Assessing causality in drug policy analyses: How useful are the Bradford Hill criteria in analysing take-home naloxone programs?

Anna Olsen*, David McDonald, Simon Lenton, Paul M. Dietze

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

    29 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The Bradford Hill criteria for assessing causality are useful in assembling evidence, including within complex policy analyses. In this paper, we argue that the implementation of take-home naloxone (THN) programs in Australia and elsewhere reflects sensible, evidence-based public health policy, despite the absence of randomised controlled trials. However, we also acknowledge that the debate around expanding access to THN would benefit from a careful consideration of causal inference and health policy impact of THN program implementation. Given the continued debate around expanding access to THN, and the relatively recent access to new data from implementation studies, two research groups independently conducted Bradford Hill analyses in order to carefully consider causal inference and health policy impact. Hill's criteria offer a useful analytical tool for interpreting current evidence on THN programs and making decisions about the (un)certainty of THN program safety and effectiveness.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)499-501
    Number of pages3
    JournalDrug and Alcohol Review
    Volume37
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - May 2018

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing causality in drug policy analyses: How useful are the Bradford Hill criteria in analysing take-home naloxone programs?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this