Suchergebnisse

Background: Policy decisions are informed by a number of factors: politics, ideology and values, perceived public opinion, and pragmatic constraints such as funding. Research evidence is also used to inform decision-making but must compete with these other inputs. Understanding how policy makers access research evidence may assist in encouraging greater use of this evidence. This study examined the sources of research evidence that Australian government drug policy makers accessed when faced with their most recent decision-making opportunity. Method: Drug policy makers across health and police government portfolios were interviewed (n = 31) and asked to report on the sources of research evidence used in their most recent decision-making. Results: Nine sources were reported, the most frequent of which were seeking advice from an expert and consulting technical reports. Accessing the internet, using statistical data and consulting policy makers in other jurisdictions were used in about half the cases. The least frequently used sources were academic literature, relying on internal expertise, policy documents and employing a consultant. Conclusion: There is a tension between the type of information source most suited to policy makers - simple, single-message, summative and accessible - and the types of information produced and valued by researchers-largely academic publications that are nuanced and complex. Researchers need to consider the sources that policy makers use if they wish their research to be utilised as one part of policy making.

Background: Policy decisions are informed by a number of factors: politics, ideology and values, perceived public opinion, and pragmatic constraints such as funding. Research evidence is also used to inform decision-making but must compete with these other inputs. Understanding how policy makers access research evidence may assist in encouraging greater use of this evidence. This study examined the sources of research evidence that Australian government drug policy makers accessed when faced with their most recent decision-making opportunity. Method: Drug policy makers across health and police government portfolios were interviewed (n = 31) and asked to report on the sources of research evidence used in their most recent decision-making. Results: Nine sources were reported, the most frequent of which were seeking advice from an expert and consulting technical reports. Accessing the internet, using statistical data and consulting policy makers in other jurisdictions were used in about half the cases. The least frequently used sources were academic literature, relying on internal expertise, policy documents and employing a consultant. Conclusion: There is a tension between the type of information source most suited to policy makers - simple, single-message, summative and accessible - and the types of information produced and valued by researchers-largely academic publications that are nuanced and complex. Researchers need to consider the sources that policy makers use if they wish their research to be utilised as one part of policy making.

The mantra of "evidence-based policy" is continuing to gain ground, with calls for public policy to be informed by scientific evidence. However, in many areas of public policy the role of evidence and science is highly contested. This is amply demonstrated in the area of illegal drugs policy. Illegal drugs policy, concerned with governments' approaches to controlling the sale and use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and cannabis, is a highly contested area, and hence a fruitful case example of the complexity of policy. The features of illicit drug policy explored in this paper are: government actors, which span multiple departments; political ambivalence and multiple stakeholders outside government; community attitudes and a high media profile. These features need to be taken into account in understanding the relationship between policy and research evidence. In this context, the role of research evidence can be fraught. Examination of a number of current "hot topics" in drug policy demonstrates the variety of ways in which evidence is used in drug policy processes. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract. Aims: The "treatment gap" for people with alcohol problems has been identified as very large in the literature. An array of responses to the treatment gap have been focussed upon, including changing the perceptions of untreated people in order to make them want treatment more. A separate approach identifies the treatment system itself as the cause of the treatment gap. The aim of this paper was to consider research on untreated remission from alcohol problems to better understand responses to the treatment gap. Methodology: Three areas of existing published literature were thematically reviewed and synthesised: treatment gap research, untreated remission from alcohol problems research, and treatment planning and system design research. Results: Including rates of untreated remission from alcohol problems reduces the size of the treatment gap considerably. Treatment planning models which estimate unmet demand are better suited than unmet need when identifying gaps in service provision. Responding to the treatment gap requires broadening the treatment system beyond the specialised setting, and the assumptions associated with the process and expected outcomes of remission may need revisiting. Conclusions: Treatment planning models are useful when identifying gaps in service provision, but more sophisticated inclusion of untreated remission data is required. The treatment response may need to be diversified to support the life circumstances and perspectives of people with alcohol problems, with one example (outlined in this paper) being the provision of digital support services.

The mantra of evidence-based policy (EBP) suggests that endeavours to implement evidencebased policing will produce better outcomes. However there is dissonance between the rhetoric of EBP and the actuality of policing policy. This disjuncture is critically analysed using the case study of illicit drugs policing. The dissonance may be ameliorated by taking into account the policing context, and lessons from the extant evidence-based medicine, research translation and policy processes literature. Furthermore a developmental pathway notion suggests that it is only once research is fully embedded within the policy culture that critical reflections on the role of evidence become possible.

AbstractAround the world an expanding array of behavioural conditions are being attached to social security payments. This paper offers empirical evidence of the various moral frames used in the welfare conditionality debate, by its supporters and detractors. We systematically analyse the debates in the Australian federal parliament in 2017 and 2018 on two bills attempting to introduce drug testing of working‐age welfare recipients, each of which resulted in stalemate. We find that proponents of welfare conditionality primarily employed consequentialist and paternalist arguments, supplemented by social justice, contractualism and communitarianism whilst opponents primarily employed consequentialist and social justice arguments. We explore how proponents and opponents anticipated and engaged with each other's preferred moral frames. By investigating the normative lenses that underpin arguments made for and against the drug‐testing proposal, we shed light on how the debate on drug testing might be moved beyond its current impasse.

Collaborative governance involves processes and structures for policy development and decision making with particular relevance for health and social services. We examined collaborative governance in the reform of Western Australia's alcohol and other drug sector, applying Emerson et al.'s (2012) integrative framework. A documentary review and group interviews with government, sector, and consumer representatives were involved. Contextual factors included increased service funding, and the development of a partnership approach. Drivers for collaboration involved leadership and financial incentives for policy implementation. Key stakeholders across government and the sector reported a mutually supportive and constructive relationship and increased capacity, and they shared an agenda for change. The integrative framework was a useful structure for the explication of collaborative governance, although financial arrangements were not addressed.

The notion of 'recovery' as an overarching approach to drug policy remains controversial. This cross-national analysis considers how the problem of drugs was constructed and represented in two key reports on the place of 'recovery' in drug policy, critically examining how the problem of drugs (and the people who use them) are constituted in recovery discourse, and how these problematisations are shaped and disseminated. Bacchi's poststructuralist approach is applied to two documents (one in Britain and one in Australia) to analyse how the 'problem of drugs' and the people who use them are constituted: as problematic users, constraining alternative understandings of the shifting nature of drug use; as responsibilised individuals (in Britain) and as patients (in Australia); as worthy of citizenship in the context of treatment and recovery, silencing the assumption of unworthiness and the loss of rights for those who continue to use drugs in 'problematic' ways. The position of the organisations which produced the reports is considered, with the authority of both organisations resting on their status as independent, apolitical bodies providing 'evidence-based' advice. There is a need to carefully weigh up the desirable and undesirable political effects of these constructions. The meaning of 'recovery' and how it could be realised in policy and practice is still being negotiated. By comparatively analysing how the problem of drugs was produced in 'recovery' discourse in two jurisdictions, at two specific points in the policy debate, we are reminded that ways of thinking about 'problems' reflect specific contexts, and how we are invoked to think about policy responses will be dependent upon these conditions. As 'recovery' continues to evolve, opening up spaces to discuss its contested meanings and effects will be an ongoing endeavour.