Suchergebnisse

The aim of interventions on the supply side of the hard drug market is to diminish or regulate the unwanted effects of the hard drug trade, with respect to both public health and safety. However, initiatives for the regulation of the hard drug trade cannot be pursued at the international governmental level because the sale of hard drugs is forbidden by law. Therefore, what remains are initiatives at the local level. In a case study of the City of Rotterdam, an inventory is made of interventions on the supply side. It describes interventions initiated by both governmental and private organizations, including the closure of certain dealing addresses, public transport and other general regulations, reporting centers for drug-related nuisance (i.e., local government), and "self-regulation" of dealing addresses and drug consumption/selling rooms (i.e., private interventions). The argument here is for a different approach of (dosed) suppression and regulation (by public and private interventions). In this approach, the use of "quality criteria" for dealing addresses and the spread of dealing addresses are important instruments.

Snowball sampling and targeted sampling are widely applied techniques to recruit samples from hidden populations, such as problematic drug users. The disadvantage is that they yield non-probability samples which cannot be generalised to the population. Despite thorough preparatory mapping procedures, selection effects continue to occur. This paper proposes an interpretation frame that allows estimating the direction of selection bias after data collection. Critical examination of the recruitment procedure and comparison with statistical and non-statistical external data sources are the core features of the interpretation frame. Applying the interpretation frame increases insight into the reliability of the results and allows to estimate where selection bias may have occurred.

The Rotterdam Drug Monitoring System used survey data, fieldnotes and interviews with staff to investigate the functioning of four (out of six) consumption rooms in Rotterdam. The results show that for most drug users, access to the drug consumption room results in less frequent drug use in public places and more time and rest. Pass holders value being able to use drugs safely inside, and make use of the additional services provided, such as refreshments, washing/showering facilities and talking with others about their personal problems. Two 'weak points' reported by the drug users are discussed in relation to their personal health situation and public nuisance reduction.

Alcohol policy research all over the world is often funded by national or local governments. Researchers involved may be confronted with several ethical questions. These questions can have quite a different character. Ethical questions may have a severe character that can be quite "clear" for the researchers involved. Miller et al. [1] for instance recently studied interference of funders, like governments or industrial and charitable organizations, in addiction research. Results show that activities occur such as censorship of research outputs, interference with the wording in reports and articles and interventions in when and how findings are released. Governments funding policy research may interfere in a way as described by Miller et al. [1]. but also less obvious ethical issues may occur: What if the research question is formulated in a "questionable" or "suggestive" way? What if policy makers deliberately ignore results of scientific research? The purpose of this contribution is to elaborate on these less obvious ethical issues, not primarily to give clear-cut answers but to raise consciousness and stimulate reflection and debate among researchers and policy makers.

Around 2009, 'recovery' was introduced in the Netherlands as a new approach to drug addiction and addiction services. Recovery is now featured in practice-level policy but is absent in governmental drug policy. To investigate whether the Dutch recovery vision is coherent with governmental drug policy, we apply Bacchi's What's the problem represented to be? approach to analyse problematizations of 'drug addiction'. We analysed two influential practice-level policy documents and one governmental drug policy document. We found that governmental policy addresses the harms and public nuisance of drug addiction, whilst practice-level policy addresses the wellbeing of persons with addiction. Despite these different starting points, the Dutch recovery vision seems coherent with both problematizations. Its adoption in the Netherlands was less subject to political debate compared to other countries. This may be a result of recovery being driven by bottom-up efforts without government intervention, leading to constructive ambiguity between government- and practice-level policies.

