Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

The Journal of Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 0.768

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.321
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.485
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.618

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1458-6126
See all formats and pricing

 


Select Volume and Issue
Loading journal volume and issue information...

Stakeholders’ arguments for and against moving Swedish substance abuse treatment to the health care system: How a fat reform proposal became a thin government bill

1Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs (SoRAD) Stockholm University, Sweden

This content is open access.

Citation Information: Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 81–110, ISSN (Online) 1458-6126, ISSN (Print) 1455-0725, DOI: 10.2478/nsad-2014-0006, March 2014

Publication History

Published Online:
2014-03-07

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Far-reaching changes in the Swedish substance abuse treatment system (SAT) were proposed by a state-commissioned inquiry in 2011. The proposal implied a break with the social tradition of SAT. It was suggested that the treatment responsibility should be transferred from the municipal social services to the regional-level health care system; and that compulsory treatment in its present form (assessed by/paid for by social services, run by the state) should be abolished and become incorporated into coercive psychiatric care provided by health care. A lively debate arose, and the vast majority of stakeholders sought to articulate their arguments. AIM - The study analysed the development of Swedish SAT by examining the policy process from reform proposal to government bill in 2013.

METHOD - Content analysis was used to analyse written comments on the proposal submitted to the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs by close to 200 stakeholders. The goal was to empirically chart and examine the arguments for and against as well as advocates and opponents of the reform. With the government bill at hand, we retrospectively sorted out the winning arguments in the now highly contested SAT field and which actors were able to influence the process.

CONCLUSIONS - The article discloses that the mixed response and rather critical voices in most groups, including social/medical professions and government bureaucracy, helped block the responsibility shifts, and that reformations of subsystems like SAT are difficult to carry out as freestanding projects within larger systems of social and health care

KEYWORDS : substance abuse treatment systems; policy; medicalisation; social perspective; formative moment; path dependency

References

  • Babor, T. F., Stenius, K., & Romelsjö, A. (2008). Alcohol and drug treatment systems in public health perspective: Mediators and moderators of population effects. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(SUPPL. 1), S50-S59. [CrossRef]

  • Bauer, M. W. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. W. Bauer, & G.Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook (pp. 131-151). London: Sage.

  • Bergmark, A. (2012). Om medikaliseringen av svensk missbrukarvård [On the medicalisation of Swedish substance abuse treatment]. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 20(3-4), 232-242.

  • Bergström, G., & Boréus, K. (2000).Textens mening och makt. Metodbok i samhällsvetenskaplig textanalys [The meaning and power of the text. A methods book in text analysis in the social sciences].Lund: Studentlitteratur.

  • Blomqvist, J., Palm, J., & Storbjörk, J. (2009). “More cure and less control” or “more care and lower costs”? Recent changes in services for problem drug users in Stockholm and Sweden. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 16(6), 479-496.

  • Bourdieu, P. (1999). Praktiskt förnuft: Bidrag till en handlingsteori. Göteborg: Daidalos.

  • Conrad, P. (1992). Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 209-232. [CrossRef]

  • Conrad, P., & Schneider, J. (1992). Deviance and medicalization: From badness to sickness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

  • Dir. 2008:48. Kommittédirektiv. Översyn av missbruks- och beroendevården [Committee directive: overview of misuse and dependence treatment]. Stockholm: Socialdepartementet.

  • Edman, J., & Stenius, K. (2007). From sanatoriums to public injection rooms: Actors, ideas and institutions in the Nordic treatment systems. In J. Edman, & K. Stenius (Eds.), On the margins: Nordic alcohol and drug treatment 1885-2007 (pp. 314-337). Helsinki: Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research (NAD).

  • Ekendahl, M. (2009). The construction of maintenance treatment legitimacy: A discourse analysis of a policy shift. The Policy Press, 5(3), 247-265.

  • Humphreys, K., & Mclellan, A. T. (2011). A policy-oriented review of strategies for improving the outcomes of services for substance use disorder patients. Addiction, 106(12), 2058-2066. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

  • Johansson, J. (1992). Det statliga kommittéväsendet: Kunskap, kontroll, konsensus [Governmental commissions: knowledge, control, consensus].

  • Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen.

