ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024
Working in a relational way is everything: Perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making network.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe development of drug policies has been a major focus for policy-makers across North America in light of the ongoing public health emergency caused by the overdose crisis. In this context, the current study examined stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making process in a North American city using qualitative, questionnaire, and social network data.
methodsWe interviewed 18 people who participated in the development of a drug policy proposal between October 2021 and March 2022. They represented different groups and organizations, including government (n = 3), people who use drugs-led advocacy organizations (n = 5), other drug policy advocacy organizations (n = 5), research (n = 3) and police (n = 2). Most of them identified as men (n = 8) and white (n = 16), and their ages ranged between 30 and 80 years old (median = 50). Social network analysis questionnaires and semi-structured qualitative interviews were administered via Zoom. Social network data were analysed using igraph in R, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The analyses explored perceptions of value and power within a drug policy-making network.
resultsThe policy-making network showed that connections could be found across participants from different groups, with government officials being the most central. Qualitative data showed that inclusion in the network and centrality did not necessarily translate into feeling powerful or valued. Many participants were dissatisfied with the process despite having structurally advantageous positions or self-reporting moderately high quantitative value scores. Participants who viewed themselves as more valued acknowledged many process shortcomings, but they also saw it as more balanced or fair than those who felt undervalued.
conclusionsWhile participation can make stakeholders and communities feel valued and empowered, our findings highlight that inclusion, position and diversity of connections in a drug policy-making network do not, in and of itself, guarantee these outcomes. Instead, policy-makers must provide transparent terms of reference guidelines and include highly skilled facilitators in policy discussions. This is particularly important in policy processes that involve historical power imbalances in the context of a pressing public health emergency.
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.