"We are people too": Consumer participation and the potential transformation of therapeutic relations within drug treatment

International Journal of Drug Policy

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 30-36

  Rance, Jake ^a   Treloar, Carla ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Australia; Consumer participation; Drug use and treatment; Qualitative interviews; Service users and providers; Stigma and discrimination

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CONSUMER; DRUG DEPENDENCE; DRUG THERAPY; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; STAFF; STIGMA; COOPERATION; DEHUMANIZATION; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; INTERVIEW; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARDS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DEHUMANIZATION; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; NEW SOUTH WALES; PROFESSIONAL-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTERS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 84919848290     PISSN: 09553959     EISSN: 18734758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) (September 2011), National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards, ACSQHC, Sydney.
2. Bryant J., Saxton M., Madden A., Bath N., Robinson S. Consumer participation in the planning and delivery treatment services: The current arrangements. Drug and Alcohol Review 2008, 27(2):130-137. 10.1080/09595230701829397.
3. Bryant J., Saxton M., Madden A., Bath N., Robinson S. Consumers' and providers' perspectives about consumer participation in drug treatment services: Is there support to do more? What are the obstacles?. Drug and Alcohol Review 2008, 27(2):138-144. 10.1080/09595230701829405.
4. Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care Consumer focus collaboration 1998, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
5. Crawford M., Rutter D., Manley C., Weaver T., Bhui K., Fulop N., et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ 2002, 325:1263. 10.1136/bmj.325.7375.1263.
6. Crawford S. Shouting through bullet-proof glass: Some reflections on pharmacotherapy provision in one Australian clinic. International Journal of Drug Policy 2013, 24(6):e14-e17. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.07.004.
7. Duff C. Towards a theory of drug use contexts: Space, embodiment and practice. Addiction Research and Theory 2007, 15(5):503-519. 10.1080/16066350601165448.
8. Fischer J., Neale J. Involving drug users in treatment decisions: An exploration of potential problems. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy 2008, 15(2):161-175. 10.1080/09687630701391604.
9. Fox N. Postmodern perspectives on care: The vigil and the gift. Critical Social Policy 1995, 15(44-45):107-125. 10.1177/026101839501504407.
10. Fraser S., Valentine K. Substance and substitution: Methadone subjects in liberal societies 2008, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. 10.1057/9780230582569.
11. Fricker M. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing 2007, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
12. Hinton T. Voices on choices: Working towards consumer-led alcohol and drug treatment 2010, The Social Action and Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
13. Lupton D. The imperative of health: Public health and the regulated body 1995, Sage, London.
14. Manderson D. Possessed: The unconscious law of drugs. The drug effect: Health, crime and society 2011, 225-239. Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Australia. 10.1017/CBO9781139162142.017. S. Fraser, D. Moore (Eds.).
15. McDermott P. Flavour of the month: Users in service provision. Druglink 2002, 17(1):18-21.
16. Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy National Drug Strategy 2010-2015 2011, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra ACT, Australia.
17. Mol A. The Logic of Care: Health and the problem of patient choice 2008, Routledge, London.
18. Moore D., Fraser S. Putting at risk what we know: Reflecting on the drug-using subject in harm reduction and its political implications. Social Science and Medicine 2006, 62(12):3035-3047. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.067.
19. Nathan S. Consumer participation: The challenges to achieving influence and equity. Australian Journal of Primary Health 2004, 10(3):15-20. 10.1071/PY04042.
20. Neale J. Feel good factor. Druglink 2006, 21(1):20-21.
21. Patterson S., Weaver T., Agath K., Albert E., Rhodes T., Rutter D., et al. 'They can't solve the problem without us': A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives on user involvement in drug treatment services in England. Health and Social Care in the Community 2008, 17(1):54-62. 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00797.x.
22. Patterson S., Weaver T., Agath K., Rutter D., Albert E., Crawford M. User involvement in efforts to improve the quality of drug misuse services in England: A national survey. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2009, 16(4):364-377. 10.1080/09687630802061544.
23. Patterson S., Weaver T., Crawford M. Drug service user groups: Only a partial solution to the problem of developing user involvement. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy 2010, 17(1):84-97. 10.3109/09687630802225495.
24. Radcliffe P., Stevens A. Are drug treatment services only for 'thieving junkie scumbags'? Drug users and the management of stigmatised identities. Social Science and Medicine 2008, 67(7):1065-1073. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.06.004.
25. Rance J., Fraser S. Accidental intimacy: Emotional transformation and the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. Contemporary Drug Problems 2011, 38(Spring):121-145.
26. Rance J., Newland J., Hopwood M., Treloar C. The politics of place(ment): Problematising the provision of hepatitis C treatment within opiate substitution clinics. Social Science and Medicine 2012, 74(2):245-253. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.10.003.
27. Schorr L. Determining "what works" in social programs and social policies: Toward a more inclusive knowledge base 2003, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
28. Seear K., Gray R., Fraser S., Treloar C., Bryant J., Brener L. Rethinking safety and fidelity: The role of love and intimacy in hepatitis C transmission and prevention. Health Sociology Review 2012, 21(3):272-286. 10.5172/hesr. 2012.21.3.272.
29. Smith C.B.R. A users' guide to 'Juice Bars' and 'Liquid Handcuffs': Fluid negotiations of subjectivity, space and the substance of methadone treatment. Space and Culture 2011, 14(3):291-309. 10.1177/1206331211412238.
30. Ti L., Tzemis D., Buxton J. Engaging people who use drugs in policy and program development: A review of the literature. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 2012, 7(1):47. 10.1186/1747-597X-7-47.
31. Treloar, Rance J., Madden A., Liebelt L. Evaluation of consumer participation demonstration projects in five Australian drug user treatment facilities: The impact of individual versus organizational stability in determining project progress. Substance Use and Misuse 2011, 46(8):969-979. 10.3109/10826084.2010.540289.
32. Treloar C., Holt M. Deficit models and divergent philosophies: Service providers' perspectives on barriers and incentives to drug treatment. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2006, 13(4):367-382. 10.1080/09687630600761444.
33. Tritter J., McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy 2006, 76(2):156-168. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.008.
34. Watson J. Active engagement: Strategies to increase service participation by vulnerable families 2005, NSW Centre for Parenting and Research, Department of Community Services, Sydney, Australia, [Discussion Paper].
35. Wisdom J., Hoffman K., Rechberger E., Seim K., Owens B. Women-focused treatment agencies and process improvement: Strategies to increase client engagement. Women and Therapy 2009, 32(1):69-87. 10.1080/02703140802384693.
36. Wolfe D. Paradoxes in antiretrovial treatment for injecting drug users: Access, adherence and structural barriers in Asia and the former Soviet Union. International Journal of Drug Policy 2007, 18(4):246-254. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.01.012.
37. Zibbell J.E. Can the lunatics actually take over the asylum? Reconfiguring subjectivity and neo-liberal governance in contemporary British drug treatment policy. International Journal of Drug Policy 2004, 15(1):56-65. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2003.08.004.