  • Johnson, B. (2003). Policyspridning som översättning. Den politiska översättningen av metadonbehandling och husläkare i Sverige [Diffusion of policy as translation: the political translation of methadone treatment and general practitioners in Sweden]. Lund: Lund University.

  • Johnson, B. (2007). After the storm: Developments in maintenance treatment policy and practice in Sweden 1987-2006.In J. Edman, & K. Stenius (Eds.), On the margins: Nordic alcohol and drug treatment 1885-2007 (pp. 259-287).Helsinki: Nordic Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research (NAD).

  • Kübler, D. (2001). Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: An application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 623-641. [CrossRef]

  • Kuussaari, K., & Partanen, A. (2010).Administrative challenges in the Finnish alcohol and drug treatment system. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 27(6), 667-684.

  • Kvale, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun [The qualitative research interview]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

  • Lagergren, F. (1999). På andra sidan välfärdsstaten. En studie i politiska idéers betydelse [On the flip side of the welfare state: a study on the significance of political ideas]. Stockholm: Symposion.

  • Larsson, M. (2013). Webbutsändning: Lagrådsremiss för missbruks- och beroendevården presenteras 30 januari 2013 av barn- och äldreminister Maria Larsson, Socialdepartementet [WebCast: Presentation of report to legislative council about misuse and dependence treatment, January 30, 2013, by Maria Larsson, Minister of children and the elderly, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs].Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/3209/a/208082

  • Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • MacGregor, S. (2013). Barriers to the influence of evidence on policy: Are politicians the problem? Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 1-9. doi:10.3109/09687637.2012.7 54403 [CrossRef]

  • NBHW (2007). Nationella riktlinjer för missbruks- och beroendevård. Vägledning för socialtjänstens och hälso- och sjukvårdens verksamhet för personer med missbruks- och beroendeproblem [National guidelines for addiction and dependence care: guidance for the social services’ and the health care system’s treatment of people with addiction and dependence problems].Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare.

  • Nesvåg, S., & Lie, T. (2010). The Norwegian substance treatment reform: Between new public management and conditions for good practice. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 27(6), 655-666.

  • Palm, J. (2004). The nature of and responsibility for alcohol and drug problems: Views among treatment staff.Addiction Research & Theory, 12(5), 413-431. [CrossRef]

  • Pedersen, M. U. (2005). A Danish perspective on the treatment of substance users in Norway. Nordisk alkohol- och narkotikatidskrift, 22(English Supplement), 174-178.

  • Pedersen, M. U. (2007). Professional expertise versus market mechanisms in contemporary Denmark. In J. Edman, & K. Stenius (Eds.), On the margins: Nordic alcohol and drug treatment 1885-2007 (pp. 292-314). Helsinki: Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research (NAD).

  • Pedersen, M. U., Hesse, M., & Bloomfield, K. (2011). Abstinence-orientated residential rehabilitation of opioid users in Denmark: Do changes in national treatment policies affect treatment outcome? Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 39(6), 582-589. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

  • Pierson, P. (2000). Path dependence, increasing returns, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251-267. [CrossRef]

  • Premfors, R. (1983). Governmental commissions in Sweden. American Behavioral Scientist, 26(5), 623-642. [CrossRef]

  • Prestjan, A. (2007). Idealistic doctors: Alcoholism treatment institutions in Sweden 1885-1916. In J. Edman, & K.Stenius (Eds.), On the margins: Nordic alcohol and drug treatment 1885-2007 (pp. 25-49). Helsinki: Nordic Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research (NAD).

  • Prop. 2010/11:47 Regeringens proposition: En samlad strategi för alkohol-, narkotika-, dopnings-, och tobakspolitiken [Government bill. A joint strategy for alcohol, drug, doping and tobacco policy].Stockholm: Socialdepartementet, Prop. 2010/11:47 (2011).

  • Prop. 2012/13:77 Regeringens proposition: God kvalitet och ökad tillgänglighet inom missbruks- och beroendevården [Government bill. Good quality and better access in substance abuse treatment].Stockholm: Socialdepartementet, Prop. 2012/13:77 (2013).

  • Rosenqvist, P., & Kurube, N. (1992). Dissolving the Swedish alcohol-treatment system. In H. Klingemann, & Takala, J-K., Hunt, G. (Eds.), Cure, care or control: Alcoholism treatment in sixteen countries (pp. 65-86).Albany: State University of New York Press, cop.

