It's going to get pretty tippy”

Stakeholder perspectives on the (dys)function of a four pillars drug strategy

Dados Bibliográficos

ID14907720
AutoresAlissa Greer (0000-0002-8702-5694, Simon Fraser University, autor correspondente), Naomi Zakimi (0000-0003-3582-3261, Simon Fraser University), A Ritter (0000-0001-9540-1920, UNSW Sydney)
Ano2024
Volume130
Páginas104538
Data de publicação2024-08-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoInternational Journal of Drug Policy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0955-3959 • E-ISSN: 1873-4758
EditoraElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104538
PMID39033646
OpenAlexW4400841943
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas3
Referências citadas19

A 'drug strategy' is a policy document that structures the priorities and directions for interventions for drug related issues within a particular jurisdiction and/or context. A 'pillars' drug strategy concentrates efforts through clustering separated columns of activity, such as law enforcement, harm reduction, treatment, and prevention. In this study, we examined drug policy stakeholders' perspectives on the structure, function, and fit of a four pillar drug strategy framework in Vancouver, Canada. Utilizing qualitative interview data from fifteen drug policy stakeholders, we examine perspectives on Vancouver's four pillar drug strategy that was implemented over 20 years ago. Our findings are organized under three main themes: (1) the notion of 'balance' of efforts, resources, and attention across the pillars; (2) how the pillars function as a cohesive whole; (3) whether the pillars' architecture is still fit-for-purpose. The architecture of four discrete pillars did not enable a sense of cohesion and collaboration of efforts, and instead elicited a sense of competition, conflict, fragmentation, simplicity, and rigidity of the strategy as a whole. These findings suggest that, in practice, a four pillars framework may be structurally dysfunctional in working towards a common goal. Our study questions the effectiveness of a commonly used 'pillars' framework and whether it needs to be reenvisaged

Business · Cohesion (chemistry · Context (archaeology · Harm reduction · Jurisdiction · Law and economics · Law enforcement · Political science · Psychological intervention · Public relations · Sociology · Stakeholder · Community Health and Development · Health Policy Implementation Science · HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk · Law · Medicine