METHODS: We conducted an analysis of cross-sectional governmental data collected from seven countries in the region with compulsory drug detention centres, namely Cambodia, China, Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. We computed descriptive data provided by government representatives for the period between 2012 and 2014.
RESULTS: The total number of people in compulsory detention centres overall decreased by only 4% between 2012 and 2014. In 2014, over 450,000 people were detained in 948 facilities in the seven countries. While only two countries decreased the number of compulsory detention centres, most countries increased the number of people detained.
CONCLUSIONS: In spite of international calls for the closure of compulsory detention centres, the number of facilities and detained people remained high in the seven countries included in the analysis. These officially reported figures are concerning regarding access to effective drug dependence treatment and given the potential for additional human rights abuses within compulsory detention centers. Further concerted policy and advocacy efforts should support transition of treatment for people with drug dependence towards human rights-based and evidence-based drug dependence treatment. Expansion of existing drug and HIV services in the community rather than compulsory treatment modalities will effectively address the region's drug and HIV burden.
METHODS: Score sheet based on WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines sent to correspondents in seven Southeast Asian countries, using a scoring system designed with the help of tobacco control experts and validated through focused group discussions.
RESULTS: The seven countries ranked from the lowest level of interference to the highest are Brunei, Thailand, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. Countries that face high levels of unnecessary interaction with the tobacco industry also face high levels of tobacco industry influence in policy development. Most governments do not allow any tobacco industry representatives on their delegation to sessions of the Conference of the Parties or its subsidiary bodies nor accept their sponsorship for delegates, but most governments still accept or endorse offers of assistance from the tobacco industry in implementing tobacco control policies. Most governments also receive tobacco industry contributions (monetary or in kind) or endorse industry corporate social responsibility activities. Governments do not have a procedure for disclosing interactions with the tobacco industry, but Lao PDR, Philippines and Thailand have instituted measures to prevent or reduce industry interference.
CONCLUSIONS: This Tobacco Industry Interference Index, based on the WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines, is a useful advocacy tool for identifying both progress and gaps in national efforts at implementing WHO FCTC Article 5.3.