English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  The use of illicit substances causes various health and social problems globally. Moreover, open drug use and dealing in urban areas, i.e., open drug scenes, can cause public order problems, lead to the recruitment of marginalized and young people for drug use or sale, and induce feelings of insecurity in the general public. Although some international studies have described various ways to manage open drug scenes, such as law enforcement and social interventions, there is limited knowledge about the facilitators and barriers promoting or impeding the implementation of such interventions. The aim of the current study was to explore how different authorities describe the nature of two open drug scenes in Stockholm and to derive authorities’ perspective on facilitators and barriers to implementing interventions to reduce open drug dealing, drug use, and related problems at these locations.    Methods  Semi-structured interviews with police officers, security staff, social workers, and municipality officials ( n  = 21) in the municipality of Stockholm were conducted and analyzed by qualitative content analysis.    Results  The analysis of the interviews generated the following categories: Problems, Interventions, Organizational factors, and External factors, revealing information about the strategic and daily counteracting work occurring at the open drug scenes as well as authorities’ perceptions of facilitators and barriers to implementing interventions to reduce open drug dealing, drug use, and related problems. Facilitators included motivated and skilled professionals and organized collaboration between key actors. Prominent barriers were a lack of resources to maintain personnel continuity at the scenes, policies that impede information sharing and put security staff in danger, and people who use or sell drugs without having residence permits.    Conclusions  To increase the possibility of successful implementation of interventions to counteract open drug dealing, politicians and authorities should pay attention to collaboration between key actors, sufficient resource allocation, possible modification of policy governing professional duties, and remedies to the vulnerability of individuals without residence permits.

Drug dealing and drug use prevention – a qualitative interview study of authorities’ perspectives on two open drug scenes in Stockholm