Polish Addiction Treatment Quality Collaborative Network

Executive Summary

The Polish Addiction Treatment Quality Collaborative Network (PATQCN) policy paper presents a comprehensive framework to transform Poland's fragmented addiction treatment system into an integrated, evidence-based network of care. Poland faces significant challenges with approximately 2.5 million individuals experiencing alcohol use disorder and 100,000-150,000 affected by problematic drug use, primarily opioids and stimulants. The current system suffers from structural division between healthcare and social welfare sectors, creating coordination gaps, inefficient resource allocation, and inconsistent quality standards.

Key issues identified include limited access to treatment (only 30% of high-risk drug users receive specialized care), inadequate integration of evidence-based approaches like Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) and harm reduction strategies, significant regional disparities (with rural eastern voivodeships having fewer than 0.5 addiction specialists per 100,000 population compared to 2.5 in major urban centers), and workforce shortages.

The proposed PATQCN operates on three interconnected levels:

1. A National Coordination Center responsible for developing evidence-based guidelines, establishing quality standards, implementing certification processes, commissioning research, maintaining a national registry, and facilitating knowledge exchange
2. Sixteen Regional Coordination Hubs aligned with Poland's voivodeships to adapt national guidelines to regional contexts, coordinate cross-sector services, implement quality improvement initiatives, and monitor performance
3. Local Provider Networks offering comprehensive, integrated care through inpatient and outpatient facilities, primary healthcare providers, social welfare agencies, peer support organizations, and digital health services

The implementation strategy follows four phases over five years: (1) Foundation - establishing legal frameworks and coordination bodies; (2) Pilot Implementation - testing in four diverse voivodeships; (3) National Scale-Up - expanding to all regions with continued focus on equity; and (4) Sustainability and Innovation - embedding the system into routine operations while fostering continuous improvement.

Funding recommendations include a diversified portfolio with dedicated National Health Fund allocations, EU structural funds, earmarked percentages of alcohol and gambling taxes, and public-private partnerships. Resource allocation should follow principles of needs-based distribution, performance-related incentives, innovation grants, and equity adjustments.

The Quality Improvement Framework emphasizes core indicators including equitable access, evidence-based practice implementation, service engagement and retention, patient-reported outcomes, social reintegration metrics, cost-effectiveness, trauma-informed care, and integration with criminal justice services.

This comprehensive approach addresses Poland's current fragmentation while incorporating international best practices, emphasizing evidence-based interventions, and centering the perspectives of individuals with lived experience to create a more effective, accessible, and humane addiction treatment system.

Current State of Addiction Treatment in Poland

Poland faces significant challenges in addressing substance use disorders (SUDs), with approximately 2.5 million individuals experiencing alcohol use disorder (Państwowa Agencja Rozwiązywania Problemów Alkoholowych [PARPA], 2023a) and an estimated 100,000-150,000 people affected by problematic drug use, primarily opioids and stimulants (Krajowe Centrum Przeciwdziałania Uzależnieniom [KCPU], 2023a). These disorders, recognized as mental health conditions characterized by problematic substance use patterns leading to impairment or distress (American Psychiatric Association, 2022), require comprehensive policy approaches that address both prevention and treatment.

The current treatment system in Poland suffers from considerable fragmentation, with services divided between healthcare facilities under the Ministry of Health and social welfare institutions managed by the Ministry of Family and Social Policy. This structural division creates significant coordination gaps, inefficient resource allocation, and inconsistent quality standards across the continuum of care (Kowalski & Nowak, 2022). Such fragmentation undermines the delivery of integrated care essential for addressing the complex needs of individuals with SUDs, particularly those with co-occurring mental health conditions (World Health Organization [WHO], 2018). The legal framework governing addiction treatment is primarily outlined in the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction (2005) and the Act on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism (1982, as amended), with funding predominantly provided by the National Health Fund (NFZ), supplemented by local government budgets and specific programs managed by KCPU (NFZ, 2023a; KCPU, 2023b).

Treatment access remains a critical policy concern. Recent data from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) reveals that only about 30% of individuals with high-risk drug use in Poland received specialized treatment in the past year—significantly lower than the European Union average of approximately 50% (EMCDDA, 2023, p. 45-47). The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these challenges, with the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology (IPiN) reporting a 15% increase in self-reported high-risk alcohol consumption between 2019 and 2021 (IPiN, 2022a), accompanied by a corresponding 23% rise in demand for addiction services (NFZ, 2022a). The existing infrastructure and workforce are inadequate to meet this escalated demand, resulting in extended waiting times and increased pressure on service providers (GUS, 2023). While the pandemic accelerated the adoption of telehealth services, systemic integration remains inadequate (Ministerstwo Zdrowia, 2023a). The recently introduced "National Program for Counteracting Addictions 2023-2027" aims to address these issues by improving coordination and implementing evidence-based practices, though implementation is still in early stages (KCPU, 2023c).

Poland's predominant treatment model has historically emphasized abstinence-based approaches, often delivered in long-term residential settings (Jabłoński, 2021). While abstinence represents a valid recovery goal for many individuals and such programs can provide intensive psychosocial support (Nowicki & Zajączkowska, 2020), the limited integration of evidence-based harm reduction strategies and Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) represents a significant policy gap compared to practices proven effective in other European nations. MAT, which combines approved medications with behavioral therapies, has demonstrated considerable efficacy in treating SUDs (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2024a; American Addiction Centers [AAC], 2024). For opioid use disorder (OUD), medications such as buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone have shown effectiveness (Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2023; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2024), while alcohol use disorder can be effectively treated with acamprosate, disulfiram, and naltrexone (SAMHSA, 2024a). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses consistently demonstrate that these medications reduce cravings, alleviate withdrawal symptoms, and decrease overdose risk, thereby improving treatment retention and long-term recovery outcomes (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2023; Lingford-Hughes et al., 2012). However, MAT implementation in Poland faces significant policy barriers, including limited prescriber training, persistent stigma, and logistical challenges in integrating pharmacological interventions with psychosocial support (Oleszczyk & Wnuk, 2022).

Harm reduction approaches remain significantly underutilized in Polish addiction policy despite their proven effectiveness as practical, community-driven public health strategies (National Harm Reduction Coalition [NHRC], n.d.; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2022). While needle and syringe programs exist, their coverage is limited, and access to naloxone for overdose reversal is not widespread (KCPU, 2023a). International policy models offer valuable lessons: Portugal's decriminalization of drug possession in 2001, coupled with enhanced treatment and harm reduction services, has yielded significant public health benefits, including reduced overdose deaths and HIV infections (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2021; Hughes & Stevens, 2010). Similarly, France has achieved broad access to buprenorphine for OUD through primary care physicians, dramatically reducing overdose fatalities (Carrieri et al., 2006; Fatseas & Auriacombe, 2019). The limited adoption of comprehensive harm reduction and accessible MAT in Poland's policy framework likely contributes to poorer health outcomes and higher societal costs associated with untreated or inadequately treated addiction (Lewicka & Baranowski, 2021).

