90 likes | 100 Views
Michael Farrell, Chair of EMCDDA Scientific Advisory Committee, outlines the priorities for improving access to scientific knowledge and addressing the challenges in the field of addictions. This includes bridging the gap between research and practice, understanding the limitations of evidence, and promoting empirical approaches to policy analysis. The role of EMCDDA and the need for methodological developments and collaborative research are also highlighted.
E N D
Raising the bar Meeting Europe’s future challenges Michael Farrell Chair EMCDDA Scientific Advisory Committee
Priorities • Improve access to scientific knowledge • Improving links across the breadth of the scientific field from basic to applied science • Reinforce links between the EMCDDA and the scientific community • Promoting the science of addictions within the broader scientific field • Promoting empirical approaches to broad policy analysis within and across member states • Understanding the ethical and policy implications of new technologies and new drugs in contemporary society
Access to scientific knowledge 1 • Important that drug policy can be evidence-based • What evidence is needed? • How to translate evidence into practice? • What are possible ways to bridge the gap between research and practice? • Understanding the limits of evidence and the need for varied sources of information and knowledge
Access to scientific knowledge 2 • Cochrane Collaboration • International not-for-profit and independent organization • Up-to-date, accurate information about healthcare • Cochrane reviews are recognised as the gold standard in evidence-based health care • Future challenges: • Maintain high quality standard of updated evidence • Interact with all stakeholders to prioritize questions • The limitations of such methodologies for some of the complex social and individual problems of addiction
The EMCDDA. • After 15 years robust evidence about some of the significant and sustained differences between countries require further exploration • Challenge is now to begin to understand these differences • Comparative analysis • Creative use of differences in policy implementation, especially regional differences within countries for comparative differences in policy implementation • The output of the EMCDDA could become more scientifically robust and impactful
The EMCDDA and the scientific community • Improving monitoring implies • supporting and developing the focal points and increasing the broader national research infrastructure and research capacity • Keeping and developing the information network • Working more closely with the broad research community • Providing information in a manner which matches the needs of practitioners and policy makers
Methodological developments . • More comparable good quality data collection in European member states is necessary • Understanding new trends requires the combined use of quantitative standardized data and more qualitative information. • Use of modelling in policy analysis
Research into practice in Europe • Too much reliance on intervention studies conducted in the United States • European implementation substantially more textured and need for better monitoring and evaluation of such differences • Large scale collaborative approach to key questions • Understanding development and resilience in individuals, families and communities • Interventions in novel settings and with new technologies
Sustainability • Need for National and International organisations to work closely together to promote future high quality collaborative research • The EMCDDA is potentially in a strong position to promote and support the collaboration between European drug researchers • The EMCDDA should continue to follow and disseminate research developments and findings in Europe