University of Glamorgan, Centre for Criminology, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL, United Kingdom.
Int J Drug Policy. 2010 Sep;21(5):411-7. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2010.02.004. Epub 2010 Mar 26.
All public services in the UK are expected to produce evidence-based policies. This principle was argued particularly strongly in relation to policies for tackling drug misuse. However, concerns have been expressed that commitment to this principle is not matched by the reality of policy making. In this paper, we examine the extent to which the UK drug strategy can be regarded as evidence-based.
Focusing on case studies of policies implemented as part of the four main strands of the strategy, evidence reported by the government as forming the basis of the policy is examined as are findings of the published sources of evidence cited.
In most cases, the evidence was of a good quality in that it reflected the general standard of research in the area. The main problem lies in the interpretation and reporting of research results. Two of four case studies were reported as biased in terms of research study selection and in two there was some evidence that the reporting was not wholly representative of the conclusions drawn.
There are many factors that influence the generation of policy and it is unrealistic, and perhaps disingenuous, to suggest in relation to drugs policy, that evidence is its primary focus.
英国所有的公共服务都应该制定基于证据的政策。这一原则在解决药物滥用问题的政策方面尤为重要。然而，人们担心，制定政策的实际情况并没有与这一原则保持一致。本文旨在探讨英国毒品战略在多大程度上可以被视为基于证据的。
本研究聚焦于作为该战略四大支柱之一的政策的案例研究，检查了政府作为政策基础报告的证据，以及引用的已发表证据来源的结果。
在大多数情况下，证据质量良好，因为它反映了该领域研究的一般标准。主要问题在于对研究结果的解释和报告。四项案例研究中有两项在研究选择方面存在偏差，有两项证据表明，报告不完全代表得出的结论。
有许多因素会影响政策的制定，因此在毒品政策方面，认为证据是其主要关注点是不现实的，甚至可能是虚伪的。
