Assessing Support for Substance Use Policies Among the General Public and Policy Influencers in Two Canadian Provinces

Overview

Journal Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2024 Sep 5

PMID 39232782

Authors

Kimberley D Curtin

Mathew Thomson

Elaine Hyshka

Ian Colman

T Cameron Wild

Ana Paula Belon

Candace I J Nykiforuk

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Examining support for substance use policies, including those for harm reduction, among the general public and policy influencers is a fundamental step to map the current policy landscape and leverage policy opportunities. Yet, this is a knowledge gap in Canada. Our paper identifies the level of support for substance use policies in two provinces in Canada and describes how the level of support is associated with intrusiveness and sociodemographic variables.

Methods: Data came from the 2019 Chronic Disease Prevention Survey. The representative sample included members of the general public (Alberta n = 1648, Manitoba n = 1770) as well as policy influencers (Alberta n = 204, Manitoba n = 98). We measured the level of support for 22 public policies concerning substance use through a 4-point Likert-scale. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics Intervention Ladder framework was applied to assess intrusiveness. We used cumulative link models to run ordinal regressions for identification of explanatory sociodemographic variables.

Results: Overall, there was generally strong support for the policies assessed. The general public in Manitoba was significantly more supportive of policies than its Alberta counterpart. Some differences were found between provinces and samples. For certain substance use policies, there was stronger support among women than men and among those with higher education than those with less education.

Conclusions: The results highlight areas where efforts are needed to increase support from both policy influencers and general public for adoption, implementation, and scaling of substance use policies. Socio-demographic variables related to support for substance use policies may be useful in informing strategies such as knowledge mobilization to advance the policy landscape in Western Canada.

References

Hansen H, Netherland J . Is the Prescription Opioid Epidemic a White Problem?. Am J Public Health. 2016; 106(12):2127-2129. PMC: 5105018. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303483. View

McGetrick J, Raine K, Wild T, Nykiforuk C . Advancing Strategies for Agenda Setting by Health Policy Coalitions: A Network Analysis of the Canadian Chronic Disease Prevention Survey. Health Commun. 2018; 34(11):1303-1312. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2018.1484267. View

Dawson A . Snakes and ladders: state interventions and the place of liberty in public health policy. J Med Ethics. 2016; 42(8):510-3. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103502. View

Hughes C . Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? The role of evidence in the development and implementation of the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2007; 26(4):363-8. DOI: 10.1080/09595230701373859. View

Kongats K, McGetrick J, Raine K, Nykiforuk C . Using the intervention ladder to examine policy influencer and general public support for potential tobacco control policies in Alberta and Quebec. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2020; 40(2):47-57. PMC: 7053852. DOI: 10.24095/hpcdp.40.2.03. View

Eibl J, Morin K, Leinonen E, Marsh D . The State of Opioid Agonist Therapy in Canada 20 Years after Federal Oversight. Can J Psychiatry. 2017; 62(7):444-450. PMC: 5528991. DOI: 10.1177/0706743717711167. View

Fischer B, Pang M, Tyndall M . The opioid death crisis in Canada: crucial lessons for public health. Lancet Public Health. 2018; 4(2):e81-e82. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30232-9. View

Barry C, McGinty E, Pescosolido B, Goldman H . Stigma, discrimination, treatment effectiveness, and policy: public views about drug addiction and mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2014; 65(10):1269-72. PMC: 4285770. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400140. View

Robert S, Booske B . US opinions on health determinants and social policy as health policy. Am J Public Health. 2011; 101(9):1655-63. PMC: 3154244. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300217. View

10.

Taylor B, Lamuda P, Flanagan E, Watts E, Pollack H, Schneider J . Social Stigma toward Persons with Opioid Use Disorder: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey of U.S. Adults. Subst Use Misuse. 2021; 56(12):1752-1764. PMC: 9295196. DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2021.1949611. View

11.

Strang J, Babor T, Caulkins J, Fischer B, Foxcroft D, Humphreys K . Drug policy and the public good: evidence for effective interventions. Lancet. 2012; 379(9810):71-83. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61674-7. View

12.

Hyshka E, Anderson-Baron J, Pugh A, Belle-Isle L, Hathaway A, Pauly B . Principles, practice, and policy vacuums: Policy actor views on provincial/territorial harm reduction policy in Canada. Int J Drug Policy. 2019; 71:142-149. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.12.014. View

13.

Stuart H . Managing the stigma of opioid use. Healthc Manage Forum. 2019; 32(2):78-83. DOI: 10.1177/0840470418798658. View

14.

McNeil R, Small W . 'Safer environment interventions': a qualitative synthesis of the experiences and perceptions of people who inject drugs. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 106:151-8. PMC: 4133147. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.051. View

15.

Strike C, Watson T . Losing the uphill battle? Emergent harm reduction interventions and barriers during the opioid overdose crisis in Canada. Int J Drug Policy. 2019; 71:178-182. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.02.005. View

16.

MacGregor S, Thickett A . Partnerships and communities in English drug policy: the challenge of deprivation. Int J Drug Policy. 2011; 22(6):478-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.06.003. View

17.

Allman D, Myers T, Schellenberg J, Strike C, Cockerill R, Cavalieri W . Improving health and social care relationships for harm reduction. Int J Drug Policy. 2007; 18(3):194-203. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.07.005. View

18.

Tjepkema M, Wilkins R, Long A . Cause-specific mortality by income adequacy in Canada: A 16-year follow-up study. Health Rep. 2013; 24(7):14-22. View

19.

Hathaway A, Tousaw K . Harm reduction headway and continuing resistance: insights from safe injection in the city of Vancouver. Int J Drug Policy. 2008; 19(1):11-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.11.006. View

20.

Pouget E, Fong C, Rosenblum A . Racial/Ethnic Differences in Prevalence Trends for Heroin use and Non-Medical use of Prescription Opioids Among Entrants to Opioid Treatment Programs, 2005-2016. Subst Use Misuse. 2017; 53(2):290-300. DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2017.1334070. View