Summary - Department of Health and Ageing

The effectiveness of each intervention was assessed using a classification system of six
criteria that summarise the status of research evidence for each strategy.
O
p
Limited investigation
No relevant effectiveness studies were located and there were no empirical or
theoretical grounds suggesting the intervention might potentially impact the
outcome. May also indicate that the evidence is inconsistent or contradictory.
Evidence is contra-indicative
The available evidence suggests that this strategy should not be used to prevent
the outcome being targeted (e.g. drug supply, drug use, drug-related harm).
Warrants further research.
The strategy appears theoretically sound, or there is some promising evidence
for its implementation or outcome, but further research is needed to evaluate
its efficacy across larger groups or to define more clearly how it should be
implemented.
Evidence for implementation
Published studies provide a sound theoretical rationale for the strategy and they
clearly specify the way it should be implemented. In addition, they report that
the strategy has been accepted within service delivery organisations; that
recruitment of the target population has been sufficient to achieve a useful
impact at the population health level; and that the strategy meets with adequate
consumer approval, measured using indicators such as program retention. In
cases where the strategy has few costs and obvious benefits, it may be
supported for implementation. In other cases, wider implementation may await
rigorous evaluation to establish outcome benefits.
Evidence for outcomes
The literature consistently reports positive outcomes from the use of the
strategy in well-controlled interventions. Reported interventions were also of
sufficient scale to ensure positive outcomes when implemented at large-scale
population level.
Evidence for dissemination
For strategies that meet the ‘evidence for outcomes’ criteria, the literature also
reports that the strategy has had positive outcomes when delivered on a large
scale by a wide range of service delivery agents, rather than by research teams.
Where possible, the review also considers the cost-effectiveness of programs
using these strategies.
Each chapter that reviews interventions concludes with a ratings table using these ratings.
Where possible, interventions for individual drug types are reviewed and rated but the
literature does not always allow this specificity. Other areas (e.g. broad-based prevention
strategies, Chapter 9) do not lend themselves, at all, to these ratings and strategies are
summarised in terms of their applicability to drug use and harm.
Where there has been any doubt about a rating the authors have erred on the side of
inclusivity.