Following the paradigm shift to recovery in the Anglophone world, recovery is also gaining momentum in drug policy and practice in Flanders (Belgium) and the Netherlands. Since the meaning of recovery is being debated internationally, broadening the assessment of how the recovery framework is applied in policy discourse and how it is implemented in various international contexts is imperative. This com parative policy analysis aims to assess similarities and differences in addiction recovery vision, imple mentation, and evaluation in Flanders and the Netherlands. The thematic analysis draws upon a triangulation of different data collection methods: a focus group (n ¼ 14) and interviews (n ¼ 21) with key figures in the addictions field, followed by analyses of relevant policy documents (n ¼ 9). Our find ings show that a holistic vision of addiction recovery is endorsed in both countries. Although differen ces in policy development occurred (i.e. centrally driven in Flanders versus 'bottom-up' in the Netherlands), similar challenges emerged concerning recovery-oriented addiction policies. While policy makers in Flanders and the addiction sector in the Netherlands strongly proclaim recovery, structural implementation, dedicated funding, and systematic evaluation of recovery-oriented policies are lacking. This study suggests that systematic inclusion of experts by experience and aligning government and practice level funding and policies are crucial. ; National Institute for Health Research

Introduction: The standard screening instrument for alcohol problems in the current primary care, the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C), contains a question about alcohol consumption "on a typical day." Since this is a term that leaves room for multiple interpretations and the differences between alcohol consumption on weekends and weekdays are not taken into account, this study examines whether the latter distinction improves the prediction validity of the screening instrument. Methods: A subgroup of 852 participants of the Dutch version of Dry January ("NoThanks") 2022 got the annual "NoThanks" survey, including questions about their alcohol consumption on weekends and weekdays, and the original ten AUDIT questions. The full AUDIT was used as golden standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated for the original and different versions of the AUDIT-C. Results: Of all participants, 67 percent were hazardous drinkers (AUDIT ≥8) and 27 percent were harmful drinkers (AUDIT ≥16). For the original AUDIT-C, the cut-off score with the most balanced combination of sensitivity and specificity for hazardous drinking in men was 7 and in women was 6. For harmful drinking, this was 8 and 7, respectively. Certain versions performed equally well as the original. For harmful drinkers, the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.814 and 0.866 for the original AUDIT-C, for men and women, respectively. Only for hazardous drinking men, the AUDIT-C with weekend day (AUROC = 0.887) performed slightly better than the original. Conclusion: Distinguishing weekend- and weekday alcohol consumption in the AUDIT-C does not lead to better predictions of problematic alcohol use. However, the distinction between weekends and weekdays provides more detailed information for healthcare professionals and can be used without having to compromise too much on validity.

Raising a minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has generated interest and debate in research and politics, but opposition persists. Up to now, the presentation of impacts focussed on effectiveness (i.e., intended impact); to our knowledge, no literature syntheses focussed on both intended and unintended impacts. A systematic scoping review was conducted in which a search strategy was developed iteratively and literature was obtained from experts in alcohol research and scientific and grey databases. Ninety-one studies were extracted and analysed using formative thematic content analysis. Intended impacts were reported in 119 units of information from the studies (68% positive), forming four paths: implementation, primary and (two) on secondary societal harm and violence. Unintended developments were reported in 43 units of information (30% positive), forming five themes. Only eight studies reported on implementation. Furthermore, a division between primary and secondary paths and the use of a bridging variable (drinking patterns in analyses or methodology) was discovered. These results provide an insight into how well legislation works and can be used to discover or implement new means of curbing underage drinking and alcohol-related violence and harm. They also offer valuable starting points for future research and underline the importance of considering unintended developments.

Raising a minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has generated interest and debate in research and politics, but opposition persists. Up to now, the presentation of impacts focussed on effectiveness (i.e., intended impact); to our knowledge, no literature syntheses focussed on both intended and unintended impacts. A systematic scoping review was conducted in which a search strategy was developed iteratively and literature was obtained from experts in alcohol research and scientific and grey databases. Ninety-one studies were extracted and analysed using formative thematic content analysis. Intended impacts were reported in 119 units of information from the studies (68% positive), forming four paths: implementation, primary and (two) on secondary societal harm and violence. Unintended developments were reported in 43 units of information (30% positive), forming five themes. Only eight studies reported on implementation. Furthermore, a division between primary and secondary paths and the use of a bridging variable (drinking patterns in analyses or methodology) was discovered. These results provide an insight into how well legislation works and can be used to discover or implement new means of curbing underage drinking and alcohol-related violence and harm. They also offer valuable starting points for future research and underline the importance of considering unintended developments.