSMISSION; DRUG ABUSE; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG DEPENDENCE; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; INFECTION PREVENTION; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OPIATE ADDICTION; POLITICS; PRESCRIPTION; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SCIENTIST; SCREENING TEST; SEXUAL EDUCATION; SMOKING; STANDARD; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; RESEARCH;

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH POLICY; POLITICS; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84862266728     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e1316     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Caulkins JP, Reuter P, Coulson C. Basing drug scheduling decisions on scientific ranking of harmfulness: false promise from false premises. Addiction 2011;106:1886-90.
2. Fischer B, Kendall P. Nutt et al's harm scales for drugs-room for improvement but better policy based on science with limitations than no science at all. Addiction 2011;106:1891-2.
3. Nutt D. Let not the best be the enemy of the good. Addiction 2011;106:1892-3.
4. Obot IS. Improved ranking of drugs on harmfulness can bring sense and order to a failed system. Addiction 2011;106:1894-5.
5. Room R. Scales and schedules, notes and beams-whose view is obstructed on drug scheduling? Addiction 2011;106:1895-6.
6. Rossow I. Can harm ratings be useful? Addiction 2011;106:1893-4.
7. Humphreys K, McLellan AT. Brief intervention, treatment and recovery support services for Americans who have substance use disorders: an overview of policy in the Obama administration. Psychol Services 2010;7:275-84.
8. White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. National drug control strategy. Executive Office of the President, 2010.
9. Knight L. UNAIDS. The first 10 years, 1996-2006. UNAIDS, 2008.
10. White House Office of National AIDS Policy. National HIV/AIDS strategy for the United States. White House, 2010.
11. Proctor RN. Golden holocaust: origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition. University of California Press, 2012.
12. Piot P, Russell S, Larson H. Good politics, bad politics: the experience of AIDS. Am JPub Health 2007;97:1934-6.
13. Donohue JJ, Wolfers J. Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Rev 2005;58:791-846.
14. Strang J, Babor T, Caulkins J, Fischer B, Foxcroft D, Humphreys K. Drug policy and the public good: evidence for effective interventions. Lancet 2012;378:71-83.
15. Chigwedere P, Seage GR, Gruskin S, Lee TH, Essex M. Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. J AIDS 2008;49:410-5.
16. Roth-Cline MD. Clinical trials in the wake of Vioxx. Requiring statistically extreme evidence of benefit to ensure the safety of new drugs. Circulation 2006;113:2253-9.
17. Kendler HH. The role of value in the world of psychology. Am Psychol 1999;54:828-35.
18. Allen GE. Eugenics and American social history, 1880-1950. Genome 1989;31:885-9.