Citation

Klingemann H. Nord. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 2020; 37(4): 323-337.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Walter de Gruyter)

DOI

10.1177/1455072520941977

PMID

35310921

PMCID

PMC8899245

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The article offers an inventory of controversial basic issues related to treatment responses and their sociocultural political context, highlighting policy failures and successes, with a focus on Europe. As a reference point for this assessment, serves a conceptual framework of an "ideal type of treatment system", which is built upon the following normative assumptions: the objective of harm minimisation or preventing substance-use-related consequences, evidence-based decision making, securing equity and accessibility also from a user perspective as well as efficiency in terms of the diversity and choice of treatment options.

METHOD: Five major issues of addiction treatment systems, as identified and exemplified by an expert survey among 14 countries conducted in 2014, served as a reference for discussing fundamental gaps between an assumed ideal type of treatment system and the treatment response in practice: (1) Resistance to change, consensus building and innovation, (2) Political influence and target group bias beyond evidence, (3) Assumptions about rationality and universal evidence, (4) Myths of addiction and ethical deficits and (5) The treatment gap and user perspectives.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations relevant for politicians, system planners, and clinicians are formulated for each of the five issues, specifically focusing on embeddedness of treatment systems in macro-societal conditions, the abstinence paradigm and outcome diversity, ethnocentric biases of the "evidence credo", learning from self-change as the major road to recovery, and questioning implicit conceptions of the "addict as a human being". Furthermore, it is concluded that theories regarding the diffusion of innovation and knowledge exchange can inform future research.

Language: en

Keywords

addiction treatment systems in Europe; ethnocentric bias; self-change; treatment ethics; treatment gap; user perspective vs. top down