ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2023
Understanding the Dynamics of More Restrictive Medicines Policy: A Case Study of Codeine Up-Scheduling in Australia.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Non-Pharmacological Interventions as Part of Multimodal Management to Prevent Opioid Misuse in Adults Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been increasing concern over opioid-related harms across the world. In Australia in 2018, codeine-containing products were up-scheduled from over-the-counter access at pharmacies, to requiring a prescription. The drug regulator's decision to up-schedule was contentious and widely debated, due to the potentially large impact on consumers and healthcare professionals. This study aimed to analyse influences on the codeine up-scheduling policy.
methodsThis retrospective policy analysis used the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to understand how policy actors with shared beliefs formed adversarial coalitions to shape policy. Data were drawn from documents (regulator policy documents, public submissions, news reports, organisational media releases and position statements) and semi-structured interviews with 15 key policy actors. Codes were generated relating to policy processes and actor beliefs; broad themes included the role of health professionals, perceptions of opioids, impact on consumers, and the role of government in healthcare.
resultsTwo coalitions in this policy subsystem were identified: (1) supportive [with respect to the up-scheduling], and (2) opposing. The key evident beliefs of the supportive coalition were that the harms of codeine outweighed the benefits, and that government regulation was the best pathway for protecting consumers. The opposing coalition believed that the benefits of codeine accessible through pharmacists outweighed any harms, and consumers should manage their health without any more intervention than necessary. The policy decision reflected the influence of the supportive coalition, and this analysis highlighted the importance of their public health framing of the issue, the acceptability of their experts and supporting evidence, and the perceived legitimacy of the up-scheduling process.
conclusionUnderstanding these coalitions, their beliefs, and how they are translated through existing policy processes and institutions provides insight for those interested in influencing future health policy. Specific lessons include the importance of strategic frames and advocacy, and engagement with formal policy processes.
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.