Prevention strategies in Poland are primarily school-based and community-focused, often implemented by KCPU, local governments, and NGOs (KCPU, 2023b). However, these initiatives suffer from inconsistent funding, variable implementation, and insufficient evidence-based approaches targeting at-risk youth and vulnerable populations (Szymańska, 2022). Non-governmental organizations play a crucial role in addressing policy gaps, particularly in providing harm reduction services, outreach, and long-term support (Stępień & Malinowska, 2020). Private providers supplement the system, primarily in urban areas, offering services that may not be readily available through the NFZ, though access is constrained by financial barriers.

Workforce development represents another critical policy challenge. The addiction treatment field faces insufficient numbers of certified addiction specialists, particularly psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists; an aging workforce; and difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff in public facilities, especially in rural areas (Naczelna Izba Lekarska [NIL], 2023; Polskie Towarzystwo Psychiatryczne [PTP], 2023). While training and certification standards exist, there is an urgent need for comprehensive continuous professional development policies, particularly regarding evidence-based practices like MAT and co-occurring disorders treatment (Centrum Medyczne Kształcenia Podyplomowego [CMKP], 2022).

Cultural factors significantly influence addiction policy implementation. High societal tolerance for alcohol consumption, coupled with stigma associated with seeking help for addiction, creates substantial barriers to treatment engagement (PARPA, 2023b). Family support systems, while crucial for recovery, often lack adequate information and resources. Religious organizations provide valuable support services, typically abstinence-focused, which align with certain cultural values but may not address the diverse needs of all individuals seeking recovery (Kowalski & Nowak, 2022). Patient advocacy research highlights the need for more person-centered care policies, reduced stigma, improved information about treatment options, and greater involvement in treatment planning (Fundacja "Głos Pacjenta", 2023).

Regional Disparities in Treatment Access

Poland's addiction treatment system is characterized by profound regional inequities that demand targeted policy interventions. Access to addiction treatment varies dramatically across Poland's 16 voivodeships, with particularly stark disparities between urban centers and rural areas. Ministry of Health data reveals that rural eastern voivodeships have alarmingly low concentrations of addiction specialists—fewer than 0.5 certified specialists per 100,000 population—compared to major urban centers like Warsaw or Krakow, which may have up to 2.5 specialists per 100,000 population (Ministerstwo Zdrowia, 2023b). This inequitable distribution of qualified professionals directly impacts service availability and quality. The decentralized organization of public health services at the voivodeship level (NCBI, 2019; Pomeranian Addiction Therapy Clinic, n.d.) means that regional authorities (Voivodeship Marshal Offices) significantly influence resource allocation and strategic planning, resulting in inconsistent service provision across regions (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli [NIK], 2022).

These regional disparities manifest in dramatically different waiting times for specialized treatment. While individuals in major cities might wait 2-4 weeks for an outpatient consultation, those in rural eastern regions can face delays of 3-6 months or longer for residential treatment (Rzecznik Praw Pacjenta, 2023). Such delays have profound consequences, including worsening of SUDs, increased overdose risk, deterioration of physical and mental health, and negative social impacts such as employment instability and family breakdown (GUS, 2023).

International policy approaches offer promising models for addressing these regional disparities. The expansion of telehealth services has proven effective in delivering addiction treatment and counseling remotely, particularly in geographically diverse countries like the United States (SAMHSA, 2021). Other evidence-based strategies include deploying mobile treatment units, implementing financial incentives to attract specialists to underserved areas, and integrating MAT into primary care settings to increase accessibility, as successfully demonstrated in France and parts of Canada (Roux et al., 2008; Ontario Ministry of Health, 2020).

Current criteria for selecting and implementing addiction treatment strategies in Poland must more explicitly incorporate principles of geographic equity and accessibility (KCPU, 2023c). Addressing these regional imbalances through targeted policy interventions is essential for ensuring that all Polish citizens, regardless of their location, have timely access to effective addiction treatment. The minimal integration of addiction services with primary healthcare represents a particularly significant policy gap, further limiting access to evidence-based interventions like MAT, which could be effectively delivered by appropriately trained general practitioners (PTP, 2023).

Global Context

The global landscape of addiction treatment increasingly recognizes the profound limitations of siloed, fragmented service delivery. Collaborative care networks have emerged as a cornerstone of effective addiction policy, demonstrating potential in improving access, retention, and outcomes in multiple international contexts. These networks are characterized by structured partnerships between various service providers—including primary care, specialist addiction services, mental health services, social services, and community organizations—all working in a coordinated manner to provide comprehensive, person-centered care (World Health Organization [WHO], 2017). The fundamental principle is to create a seamless continuum of care that addresses the multifaceted nature of addiction.

Recent data underscore the urgency for effective treatment models. Globally, an estimated 296 million people (ages 15-64) used drugs in 2021, representing 5.8% of the global population in this age group. Among them, approximately 39.5 million (13.3%) suffered from drug use disorders (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2023a). The UNODC (2023a) notes that these estimates are based on national surveys and data, with varying methodologies and coverage, thus carrying inherent limitations. In Europe, an estimated 85.7 million adults (aged 15-64) have used an illicit drug in their lifetime, and it is estimated that over 1 million high-risk opioid users reside in the European Union (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction [EMCDDA], 2023a). Effective, well-coordinated treatment networks are critical to addressing this public health challenge.

The Swedish LARO (Läkemedelsassisterad behandling vid opioidberoende – Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Dependence) system, significantly reformed and implemented nationwide from 2015, exemplifies a structured collaborative approach. This system established regional treatment hubs, often specialized addiction clinics, closely connected to primary care facilities and social services. This integration aims to provide holistic care, addressing not only the physiological aspects of opioid dependence through medications like buprenorphine or methadone but also the psychosocial needs of individuals (Socialstyrelsen, 2020). While specific national aggregate statistics claiming a "40% increase in treatment retention and a 35% reduction in overdose deaths" directly and solely attributable to the 2015 reforms are difficult to substantiate from singular, peer-reviewed national studies, research indicates positive trends in treatment engagement and outcomes following increased access and national guidelines (Folkhälsomyndigheten, 2021; Socialstyrelsen, 2020). For instance, studies have shown high retention rates in specific LARO programs (e.g., around 75% at one year in some cohorts) and patient choice within the LARO system, including the choice of medication and, to some extent, treatment provider, can positively influence engagement and outcomes (Lagerlöf, 2022; Gerdner et al., 2019). The Swedish model emphasizes national guidelines ensuring quality and accessibility while allowing for regional adaptation in service delivery (Socialstyrelsen, 2020). However, critics point to regional disparities in access and the ongoing debate about the balance between medical control and patient autonomy within the system (Hellman et al., 2019).

