↓ Skip to main content

The political and scientific challenges in evaluating compulsory drug treatment centers in Southeast Asia

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The political and scientific challenges in evaluating compulsory drug treatment centers in Southeast Asia
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12954-016-0130-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thu Vuong, Nhu Nguyen, Giang Le, Marian Shanahan, Robert Ali, Alison Ritter

Abstract

In Vietnam, like many countries in Southeast Asia, the commonly used approach of center-based compulsory drug treatment (CCT) has been criticized on human rights ground. Meanwhile, community-based voluntary methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) has been implemented for nearly a decade with promising results. Reform-minded leaders have been seeking empirical evidence of the costs and effectiveness associated with these two main treatment modalities. Conducting evaluations of these treatments, especially where randomization is not ethical, presents challenges. The aim of this paper is to discuss political challenges and methodological issues when conducting cost-effectiveness studies within the context of a non-democratic Southeast Asian country. A retrospective analysis of the political and scientific challenges that were experienced in the study design, sample size determination, government approval and ethics approvals, participant recruitment, data collection, and determination of sources, and quantification of cost and effectiveness data was undertaken. As a consequence of the non-randomized design, analysis of patient characteristics for both treatment types was undertaken to identify the magnitude of baseline group differences. Concordance between self-reported heroin use and urine drug testing was undertaken to determine the reliability of self-report data in a politically challenging environment. We demonstrate that conducting research around compulsory treatment in a non-democratic society is feasible, yet it is politically challenging and requires navigation between science and politics. We also demonstrate that engagement with the government decision makers in the research conception, implementation, and dissemination of the results increases the likelihood of research evidence being considered for change in a contentious drug policy area. Local empirical evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of CCT and MMT in a Southeast Asian setting is critical to consideration of more holistic, humane, and effective drug-dependence treatment approaches, but the garnering of such evidence is very challenging.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 27%
Psychology 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,483,718
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#630
of 971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,657
of 425,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.