How can and do empirical studies influence drug policies? Narratives and complexity in the use of evidence in policy making

References

• Allen C. Crime, drugs and social theory: A phenomenological approach. Ashgate, Aldershot 2007
   Google Scholar
• Athey N.C., Bouchard M., Decorte T., Frank V.A., Hakkarainen P. Cannabis cultivation and detection: A comparative study of Belgium, Finland and Denmark. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 203–215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacchi C. Analysing policy: What's the problem represented to be?. Pearson, Sydney 2009
   Google Scholar
• Barratt M.J., Lenton S., Allen M. Internet content regulation, public drug websites and the growth in hidden Internet services. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 195–202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner F, Jones B. Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL 1993
   Google Scholar
• Berger P, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Allen Lane, London 1966
   Google Scholar
• Bowen S, Zwi AB, Sainsbury P, Whitehead M. Killer facts, politics and other influences: What evidence triggered early childhood intervention policies in Australia?. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 2009; 5: 5–32
   Google Scholar
• Boyd N. Lessons from INSITE, Vancouver's supervised injection facility: 2003–2012. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 234–240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colebatch HK. Policy analysis, policy practice and political science. Australian Journal of Public Administration 2005; 64: 14–23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colebatch HK, (Ed.). (2006). Beyond the policy cycle: The policy process in Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin
   Google Scholar
• Fraser S, Moore D. Introduction: Constructing drugs and addiction. The drug effect: Health, crime and society, S Fraser, D Moore. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011; 1–16
   Google Scholar
• Haas PM. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 1992; 46((1))1–35
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer MA. Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, F Fischer, J Forester. Duke University Press, Durham 1993; 43–76
   Google Scholar
• Hajer MA. The politics of environmental discourse: Environmental modernization and the policy process. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1995
   Google Scholar
• Hall W., Carter A. Anticipating possible policy uses of addiction neuroscience research. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 249–257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson M. The geek manifesto: Why science matters. Corgi, London 2012
   Google Scholar
• Hill M. The public policy process5th. Pearson, Harlow 2009
   Google Scholar
• Hoppe R. Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis Prax 2005; 3: 199–215
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys K, Piot P. Scientific evidence alone is not sufficient basis for health policy. British Medical Journal 2012; 344: e1316
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• John P. Analysing public policy. Pinter, London 1998
   Google Scholar
• Kerr T, Macpherson D, Wood E. Establishing North America's first safer injection facility: Lessons from the Vancouver experience. Crossing frontiers: International developments in the treatment of drug dependence, A Stevens. Pavilion Publishing, Brighton 2008; 109–129
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon JW. Agendas, alternatives and public policies2nd. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA 1995
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster K, Hughes C, Chalmers J, Ritter A. More than problem solving: Critical reflections on the ‘problematisation’ of alcohol-related violence in Kings Cross. Drug and Alcohol Review 2012; 31: 925–927
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancaster K, Ritter A, Stafford J. Public opinion and drug policy in Australia: Engaging the ‘affected community'. Drug and Alcohol Review (Harm Reduction Digest) 2013; 32: 60–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacGregor S. Barriers to the influence of evidence on policy: Are politicians the problem?. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 225–233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marmot MG. Evidence based policy or policy based evidence?. British Medical Journal 2004; 328: 906–907
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall BDL, Milloy MJ, Wood E, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America's first medically supervised safer injecting facility: A retrospective population-based study. The Lancet 2011; 377: 1429–1437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthew-Simmons F., Sunderland M., Ritter A. Exploring the existence of drug policy ‘ideologies’ in Australia. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 258–267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monaghan M. Appreciating cannabis: The paradox of evidence in evidence-based policy making. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 2008; 4: 209–231
   Google Scholar
• Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO. Using evidence: How research can inform public services. The Policy Press, Bristol 2007
   Google Scholar
• Nutt D. Drugs – Without the hot air: Minimising the harms of legal and illegal drugs. UIT Cambridge, Cambridge 2012
   Google Scholar
• Perrone D., Helgesen R.D., Fischer R.G. United States drug prohibition and legal highs: How drug testing may lead cannabis users to Spice. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 216–224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritter A. How do drug policy makers access research evidence?. International Journal of Drug Policy 2009; 20: 70–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritter A, Lancaster K. Measuring research influence on drug policy: A case example of two epidemiological monitoring systems. International Journal of Drug Policy 2013; 24: 30–37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC. The advocacy coalition framework: Assessment, revisions, and implications for scholars and practitioners. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach, P Sabatier, H Jenkins-Smith. Westview Press, Boulder, CO 1993; 211–235
   Google Scholar
• Santoro M., Triolo L., Rossi C. Drug user dynamics: A compartmental model of drug users for scenario analyses. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 184–194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schelling TC. Micromotives and macrobehavior. Norton, New York, NY 1978
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan M., Ritter A. Confronting the challenges of conducting a CBA of cannabis policies. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 175–183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small W, Van Borek N, Fairbairn N, Wood E, Kerr T. Access to health and social services for IDU: The impact of a medically supervised injection facility. Drug and Alcohol Review 2009; 28: 341–346
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith KE, Joyce KE. Capturing complex realities: Understanding efforts to achieve evidence-based policy and practice in public health. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 2012; 8: 57–78
   Google Scholar
• Stevens A. Survival of the ideas that fit: An evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Social Policy and Society 2007; 6: 25–35
   Google Scholar
• Stevens A. Telling policy stories: An ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy 2011; 40: 237–256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone D, Maxwell S, Keating M. Bridging research and policy. Department for International Development, Warwick 2001
   Google Scholar
• Tieberghien J., Decorte T. Understanding the science–policy nexus in Belgium: An analysis of the drug policy debate (1996–2003). Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 2013; 20: 241–248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss CH. Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis 1977; 3: 531–547
   Google Scholar