Similarly, Portugal's integrated treatment network, established following its groundbreaking 2001 drug policy reforms which decriminalized the personal use and possession of all illicit drugs for personal use (up to a 10-day supply), offers another compelling case study. This policy shift was part of a broader public health strategy that significantly increased investment in treatment and harm reduction services, coordinated through regional Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction (CDTs) (Domosławska, 2020). These CDTs are multidisciplinary bodies that assess individuals apprehended for drug use and refer them to appropriate services, including voluntary treatment, rather than imposing criminal sanctions (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2021). The network coordinates healthcare (including primary care and specialized addiction treatment), social services, and community resources. While precise aggregated figures like an "80% reduction in problematic drug use and 85% decrease in drug-related HIV infections over two decades" are complex to attribute solely to decriminalization and require careful sourcing for such specific long-term claims, numerous studies confirm substantial long-term improvements in public health indicators. For example, there was a significant reduction in new HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs, from 907 cases in 2001 to 16 cases in 2021 (EMCDDA, 2023b; Hughes & Stevens, 2010). Drug-induced deaths also decreased significantly and remain among the lowest in Europe (EMCDDA, 2023a). It is crucial to note that these positive outcomes are attributed to a combination of factors, including decriminalization, significant expansion of harm reduction and treatment services, and broader social policies (Hughes & Stevens, 2012; Laqueur, 2015). Some critics argue that the focus on Portugal often overlooks persistent social inequalities and challenges in reaching all marginalized populations (Domosławska, 2020).

Key Elements of Successful Networks

Research and practical experience identify several critical components underpinning effective collaborative addiction treatment networks. Standardized assessment and referral protocols are essential for effective collaboration, hinging on clear, consistent processes for assessing client needs and referring them to the most appropriate services. Standardized tools ensure comprehensive evaluation, covering substance use, co-occurring physical and mental health conditions, and social circumstances, facilitating appropriate treatment matching and smoother transitions (CSAT, 2000; WHO, 2017). The Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model is an evidence-based practice used to identify, reduce, and prevent problematic use, abuse, and dependence on alcohol and illicit drugs (Babor et al., 2007; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2023a). Standardized protocols also promote equity by ensuring all individuals have access to similar quality care options.

Shared Electronic Health Records (EHRs) with robust privacy protections are crucial for coordinated care. Timely and secure sharing of relevant patient information among providers improves care continuity, reduces redundant testing, prevents harmful drug interactions, and provides a comprehensive view of a patient's history (El Morr et al., 2015). However, implementation faces challenges, including robust privacy safeguards (e.g., 42 CFR Part 2 in the U.S., GDPR in Europe), interoperability, and resource requirements (Aguilera, 2022; Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology [ONC], 2020). Ethical concerns about potential surveillance and data misuse must be proactively addressed to maintain patient trust (Hall & McGraw, 2014).

Regular case conferences among multidisciplinary teams are vital because addiction often co-occurs with other health and social issues, necessitating multidisciplinary teams (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, peer support specialists) for holistic care (WHO, 2017). Regular case conferences allow collaborative development and review of treatment plans, ensuring all needs are met (SAMHSA, 2005). This aligns with a biopsychosocial model, recognizing the interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors (NCBI, 2005). However, power dynamics within these teams can be a challenge, with potential for medical perspectives to overshadow psychosocial or peer-led approaches if not carefully managed (Shaw et al., 2011).

Integrated funding mechanisms are essential as fragmented funding streams hinder collaboration. Integrated mechanisms, like pooled budgets or bundled payments, incentivize providers to work together, focusing on overall patient outcomes rather than individual service targets (WHO, 2017; Health Foundation, 2018). For example, some Canadian provinces have experimented with integrated funding for mental health and addiction services (Kirby & Keon, 2006), though widespread implementation remains complex.

Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) processes ensure effective networks continuously learn and adapt by systematically collecting and analyzing data on performance, outcomes, and user experiences to identify areas for improvement (Health Foundation, 2013). This includes establishing key performance indicators (KPIs), regular audits, and soliciting feedback to implement evidence-based changes.

Patient/client involvement in network governance and service design is crucial for incorporating perspectives of individuals with lived experience in designing, delivering, and governing treatment networks for relevance, accessibility, and responsiveness (Health Consumers NSW, 2018; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2023b). This fosters person-centered care and empowerment. The Swedish LARO system's consideration of patient choice is an example (Lagerlöf, 2022). Meaningful involvement requires addressing power imbalances and providing adequate support for participation (Storm & Edwards, 2013).

Integration of telehealth and digital interventions has accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic in addiction treatment (SAMHSA, 2021a). These tools can improve access, especially in remote areas or for individuals facing mobility or stigma barriers, offering services like counseling, medication management, and peer support (Lin et al., 2021; NIDA, 2023a). Ensuring equitable access to technology and maintaining privacy are key considerations.

Low-threshold service models, which have minimal requirements for entry and engagement (e.g., needle and syringe programs, drop-in centers, some forms of MAT access), are vital for reaching individuals not ready or able to engage in more intensive treatment (Paquette et al., 2019). Integrating these services within broader collaborative networks ensures a continuum of care that can engage highly marginalized populations.

The UK's approach to addiction treatment, historically guided by the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA), later Public Health England (PHE), and now the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), demonstrates elements of this. The NTA established regional partnerships and local commissioning, guided by national standards (NTA, 2012; OHID, n.d.). Key components included pooled treatment budgets, standardized data collection (National Drug Treatment Monitoring System - NDTMS), and a focus on recovery-oriented systems. While facing challenges, including significant funding cuts impacting service availability and quality (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs [ACMD], 2021; Eastwood et al., 2022), this framework provided a structure for collaborative care. Recent government strategies aim to reinvest and rebuild the treatment and recovery sector (HM Government, 2021).

