Towards Evidence-Based Policy

  • H. Garretsen
  • I. Van De Goor


To what extent are addiction care, prevention and policy evidence-based? Are activities and programs based on research results? Are the activities undertaken effective? Are new activities evaluated and if so, in such a way that their effectiveness can be solidly assessed? This chapter addresses these questions. Among other it is stated that the clinical sector, the cure, is more evidence-based than the not-clinical sector, the care and the prevention sectors. In these sectors activities are insufficiently evidence-based. Possible explanations for this are discussed. A closer co-operation between researchers and addiction care and prevention organisations is recommended as is the establishment of academic workplaces (like academic hospitals) in this sector.

Key words

evidence-based procedures evaluation of care prevention and policy effectiveness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Homewood: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From decisions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckman (Eds), In action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Akers, R.L., & Cochran, J.K. (1985). Adolescent marihuana use: A test of three theories of deviant behavior. Deviant Behavior, 6, 323–346.Google Scholar
  4. Brouwer de Koning, J. (2001). De les van Rotterdam (The lesson from Rotterdam). Mediator, 12, 3.Google Scholar
  5. Bruun, K., Edwards, G., Lumio, M., Makela, K., Pan, L., Popham, R.E., Room, R., Schmidt, W., Skog, O.J., Sulkunen, P., Osterberg, E. (1975). Alcohol Control Policies in public health perspective. Helsinki: The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies/ WHO Europe, Addiction Research Foundation Ontario.Google Scholar
  6. Cook, D.J., Guyatt, G.H., Laupacis, A., Sackett, D. (1992). Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of anti-thrombotic agents. Chest, 102, 305–311; Chest, 105, 647.Google Scholar
  7. Cuijpers, P., van Gageldonk, A. (2000). Systematische review-studies en de onwil om effecten van drugpreventie aan te tonen (Systematic reviews and the reluctance to show effects of drug education). Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 78, 511–513.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, G., Anderson, P., Babor, T.F., Casswell, S., Ferrence, R., Giesbrecht, N., Godfrey, C., Holder, H., Lemmens, P., Makela, K., Midanik, L., Norstrom, T., Osterberg, E., Romelsjo, A., Room, R., Simpura, J., Skog, O.J. (1994). Alcohol policy and the public good. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Garretsen, H.F.L. (2001). Going Dutch? Successes and problems of drugs policies in the Netherlands. Eurohealth, 7, 8–10.Google Scholar
  10. Garretsen, H.F.L. (2001). Dutch Alcohol Policy Developments: The last decades and present state of affairs. Medicine and Law, 20, 301–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Garretsen, H.F.L. & Van de Goor, L.A.M. (2002). Evidence-based addiction care and prevention: Reducing the gap between research and practice. Paris: Presentation 28th Annual Alcohol Epidemiology Symposium Kettil Bruun Society.Google Scholar
  12. Goldstein, A. & Kalant, H. (1990). Drug policy: Striking the right balance. Science, 249, 1513–1521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. De Haes, W.F.M. (2001). Aan welke eisen moet een review studie voldoen? Een Repliek Which standards apply for review studies?). Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 79, 58–59.Google Scholar
  14. De Haes, W. (2000). Het nut van review-studies voor gedragsgerichte interventies: de casus van alcoholen drugvoorlichting (The use of review studies for behavioural interventions: The case of alcohol and drug education), redactioneel. Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 78, 329–330.Google Scholar
  15. Jessor, R. & Jessor, S. (1975). Adolescent development and the onset of drinking, a longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, 27–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Joldersma, F., Mouwen, C.A.M., Otto, M.M., Geurts, J.L.A. (2000). Strategisch Management voor non-profitorganisaties (Strategic management for non-profit organisations). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  17. Kenis, P. (2000). Success and failure in the non-profit sector: How to judge? Florence: Paper presented at the conference The new welfare mix in Europe: what role for the third sector?Google Scholar
  18. Koepsell, T.D., Diehr, P.H., Cheadle, A., Kristal, A. (1995). Invited commentary: Symposium on community intervention trials. American Journal of Epidemiology, 142, 594–599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Koepsell, T.D., Wagner, E.H., Cheadle, A.C., Patrick, D.L., Martin, D.C., Diehr, P.H., Perrin, E.B., Kristal, A.B., Allan-Andrilla, C.H., Dey, L.J. (1992). Selected methodological issues in evaluating community-based health promotion and disease prevention programs. Annual Review on Public Health, 13, 31–57.Google Scholar
  20. Lemmens, P.H.H.M. (1991). Measurement and Distribution of Alcohol Consumption (dissertation). Maastricht: University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  21. Mackenbach, J.P. (1988). Beyond RCT? CIT! Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 76, 279–281.Google Scholar
  22. Makela, K., Room, R., Single, E., Sulkunen, P., Walsh, B. (1981). Alcohol, Society and the State Part I and II. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Maso, I., Smaling, A. (1998). Kwalitatief onderzoek: praktijk en theorie (Qualitative research: theor and practice). Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
  24. Murray, D.M. (1995). Design and analysis of community trials: Lessons from the Minnesota Heart Health Program. American Journal of Epidemiology, 142, 569–575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nutbeam, D. (1996). Achieving best practice in health promotion: Improving the fit between research and practice. Health Education Research, 11, 317–326.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nutbeam, D. (1998). Evaluating health promotion-Progress, problems and solutions. Health promotion international, 13, 27–44.Google Scholar
  27. Nutbeam, D. (1999). Evaluatie van oorzaak en gevolg in gezondheidsbevorderings-projecten, aanpassing van onderzoeksmethoden aan interventiemethoden (Evaluation of cause and effect in health promotion projects, adaptation of research methods to intervention methods). Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, 77, 15–23.Google Scholar
  28. Plant, M., Single, E. & Stockwell, T. (1997). Alcohol, minimizing the harm: What works. London/New York: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  29. Reuter, P. (2001). Editorail: Why does research have so little impact on American drug policy? Addiction, 96, 373–376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Room, R. (2001). Preventing alcohol problems: Popular approaches are ineffective, effective approaches are political impossible. Scheveningen: Presentation National conference on alcohol policy, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. Sackett, D.L., Rosenberg, W.M.C., Muir Gray, J.A., Brian Haynes, R.B., Scott Richardson, W. (1996). Editorial: Evidence-based medicine, what it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sanson-Fisher, R., Redman, S., Hancock, L., Halpin, S., Clark, P., Schefield, M., Burton, R., Hensley, M., Gibberd, R., Reid, A., Walsh, R. (1996). Developing methodologies for evaluating communitywide health promotion. Health Promotion International, 11, 227–236.Google Scholar
  33. Susser, M. (1995). Editorial: the Tribulations of trials-intervention in communities. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 156–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tones, K. (2000). Evaluating health promotion: A tale of three errors. Patient education and counselling, 39, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wright, L. (2000). Evidence-based alcohol education in schools. In M. Plant, D. Cameron (Eds.), The Alcohol Report (pp. 206–234). London: Free Association books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Garretsen
    • 1
  • I. Van De Goor
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Tranzo Research GroupTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Addiction Research InstituteUniversity of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Addiction Research InstituteUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Addiction Research InstituteUniversity of RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Addiction Research InstituteUniversity of TilburgTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations