Stakeholders in opioid substitution treatment policy: Similarities and differences in six European countries

Substance Use and Misuse

Volumn 48, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 933-942

  Thom, Betsy ^a   Duke, Karen ^b   Frank, Vibeke Asmussen ^c   Bjerge, Bagga ^c  

^a MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Abstinence; Addictions; Drug user treatment policy; Europe; Evidence based policy; Harm reduction; Policy stream; Political stream; Problem stream; Stakeholders; Substitution treatment; Window of opportunity

Indexed keywords

CULTURAL FACTOR; EDITORIAL; EUROPE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; OPIATE ADDICTION; OPIATE SUBSTITUTION TREATMENT; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; OPIOID-RELATED DISORDERS;

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; EUROPE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; OPIATE SUBSTITUTION TREATMENT; OPIOID-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 84882736830     PISSN: 10826084     EISSN: 15322491     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10826084.2013.797720     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Anderson, P., & Baumberg, B. (2005). Stakeholders' views of alcohol policy. A report for the European Commission. London: Institute of Alcohol Studies. Berridge V. (Ed.), (2005). Making health policy. Networks in research and policy after 1945. The welcome series in the history of medicine. Amsterdam: Rudopi
2. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
3. Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239-246
4. EMCDDA. (2000). Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union. Lisbon: EMCDDA
5. Fischer, B., & Rehm, J. (1998). Intoxication, the law and criminal responsibility - A sparkling cocktail at times: The case studies of Canada and Germany. European Addiction Research, 4(3), 89-101
6. Hillebrand J., & Burkhart G. (2009). Bridging the science-practice gap in drug demand reduction: A European perspective. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 16(6), 561-571
7. Houborg, E., Bjerge, B., & Frank, V. A. (2008). Introduction: Danish drug policy - History, theory, and the international framework. In V. A. Frank, B. Bjerge, & E. Houborg (Eds.), Drug Policy - History, Theory, and Consequences (pp. 9-32). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press
8. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (1st ed.). Boston: Little Brown. (2nd ed. 1995
9. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
10. MacGregor, S. (2011). The impact of research on policy in the drugs field. Methodological Innovations Online, 6(1), 41-57
11. McKeganey, N. (2012). Eclipsing science: The magical power of language in shaping drug policy. In UKDPC Essays on the governance of drug policy (pp. 33-42). London: UKDPC
12. McKeganey N. (2011). Controversies in drug policy and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan
13. Mold, A. (2008). Heroin: The treatment of addiction in twentieth century Britain. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press
14. Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). How to do (or not to do) a stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 338-345
15. Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 521-545