Policy Comparisons and Evidence-Based Approaches

Comparing international models reveals common themes and divergent strategies. Sweden emphasizes specialized regional hubs for MAT (LARO) with links to primary care and social services, driven by national guidelines. Treatment is highly medicalized for opioid dependence, with a focus on quality control and patient choice within the system (Lagerlöf, 2022; Socialstyrelsen, 2020). Portugal's decriminalization is a key feature of a health-led integrated network coordinated by regional CDTs, involving law enforcement in a diversionary, non-criminalizing role. This network broadly encompasses harm reduction, treatment, and social reintegration, emphasizing voluntary engagement (Hughes & Stevens, 2010; Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2021). The United Kingdom has historically maintained a centrally guided (NTA/PHE/OHID) but locally commissioned system. It emphasizes a recovery-oriented approach, with services including harm reduction, psychosocial interventions, and MAT. The NDTMS provides robust data (OHID, n.d.; NTA, 2012). Recent strategies focus on rebuilding capacity after austerity (HM Government, 2021). In Canada, addiction treatment is primarily a provincial/territorial responsibility. British Columbia, for example, has implemented hub-and-spoke models for opioid agonist treatment (OAT) integrating specialist hubs with primary care spokes, and has been a leader in harm reduction innovations, including prescribed safer supply initiatives in response to the overdose crisis (BC Centre on Substance Use, 2023; Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2023). Culturally-specific approaches for Indigenous populations are also being developed and implemented, recognizing the unique needs and historical trauma affecting these communities (Reading & Wien, 2009; Thunderbird Partnership Foundation, n.d.).

Across these networks, several evidence-based approaches are commonly integrated. Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) / Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) for opioid use disorder, using medications like methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone, with counseling and behavioral therapies, is a gold standard treatment (WHO, 2009; National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2021a). Similar evidence supports medications for alcohol use disorder (NIDA, 2021b). Psychosocial interventions including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Motivational Interviewing, and Contingency Management are effective for various substance use disorders (NIDA, 2020a). Harm reduction services such as needle and syringe programs, supervised consumption sites (where legal), naloxone distribution, and drug checking services aim to reduce negative consequences of drug use (International Harm Reduction Association, 2020; EMCDDA, 2023a). These are increasingly integrated with treatment pathways.

Collaborative approaches are also crucial for non-opioid substances. For stimulant use disorders (e.g., cocaine, methamphetamine), while no FDA-approved medications exist, psychosocial interventions like contingency management show promise, and research into pharmacological treatments is ongoing (NIDA, 2020b). Integrated care models are vital for addressing the often complex co-occurring health and social issues associated with stimulant use. For alcohol use disorder, a combination of medications, behavioral therapies, and mutual help groups, delivered through coordinated systems involving primary care and specialist services, is considered best practice (NIDA, 2021b; NIAAA, n.d.).

Current Challenges and Limitations in Addiction Policy Implementation

Despite progress, significant challenges persist in implementing effective addiction policies. Societal and institutional stigma against people who use drugs remains a major barrier to help-seeking, resource allocation, and compassionate care (Volkow et al., 2021; Livingston et al., 2012). Funding and resource allocation for addiction services are often inadequate. Austerity or shifting political priorities can lead to cuts, undermining network stability (ACMD, 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2017). Integrated funding, while ideal, faces implementation complexities. The cost-effectiveness of different collaborative models is an area requiring more robust, comparative research (Pacula & Smart, 2017).

Workforce development and shortages present ongoing challenges. Shortages of trained addiction specialists persist, particularly in rural/underserved areas (SAMHSA, 2021b). Retaining staff is challenging due to high caseloads and comparatively lower pay in some sectors. Data sharing, interoperability, and privacy concerns create technical, ethical, and logistical hurdles to achieving seamless interoperability between IT systems while ensuring stringent patient privacy (ONC, 2020; Hall & McGraw, 2014). Concerns about data misuse or increased surveillance can deter service engagement.

Reaching underserved and marginalized populations requires ensuring equitable access for all, including homeless individuals, those in the criminal justice system, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those in remote locations, through tailored outreach and culturally competent services (NIDA, 2020a; Health Equity Institute, 2019). Indigenous collaborative care models, for example, emphasize self-determination, cultural safety, and traditional healing practices alongside Western medicine (Reading & Wien, 2009).

Adapting to evolving drug trends presents another challenge. The emergence of new psychoactive substances (NPS) and potent synthetic opioids like fentanyl require agile adaptation of prevention, treatment, and harm reduction strategies (UNODC, 2023a). Integration with mental health services is essential given the high rates of co-occurring mental health conditions, yet true "no wrong door" approaches are still an aspiration in many systems (Drake et al., 2001; SAMHSA, 2023c).

Political and ideological factors often influence addiction policy, which is frequently shaped by political ideologies and moral frameworks rather than solely by scientific evidence, impacting the adoption and funding of collaborative, health-centered approaches (Berridge, 2022; Room, 2011). While beneficial, collaborative networks are not a panacea. They can be complex to establish and maintain, requiring significant ongoing effort in relationship-building, communication, and conflict resolution. Power imbalances between larger institutions and smaller community organizations, or between different professional disciplines, can also undermine true collaboration if not actively managed (Hudson, 2009). Furthermore, the effectiveness of a network is contingent on the quality and availability of the individual services within it.

Impact of COVID-19 on Collaborative Care Networks

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted addiction services and collaborative networks. Initial lockdowns disrupted service delivery, leading to concerns about increased substance use, overdose risk, and mental health challenges (NIDA, 2021c; UNODC, 2020). However, the pandemic also spurred rapid innovation, particularly the expansion of telehealth services for counseling and MAT prescribing (SAMHSA, 2021a). Many jurisdictions introduced regulatory flexibilities to facilitate remote care and take-home medication doses (Volkow, 2021). These changes highlighted the potential of technology to enhance access but also exposed digital divides. Collaborative networks had to adapt quickly, strengthening communication and coordination to manage evolving risks and service delivery models (Ordean et al., 2021). The long-term impacts and sustainability of these pandemic-era adaptations are still being evaluated.

Methodological Limitations in Assessing Collaborative Networks

Evaluating the effectiveness of complex, multi-component collaborative care networks presents methodological challenges. Attributing specific outcomes solely to the "collaborative" aspect, as distinct from the quality of individual services within the network, can be difficult (Ovretveit, 2011). Randomized controlled trials are often not feasible for large-scale systemic interventions. Much of the evidence relies on observational studies, pre-post comparisons, or qualitative data, which, while valuable, may have limitations in establishing causality. There is a need for more research employing robust quasi-experimental designs and mixed-methods approaches to better understand the specific mechanisms through which collaboration improves outcomes, for whom, and in what contexts. Furthermore, standardized metrics for "collaboration" itself are not universally agreed upon, making cross-study comparisons challenging.

The Current Landscape

Addiction represents a significant public health challenge in Poland, requiring a coordinated, evidence-based response. The current treatment landscape, while possessing notable strengths, suffers from fragmentation, geographical disparities, and inconsistent implementation of best practices. This policy paper proposes the establishment of the Polish Addiction Treatment Quality Collaborative Network (PATQCN), a comprehensive framework designed to enhance the quality, accessibility, and integration of addiction treatment services nationwide.

Poland faces substantial addiction-related challenges. Alcohol consumption remains a primary concern, with recorded adult per capita consumption reaching 11.7 liters of pure alcohol in 2019—significantly exceeding both the WHO European Region average of 9.8 liters and the EU average of 9.5 liters (World Health Organization [WHO], 2022a; WHO, 2022b). Regarding illicit substances, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reported that in 2021, approximately 3.5% of Polish adults had used cannabis in the past year, with smaller but significant percentages using MDMA/ecstasy (0.7%), amphetamines (0.5%), and cocaine (0.5%) (EMCDDA, 2023a). High-risk drug use, primarily involving opioids, affects an estimated 0.35 per 1,000 population aged 15-64 (EMCDDA, 2023a).

Behavioral addictions also warrant attention. Recent research identified work addiction among 10.7% of Polish working individuals (Piotrkowski et al., 2024), while problematic internet use was found in 14.4% of Polish physiotherapy students during the COVID-19 pandemic, often co-occurring with mental health issues (Sikorska et al., 2021). These findings, though limited in scope, suggest the need for broader epidemiological assessment and targeted interventions.

The current Polish addiction treatment system comprises a mix of public and private providers, with services often fragmented between healthcare, social welfare, and non-governmental organizations. While the system includes dedicated outpatient clinics, inpatient facilities, and therapeutic communities, it struggles with long waiting times, geographical disparities, underutilization of evidence-based practices like Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder, insufficient integration with primary care and mental health services, and inadequate quality monitoring systems (GUS, 2022; KBPN, 2021).

The PATQCN Framework

The proposed Polish Addiction Treatment Quality Collaborative Network would operate on three interconnected levels, drawing inspiration from successful international models while addressing Poland's specific context and challenges.

National Coordination Center

At the heart of the PATQCN would be a National Coordination Center responsible for providing strategic direction and maintaining quality standards. This center would develop and regularly update evidence-based treatment guidelines, ensuring that all providers across Poland deliver care aligned with the latest scientific findings. Drawing from international examples such as the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2017; NICE, 2023) and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM, n.d.-a), these guidelines would be adapted to Poland's specific epidemiological profile, cultural context, and available resources.

The center would establish clear quality standards and implement a robust certification process for treatment providers, promoting accountability and continuous quality improvement. This approach builds on the success of models like the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) in the United States, which has demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing treatment access and retention through customer-focused quality improvement (Quanbeck et al., 2011). While acknowledging that such models can face challenges related to organizational buy-in and resource intensity (Ford et al., 2010), a tiered certification approach would encourage providers to progressively meet higher standards.

Research and evaluation would form another critical function of the National Coordination Center. By commissioning studies on Poland-specific issues and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions within the PATQCN, the center would ensure that policies and practices remain evidence-based and responsive to emerging trends. This research agenda would include studies on work addiction (Piotrkowski et al., 2024), internet addiction (Sikorska et al., 2021), and long-term outcomes of different treatment modalities in the Polish context.

A national addiction treatment registry would provide invaluable data for planning and policy development. Building on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction's Treatment Demand Indicator (EMCDDA, n.d.-a), this registry would capture anonymized data on individuals accessing services, helping to identify service gaps, monitor treatment quality, and inform resource allocation. The system would be designed for interoperability with existing health information systems to maximize utility while minimizing administrative burden.

The center would also facilitate knowledge exchange between regions through national conferences, workshops, and online platforms, allowing professionals to share experiences and solutions. This approach recognizes that while learning collaboratives have proven effective in disseminating best practices (Quanbeck et al., 2011), their success depends on active participation and structured facilitation (Mittman, 2012).

Governance of the National Coordination Center would involve joint oversight by the Ministries of Health and Family and Social Policy, with robust representation from professional associations, academic institutions, the National Centre for Addiction Prevention, and crucially, patient advocacy groups and individuals with lived experience. This multi-stakeholder approach ensures that policies are well-rounded, practical, and responsive to real needs. Portugal's approach to addiction policy offers a valuable precedent, with its General Directorate for Intervention on Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies (SICAD) involving various stakeholders in policy development and implementation (SICAD, n.d.; Hughes & Stevens, 2010; EMCDDA, 2023b).

Regional Coordination Hubs

Sixteen regional hubs, aligned with Poland's voivodeships, would operationalize the national strategy at the sub-national level. These hubs would adapt national guidelines to regional contexts, recognizing that effective implementation must account for local variations in demographics, resources, and specific addiction patterns. This approach draws from successful models like Vermont's "Hub and Spoke" system for opioid treatment (Blueprint for Health, n.d.), New York's Regional Addiction Resource Centers (OASAS, n.d.), and France's CSAPA (Care, Support and Prevention Centres in Addictology) (OFDT, n.d.).

A critical function of these hubs would be coordinating service provision across healthcare and social welfare sectors. Addiction frequently co-occurs with mental health issues, homelessness, unemployment, and criminal justice involvement, necessitating cross-sectoral collaboration. The CLARO model (Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from other Stresses) demonstrates the value of collaborative care for co-occurring disorders (Watkins et al., 2021; Watkins et al., 2022). Regional hubs would foster partnerships between medical facilities, social assistance centers, employment agencies, schools, and NGOs, addressing potential conflicts between different professional approaches through joint training and shared protocols.

Regional quality improvement initiatives would ensure services remain responsive to local feedback and performance data. Hubs would facilitate regional learning collaboratives, support providers in implementing quality improvement projects, and track progress on key performance indicators. They would provide technical assistance and training to local providers in evidence-based practices such as MAT, cognitive-behavioral therapies, motivational interviewing, trauma-informed care, and telehealth implementation.

Performance monitoring would allow hubs to identify areas of excellence and those needing improvement. By collecting and analyzing data from local provider networks, hubs would report to the National Coordination Center while using findings for regional planning and resource allocation.

Each hub would be staffed by a multidisciplinary team including addiction medicine specialists, clinical psychologists or psychotherapists, social workers, public health professionals, data analysts, and peer support coordinators. The inclusion of individuals with lived recovery experience is vital for effective engagement and support (SAMHSA, 2017; Reif et al., 2014).

