Strengthening advocacy efforts with empirical evidence: A case example of the conduct, uptake and utilisation of research in drug policy decision-making in Vietnam.

During the last decade, international aid agencies and advocates have been working with Southeast Asian governments to move away from punitive responses towards people who use drugs to more public health, humane approaches. The lack of local scientific evidence about the effectiveness of different treatment approaches has made this advocacy work more challenging. This paper reflects on a generation of treatment research evidence and how it can assist advocacy efforts. The case example is the cost-effectiveness research, comparing centre-based compulsory treatment with community-based voluntary methadone maintenance treatment in Vietnam (2012-2015). Using our long-term and on-going connections with key Vietnamese decision-makers and government agencies, our collective experiences in drug policy advocacy and our unique insight into the working of government in Vietnam, we have used strategies to maximise opportunities for research to inform policy discussions. We have made an assessment here about the extent to which study findings have contributed to policy change in Vietnam and the challenges that impede progressive policy implementation. In doing this, we hope to make a contribution to the research evidence use literature.