Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40862482›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2025

Geographic Differences in Public Opinion on Drug Policy: Understanding Patterns of Support and 'Don't Know' Responses.

Paul Kelaita, Keelin O'Reilly, Alison Ritter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2025. 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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paul KelaitaDrug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9468-2708
Keelin O'ReillyDrug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5361-2316
Alison RitterDrug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9540-1920

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2016695University of New South Wales
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPolicymakers and advocates often rely on public opinion to support or oppose certain policies, with national surveys providing an important data source. Different geographic areas have socio-political specificity and are impacted by drug policies in different ways; yet there has been little analysis of public opinion accounting for geographic specificity. This study aimed to understand geographic differences in policy preferences using the case study of Greater Western Sydney (GWS), New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

methodsResponses to two policy perception questions from Australia's 2022/23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey were analysed: preferred actions in response to possession and use of cannabis, ecstasy, heroin, methamphetamine, and hallucinogens ('Action' question), and the preferred criminal offence status of cannabis possession ('Criminal' question). Responses in GWS were compared to Rest of Sydney and Rest of NSW. Data were analysed by levels of support and proportions of respondents who did not register an opinion (not answered, 'don't know').

resultsLevels of support for different actions and policy settings varied by area, as did the proportions of respondents who do not register an opinion. The inclusion or exclusion of 'don't know'/not answered responses influences interpretations of levels of public knowledge, engagement, and support. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionPublic opinion as gauged through national surveys should be understood relative to specific geographies. Understanding whether geographic differences exist is important to understanding what drives support and 'don't know'/not answered responses in relation to drug policy. Differences indicate sites for further analysis and attention in education, engagement and advocacy.

Indexed as

Drug and Narcotic ControlHealth PolicyPublic OpinionPublic PolicyAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew South WalesSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult‘don't know’geographyGreater Western Sydneypublic opinionsurveys

Identifiers

PMID40862482
PMCPMC12581933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.