Local Provider Networks

At the community level, local provider networks would serve as the direct point of contact for individuals seeking help. These networks must be comprehensive, well-integrated, and increasingly incorporate digital solutions to maximize accessibility and effectiveness.

Inpatient and outpatient treatment facilities would offer a spectrum of care intensities, while primary healthcare providers would play a crucial role in screening, brief interventions, MAT provision, and managing co-occurring physical health conditions (SAMHSA, 2013a). Given the high rates of co-occurring disorders (NIDA, 2020a), seamless integration with mental health services is essential, as demonstrated by models like CLARO (Watkins et al., 2022).

Social welfare agencies would provide support for housing, financial assistance, and family services, recognizing that stable housing and employment are key factors in sustained recovery (SAMHSA, 2023a). Peer support organizations would offer mutual support and hope, with perspectives from Polish individuals with lived experience highlighting the importance of non-judgmental support and community (Lipińska-Szałek et al., 2022).

Digital health and telehealth services would play an increasingly important role in the PATQCN. Telehealth can improve access, especially in rural areas or for stigmatized populations, and offer flexible support (SAMHSA, 2021). Studies show that telehealth for substance use disorder treatment can be as effective as in-person care for certain services (Lin et al., 2022; SAMHSA, 2021). The PATQCN would support the development and integration of secure telehealth platforms for counseling, MAT follow-up, and peer support, alongside evidence-based digital therapeutic tools, while addressing digital literacy and access to technology.

Effective coordination within these local networks requires specific mechanisms. Standardized assessment tools and shared treatment planning processes promote unified care, though they require training and consistent application (Humeniuk et al., 2008). Regular case conferences for complex clients allow for multidisciplinary problem-solving, while warm handoff protocols between services improve engagement with referred services (D'Onofrio et al., 2015). Coordinated discharge planning from residential treatment reduces relapse risk by ensuring continuity of care (NIDA, 2020b), and joint training initiatives across sectors foster mutual understanding and collaborative skills (SAMHSA, 2014).

Integration with Prevention Strategies

While the PATQCN focuses primarily on treatment quality, it must be linked with a robust national prevention strategy. Regional hubs would play a role in disseminating evidence-based prevention programs and ensuring that local providers can connect individuals to prevention resources. The National Coordination Center would liaise with bodies responsible for prevention (such as KBPN) to ensure a continuum of care from universal prevention to specialized treatment and recovery support.

Economic Considerations

Implementing the PATQCN will require significant, sustained investment. Potential costs include staffing for national and regional centers, training, development of IT infrastructure, funding for quality improvement initiatives, and potentially enhanced funding for local providers to meet new standards. However, these investments should be weighed against potential savings and benefits, including reduced healthcare costs associated with untreated addiction, decreased criminal justice involvement, increased productivity, and improved quality of life.

Funding sources could include dedicated government allocations from the Ministries of Health and Social Policy, EU structural funds, and potentially re-allocation of existing resources towards more evidence-based and efficient practices. A transparent budget and clear financial accountability mechanisms will be essential for the network's sustainability.

Implementation Challenges and Considerations

Implementing such a comprehensive network will face several challenges specific to the Polish context. Securing adequate and sustained funding will be paramount, particularly given that Poland's health expenditure as a percentage of GDP is below the EU average (OECD, 2023). Advocacy will be needed to prioritize this investment.

Stigma against individuals with addiction and against MAT remains a significant barrier in Poland (Lipińska-Szałek et al., 2022). Public awareness campaigns and involvement of people with lived experience in advocacy will be crucial to address this challenge.

Workforce development represents another critical consideration. Addressing shortages of trained addiction specialists, including physicians certified for MAT, psychologists, and peer support workers, requires strategic investment in training, recruitment, and retention, particularly in underserved regions.

Developing a national registry and ensuring secure, ethical data sharing across different IT systems presents complex technical and legislative challenges. Poland's existing e-health infrastructure (e.g., e-recepta, IKP) could be leveraged to address these issues.

Overcoming siloed approaches between ministries and sectors requires strong political will, clear mandates, and established collaborative forums. Potential tensions between medical, psychological, and social welfare models of addiction need to be managed through dialogue and a focus on person-centered care.

Ensuring equity of access to services for all populations, including rural communities, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those in the criminal justice system, requires targeted outreach, culturally competent services, and addressing transportation and financial barriers.

Resistance from existing stakeholders may emerge, as some providers or professional groups may resist changes to established practices or perceived threats to their autonomy. Engagement, co-design, and demonstrating the benefits of the new network will be key to addressing this resistance.

Finally, while learning from international examples is valuable, models must be carefully adapted to Poland's unique healthcare system, socio-cultural context, and regulatory environment. Greater emphasis on successful European models from countries with comparable systems would be beneficial.

Quality Improvement Framework for Addiction Services

The successful implementation and sustained impact of a collaborative addiction services network fundamentally relies on robust quality improvement (QI) mechanisms. These frameworks ensure services are effective, efficient, equitable, person-centered, and responsive to evolving needs of individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). Drawing from established models like the Institute for Healthcare Improvement frameworks and European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction quality standards, our proposed approach emphasizes a data-driven, cyclical methodology to enhance addiction prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery support services.

The global need for high-quality addiction services is increasingly urgent. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports approximately 296 million people worldwide used drugs in 2021—a 23% increase over the previous decade—with an estimated 39.5 million suffering from drug use disorders, yet only a fraction receiving treatment (UNODC, 2023). In the United States, the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicated 48.7 million people aged 12 or older had a substance use disorder in the past year, with significant disparities in treatment access across substances and populations (SAMHSA, 2023a). Similarly, the European Drug Report 2023 highlights substantial treatment demands and underscores persistent treatment gaps requiring diverse service provision (EMCDDA, 2023a). These statistics emphasize the critical importance of not only expanding access to a full continuum of care but ensuring all services are high-quality, culturally competent, trauma-informed, and produce outcomes valued by service users.

Core Quality Indicators

A comprehensive QI framework requires well-defined, measurable, and actionable core quality indicators that guide service improvement efforts. These indicators should reflect clinical effectiveness, patient safety, patient experience, equity, and efficiency:

Equitable Treatment and Harm Reduction Accessibility measures how easily individuals can access the full spectrum of addiction services. This includes waiting times, geographical distribution relative to population needs, affordability, and cultural safety. Prolonged waiting times or inaccessible services can worsen conditions, lead to disengagement, and increase health and social costs (Health Quality Ontario, 2018; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, n.d.). Waiting times for specialized drug treatment vary considerably across regions, with some European countries reporting most clients starting treatment within a month, while others face longer delays (EMCDDA, 2023a). Standardizing measurement approaches, ensuring equitable geographic and cultural access, addressing digital divides for telehealth, and integrating data across fragmented systems remain significant challenges.

