↓ Skip to main content

How understanding and application of drug-related legal instruments affects harm reduction interventions in Cambodia: a qualitative study

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
How understanding and application of drug-related legal instruments affects harm reduction interventions in Cambodia: a qualitative study
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12954-017-0167-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sovannary Tuot, Chanrith Ngin, Khuondyla Pal, Sochenda Sou, Ghazal Sawez, Phylicia Morgan, Mony Srey, Tola Chan, Pheak Chhoun, Olga Golichenko, Sok Chamreun Choub, Siyan Yi

Abstract

Harm reduction interventions in Cambodia face numerous obstacles because of conflicting understanding and interests and inconsistencies in the implementation by law enforcement officials. This study aims to examine how understanding and application of Drug Control Law (DCL) and Village/Commune Safety Policy (VCSP) affects harm reduction interventions in Cambodia from the standpoints of law enforcement officials, people who inject drugs and people who use drugs (PWID/PWUD), as well as other key stakeholders. This qualitative study was conducted in the capital city of Phnom Penh in 2015. We held five focus group discussions (FGDs) with groups of PWID/PWUD, police officers, Sangkat/commune officers, and local non-governmental organization (NGO) field staff. We also conducted ten key informant interviews (KIIs) with representatives from government agencies, donor agencies, and NGOs. FGDs and KIIs with Cambodian participants were transcribed in Khmer and translated into English. KIIs with foreign participants were transcribed in English. Transcripts were read and re-read to identify emerging themes, which were reviewed and refined to develop common and divergent patterns. There was a huge gap between what the DCL and VCSP say and how law enforcement officers and PWID/PWUD understood them. The gap was also evident in how law enforcement officers implemented the DCL and VCSP. Harm reduction services, including health- and non-health-related interventions, were limited and challenged by unsupportive attitudes, misinterpretation of the DCL and VCSP, and the lack of full engagement with NGOs in the development of these instruments. The needs of PWID/PWUD in accessing health care services were not met due to misconduct of authorities while practicing the DCL and VCSP. Further, the misconduct and enforcement of the law and policy lead to increased social discrimination and physical abuses against PWID/PWUD. There is a lack of common understanding of the drug-related law and policy and their implications to harm reduction services among both law enforcement officers and PWID/PWUD. Thus, there is a need to mainstream and simplify the law and policy for better comprehension among these actors. To improve the quality and coverage of harm reduction interventions, the gap of understanding and enforcement of laws and policies should be narrowed, and coordination between the government and NGOs and other key stakeholders should be strengthened.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Other 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 18%
Social Sciences 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Psychology 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 26 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,823,294
of 23,604,080 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#395
of 970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,135
of 317,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#22
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,604,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 317,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.