ArticleAddiction & health2019
Cross-country Comparison of Treatment Policies Facing the Drug Abuse in Five Selected Countries.
Article in Addiction & health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive Remediation as an Adjunct Treatment for Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review.Neuropsychology review · 2022Pooled it
- Perspectives on addiction-related problems in Vietnam.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Review
- Newly estimated disability weights for 196 health states in Hubei Province, China.Population health metrics · 2024Article
- The joy and pain of being a harm reduction worker: a qualitative study of the meanings about harm reduction in Brazil.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
- A nationwide study on consumption of opioid analgesics in Iran from 2000 to 2018.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Setting the policy agenda for the treatment of substance use disorders in Iran.Harm reduction journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug 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.
methodsThe 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.
findingsContext 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.
conclusionIt seems that performance of HR countries is better than WOD countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.