Mehrolhassani Mohammad Hossein, Yazdi-Feyzabadi Vahid, Hajebi Ahmad, Mirzaei Saeid
Neuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Health Services Management Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Addict Health. 2019 Apr;11(2):81-92. doi: 10.22122/ahj.v11i2.233.
Drug abuse is one of the main problems of human's life; thus communities have been thinking about the solution of this problem. The present study aimed to compare the general features of drug abuse treatment policies, war on drugs (WOD), and harm reduction (HR), in the selected countries.
The present study was a comparative and desk research that sought to compare context, stewardship, financing, type of substance abuse treatment services, reasons of paradigm shift, and executive challenges of treatment policies in the selected countries (China, Malaysia, Germany, Netherland, and Iran). The necessary data for comparison of the countries were collected through valid databases, review of documents, and reports of international organizations.
Context conditions were better in the HR countries. In most countries, the central government played a key role in the stewardship, financing, and service providing. In WOD countries, the presence of judicial structure was higher in the treatment of drug abuse. The policy-making approach was ideological in WOD countries, but evidence-based in HR countries.
It seems that performance of HR countries is better than WOD countries.
药物滥用是人类生活中的主要问题之一;因此,各社区一直在思考解决这一问题的办法。本研究旨在比较所选国家药物滥用治疗政策、禁毒战争(WOD)和减少伤害(HR)的总体特征。
本研究是一项比较性案头研究,旨在比较所选国家(中国、马来西亚、德国、荷兰和伊朗)的背景、管理、融资、药物滥用治疗服务类型、范式转变的原因以及治疗政策的实施挑战。通过有效的数据库、文件审查和国际组织的报告收集各国比较所需的数据。
减少伤害国家的背景条件更好。在大多数国家,中央政府在管理、融资和服务提供方面发挥了关键作用。在禁毒战争国家,司法结构在药物滥用治疗中的存在更为突出。禁毒战争国家的决策方法是意识形态性的,而减少伤害国家则是以证据为基础的。
似乎减少伤害国家的表现优于禁毒战争国家。