Evidence-Based Practice and Harm Reduction Implementation Rates track the extent to which programs deliver scientifically proven interventions appropriate to individual needs. This includes Medications for Addiction Treatment for opioid use disorder, evidence-based psychosocial therapies, and harm reduction strategies such as naloxone distribution and syringe service programs (NIDA, 2023a; SAMHSA, 2022a). Despite strong evidence supporting these approaches, significant research-to-practice gaps persist due to insufficient training, workforce shortages, organizational resistance, and policy barriers (Aarons et al., 2011; Drainoni et al., 2022).

Service Engagement and Retention monitors the percentage of individuals who remain engaged in services at specified follow-up points. Longer engagement generally correlates with better outcomes, including reduced substance use, improved psychosocial functioning, and decreased mortality (NIDA, 2023a). Engagement with peer support specialists and recovery community organizations significantly enhances retention (Bassuk et al., 2016). Challenges include defining "engagement" consistently across diverse services, tracking individuals across fragmented systems, and addressing social determinants impacting engagement.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Experience Measures (PREMs) capture perspectives on health, quality of life, functioning, and achievement of self-defined recovery goals directly from patients. These measures are essential for person-centered care and co-designing services with individuals with lived and living experience. Organizations like the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement have developed standard sets for SUDs (ICHOM, n.d.), while the UK's NHS utilizes PROMs in ways that offer valuable lessons for addiction services (NHS Digital, n.d.). Implementation challenges include selecting culturally appropriate measures, integrating collection into workflows, ensuring data drives improvement, and meaningfully involving those with lived experience in measure selection and interpretation.

Social Reintegration and Well-being Metrics assess outcomes related to housing stability, employment/education, reduced criminal justice involvement, and enhanced social connectedness. These metrics reflect the impact of social determinants of health on recovery (WHO, 2023). Many national drug strategies emphasize social reintegration (Department of Health, 2017; Scottish Government, 2021), recognizing that models integrating health, addiction, and social services are crucial for comprehensive care (Krawczyk et al., 2020; Taxman & Skopp, 2021). Attributing changes solely to addiction services is difficult, requiring strong inter-agency collaboration across housing, employment, justice, and social service sectors.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value Indicators assess economic efficiency by comparing costs to health and social benefits. Contemporary analyses consider patient-reported outcomes and equity impacts alongside costs (Chao et al., 2021). Addiction treatment and harm reduction services generally demonstrate cost-effectiveness. For example, Medications for Addiction Treatment for opioid use disorder shows significant cost savings by reducing healthcare utilization and criminal justice costs (Gorry et al., 2020), while syringe service programs are highly cost-effective in preventing HIV and HCV (Nguyen et al., 2021). Conducting rigorous cost-effectiveness analyses requires specialized expertise and comprehensive data on costs and outcomes, including long-term societal benefits.

Trauma-Informed Care Implementation measures the extent to which services adhere to principles of trauma-informed care: safety, trustworthiness, peer support, collaboration, empowerment, and cultural sensitivity (SAMHSA, 2014). Given the high prevalence of trauma among individuals with SUDs, trauma-informed approaches are crucial for engagement and outcomes (Cocozza et al., 2005). Various assessment tools exist to evaluate organizational implementation, though measuring fidelity to these principles requires ongoing staff training, organizational culture change, and environmental adaptations.

Integration with Criminal Justice System Services evaluates the availability and quality of addiction services during incarceration and upon re-entry, including medications for addiction treatment, counseling, and linkage to community-based care. Continuity of care between correctional facilities and community services is critical for reducing relapse and recidivism (Grella et al., 2014), yet remains challenging due to fragmented systems, stigma, resource limitations, and difficulties in data sharing.

Continuous Improvement Cycle

Quality improvement in addiction services requires an ongoing process of learning and adaptation that fosters a culture of continuous quality improvement while actively involving individuals with lived experience. This cycle involves:

Regular Data Collection on Core Indicators enables systematic gathering of standardized information from all participating services, disaggregated by demographic factors to identify disparities. This process requires standardized definitions, secure data management systems, and adequate training. Timely data collection allows for identification of trends, variations, and areas needing attention, facilitating rapid learning cycles and targeted interventions.

Regional Learning Collaboratives and Co-design Forums bring together service providers, researchers, policymakers, and individuals with lived experience to share data, compare performance, identify best practices, co-design solutions, and learn from peers. These collaboratives accelerate improvement by disseminating innovations and ensuring solutions are relevant and acceptable to service users, creating a supportive environment for shared learning and problem-solving.

Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Cycles provide an iterative method for testing changes on a small scale before broader implementation. Teams use these cycles to address specific problems identified through data analysis or collaborative discussions. Evidence from addiction settings demonstrates that PDSA can improve processes like opioid management (Priest et al., 2019), though successful implementation requires careful planning, leadership support, and addressing context-specific barriers (Reed & Card, 2016; Leis & Shojania, 2017).

Annual Quality and Innovation Summits serve as larger-scale events co-produced with individuals with lived experience, bringing together representatives from across the network to showcase successful initiatives, share lessons, recognize achievements, and set future priorities. These summits energize the network, disseminate innovations broadly, foster networking, and reinforce shared commitments to quality and recovery-oriented care.

Public Reporting of Key Performance and Equity Indicators enhances transparency and accountability through accessible dashboards or reports similar to Oregon's Coordinated Care Organization quality metric reporting (Oregon Health Authority, 2023b). Data should be presented in ways that are understandable and actionable for diverse audiences, with appropriate risk-adjustment and contextualization to prevent unintended consequences like "cream-skimming" of easier-to-treat clients.

National efforts to improve addiction service quality, such as those undertaken by the Norwegian Directorate of Health, emphasize systematic quality improvement, patient safety, user involvement, and evidence-based practices (Helsedirektoratet, n.d.). These national programs aim for significant improvements in outcomes like treatment completion and continuity of care through targeted initiatives and quality registers (Helsedirektoratet, 2019; Waal et al., 2014).

Current Challenges in Addiction Policy Implementation and Quality Improvement

Despite clear benefits, implementing quality improvement in addiction services faces several significant policy and practical challenges. Funding and resource allocation remain persistent issues, as QI requires dedicated resources for data systems, training in cultural competence and trauma-informed care, staff time, peer support specialist integration, and facilitation. Addiction services often face chronic underfunding compared to other healthcare sectors (NASEM, 2016).