  • Rothstein, B. (1988). Aktör-strukturansatsen: Ett metodiskt dilemma. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, 9(1), 27-40.

  • S2011/4504/FST. (2012).Remissammanställning över betänkandet Bättre insatser vid missbruk och beroende (SOU2011:35) i de delar som rör kommunernas och landstingens ansvar för missbruks- och beroendevården [Compilation of comments concerning the inquiry on Better interventions for misuse and dependence (SOU2011:35), sections on the responsibility of the municipalities and the county councils for substance abuse treatment]. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet, Socialdepartementet.

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98-130. [CrossRef]

  • Sellerberg, A. (1999). Soon there’ll be a society for every bit of the intestine: The complexities of positioning disability in Sweden today. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 1(2), 86-98.

  • Skretting, A. (2005). From client to patient: Will the Norwegian substance abuse treatment reform mean better access to treatment? Nordisk alkohol- och narkotikatidskrift, 22(English Supplement), 167-173.

  • Skretting, A. (2007). Medicalisation with a focus on injecting drug users: Changes in the Norwegian treatment system from the 1990s. In J. Edman, & K. Stenius (Eds.), On the margins: Nordic alcohol and drug treatment 1885-2007 (pp. 267-291).Helsinki: Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research (NAD).

  • SOU (2004). Tvång och förändring - rättssäkerhet, vårdens innehåll och eftervård [Coercion and change: legal security, treatment contents and follow-up care]. (SOU 2004:3). Stockholm: Fritzes.

  • SOU (2005). Personer med tungt missbruk - stimulans till bättre vård och behandling [Persons with heavy abuse: stimulus for better care and treatment]. (SOU 2005:82).Stockholm: Fritzes.

  • SOU (2011). Bättre insatser vid missbruk och beroende. Individen, kunskapen och ansvaret. Slutbetänkande av missbruksutredningen [Better interventions for misuse and dependence: individual, knowledge and responsibility. Final report of misuse commission]. (SOU 2011:35).Stockholm: Fritzes.

  • Stenius, K., & Edman, J. (2007). A frame.In J. Edman, & K. Stenius (Eds.), On the margins: Nordic alcohol and drug treatment 1885-2007 (pp. 5-23). Helsinki: Nordic Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research (NAD).

  • Stevens, A. (2007). Survival of the ideas that fit: An evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Social Policy and Society, 6(01), 25-35. [CrossRef]

  • Storbjörk, J. (2010). Alcohol and drug treatment systems research: A question of money, professionals, and democracy.Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 27(6), 543-548.

  • Storbjörk, J. (2012). Drug users as social change agents: Increasing but limited possibilities in Sweden. Substance Use & Misuse, 47(5), 606-609. [PubMed]

  • Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 369-404. [CrossRef]

  • Tieberghien, J., & Decorte, T. (2013).Understanding the science-policy nexus in Belgium: An analysis of the drug policy debate (1996-2003). Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 20(3), 241-248.

  • Topor, A. (2010). Medikaliseringen av det psykosociala fältet. Om en kunskapssammanställning från socialstyrelsen [The medicalisation of the psychosocial field: about an evidence-based review by the National Board of Health and Welfare], IMS. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 17(1), 67-81.

  • Torfing, J. (1999). Towards a Schumpeterian workfare postnational regime: Path-shaping and path-dependency in Danish welfare state reform. Economy and Society, 28(3), 369-402. [CrossRef]

  • Upmark, M. (2006). Medikalisering - en orsak till ökad sjukfrånvaro [Medicalisation: a reason for increased sick leave]. In C. Edlund, & M. Upmark (Eds.), Den komplexa sjukfrånvaron (pp. 161-181).Lund: Studentlitteratur.

  • Wahlbeck, K. (2010). Moving towards integrated addiction treatment systems.Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 27(6), 699-702.

  • Weible, C. M. (2007). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 95-117.

  • Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426-431. [CrossRef]

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[2]
[3]
Robert Grahn, Lena M. Lundgren, Deborah Chassler, and Mojgan Padyab
Evaluation and Program Planning, 2015, Volume 49, Page 163

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.