Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34024456›Full record

ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2021

Reprint of: The regulation project: Tools for engaging the public in the legal regulation of drugs.

Scott E Bernstein, Emily Amirkhani, Dan Werb, Donald MacPherson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Pharmaceutical enterprises drug quality strategyFrontiers in public health · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Scott E BernsteinCanadian Drug Policy Coalition, Simon Fraser University, Canada. Electronic address: bernstei@sfu.ca.
Emily AmirkhaniCanadian Drug Policy Coalition, Simon Fraser University, Canada.
Dan WerbDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada.
Donald MacPhersonCentre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addictions, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lack of legal regulation and oversight of scheduled drugs in Canada has led to an unsafe drug supply responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands. In addition to contributing to the worst unregulated drug poisoning crisis in Canada's history, the policy framework prohibiting non-medical access to certain drugs has exacerbated numerous public health and safety concerns. An alternative approach to prohibition is for government to retake control of the currently illegal drug market through legal regulatory mechanisms. This paper presents the work of an ongoing international collaboration of organizations advocating legal regulation and some of the knowledge translation tools used to educate and engage the public on legal regulation within Canada. In order to encourage thinking and decision-making among stakeholders in a productive way, models of legal regulation for various substances were created as discussion tools to emerge values and considerations supporting different approaches. The models focus on five questions: 1) who has access to drugs; 2) how access is obtained; 3) where drugs can be accessed; 4) how much people can obtain; and 5) where drugs can be consumed. The models were presented to stakeholders in the context of an international meeting on legal regulation, and then adapted to a more "user-friendly" form: a collaborative negotiation-based Regulation Game, which was presented at a workshop in Montréal, Canada. Engaging different stakeholder groups on policy choices of legal regulation revealed initial barriers that we feel more confident can be overcome through creative and innovative tools such as the Regulation Game. Use of the game as a foundation for more traditional focus groups could be effective in reducing barriers to fulsome policy discussions on legal regulation.

Indexed as

CanadaDrug policyEducationLegal regulationRegulatory systemsStakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID34024456
PMCPMC9759266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.