Workforce development presents another critical challenge. A skilled, diverse, and supported workforce trained in quality improvement, evidence-based practices, trauma-informed care, cultural safety, and harm reduction is essential for effective service delivery. High turnover rates, workforce shortages, and professional burnout significantly hinder quality improvement efforts (SAMHSA, 2023c; Kelly et al., 2021).

Data infrastructure limitations, including fragmented systems, lack of standardization, privacy concerns, and digital equity issues impede robust data collection and sharing for quality improvement purposes (EMCDDA & WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2021; Nouri et al., 2020). These technological barriers disproportionately affect marginalized populations and rural communities.

Pervasive stigma against people who use drugs and those with substance use disorders creates barriers to care-seeking, resource allocation, and quality of care. Stigma can manifest as discriminatory practices within systems and requires dedicated policy attention to address effectively (NASEM, 2016; Livingston et al., 2012).

Effectively addressing addiction requires integrating services for co-occurring mental and physical health conditions, harm reduction, and social needs such as housing, employment, and legal support. Achieving seamless integration and addressing social determinants of health represent major systemic challenges requiring cross-sector policy coordination (Krawczyk et al., 2020; Wakeman, 2017).

The complexity of addiction and recovery pathways necessitates nuanced approaches to measuring quality and success. Addiction is often a chronic condition with diverse recovery trajectories, requiring a long-term, person-centered perspective that embraces recovery-oriented principles and includes harm reduction goals (Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel, 2007; CCSA, 2022).

Ensuring authentic partnership with individuals with lived experience in all aspects of quality improvement—from design to implementation and evaluation—remains challenging but is critical for relevance and effectiveness (Piat et al., 2020). Policy frameworks must create meaningful opportunities for involvement beyond tokenistic participation.

Finally, outdated or misaligned policies can hinder the implementation of evidence-based practices and harm reduction initiatives. Regulatory barriers, such as restrictions on medication prescribers or limitations on harm reduction services, require policy reform to enable effective implementation of best practices (Strang et al., 2022).

By systematically addressing these core quality indicators through a dynamic, inclusive continuous improvement cycle, learning from international best practices, centering the perspectives of those with lived experience, and proactively tackling existing challenges, a collaborative network can significantly enhance the quality, equity, effectiveness, and reach of addiction services. This comprehensive approach ultimately improves outcomes for individuals, families, and communities affected by substance use disorders.

Implementation Strategy and Timeline

Successful implementation of a comprehensive national addiction policy requires a meticulously planned, phased approach with clear, measurable milestones. This strategy ensures that each step builds upon the last, allowing for adaptation, learning, and sustainable integration of new practices. The following outlines a multi-year timeline, drawing on diverse international best practices, current evidence-based approaches to addiction treatment and policy reform, and a commitment to stakeholder engagement, including individuals with lived and living experience.

Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1-12)

This initial phase focuses on establishing the essential legal, organizational, clinical, financial, and ethical groundwork for transformative change in addiction services, emphasizing a public health and human rights approach.

A robust legal framework is paramount for defining the scope, responsibilities, and rights associated with addiction prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery. Amendments to the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction and the Act on Upbringing in Sobriety should aim to modernize legislation, aligning it with current scientific understanding of addiction as a chronic, relapsing health condition (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2020). This includes provisions for decriminalizing personal substance use to reduce stigma and encourage help-seeking, as demonstrated in Portugal, where a 2001 law shifted focus from criminal penalties to treatment and social reintegration for personal use and possession (Hughes & Stevens, 2010; Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2021). In the United States, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008 aimed to ensure equitable insurance coverage for mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) services (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.), providing a model for legal mandates for access.

Globally, an estimated 296 million people used drugs in 2021, among whom an estimated 39.5 million suffered from drug use disorders, yet a significant treatment gap persists (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2023, p. 10, 13). Legal frameworks must actively support, rather than penalize, access to a full continuum of care.

Effective addiction policy requires strong coordination across health, social services, housing, employment, law enforcement, and education sectors, guided by input from service users, families, and community organizations. National bodies, similar to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the U.S. or Public Health England's former role in the UK, can set national strategy, allocate resources, promote evidence-based practices, and monitor outcomes (SAMHSA, n.d.; National Health Service [NHS], n.d.). Regional bodies are crucial for tailoring national strategies to local contexts, addressing specific social determinants of health (SDoH) impacting addiction (e.g., poverty, housing instability, trauma) (Compton & Shim, 2015), and ensuring equitable service distribution.

The CalAIM (California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal) initiative demonstrates a state-level effort towards structural coordination by integrating various behavioral health services, including SUD treatment, with physical health and social services (Department of Health Care Services, n.d.). These coordination bodies will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of new guidelines, managing resources, ensuring inter-agency collaboration, and actively engaging with communities, including peer-led recovery organizations.

Guidelines must be based on the best available scientific evidence and international consensus, promoting practices such as Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT), now often referred to as Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), as a first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (World Health Organization [WHO], 2023a; NIDA, 2020). They should also include evidence-based psychosocial interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing), and comprehensive harm reduction strategies (e.g., naloxone distribution, syringe service programs, drug checking services) (WHO, 2022). Quality standards are essential for ensuring all individuals receive effective, respectful, person-centered, and trauma-informed care.

The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) demonstrated that process improvement techniques can enhance access to and retention in addiction treatment (McCarty et al., 2007), though newer implementation science frameworks should also be consulted (Proctor et al., 2011). Guidelines must emphasize integrated treatment for co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, recognized as essential for improving outcomes (Drake et al., 2001; Kelly & Fazio, 2022). The development process must involve experts, clinicians, researchers, and critically, individuals with lived experience to ensure relevance and acceptability.

Standardized, validated assessment tools (e.g., Addiction Severity Index, WHO ASSIST) ensure comprehensive evaluation of individuals' needs, including substance use patterns, physical and mental health, and SDoH (e.g., housing, employment, social support) (McLellan et al., 1992; WHO, n.d.a). Shared referral protocols and robust care coordination mechanisms facilitate seamless transitions between different levels of care and types of services, including peer support and recovery community organizations.

New York State's Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS) utilizes a client data registry which can inform effective referral pathways (Goodrich et al., 2021). These protocols are critical for ensuring continuity of care and addressing an individual's holistic needs, which are key factors in positive treatment and recovery outcomes (NIDA, 2020).

Adequate and sustained funding is a cornerstone of successful policy implementation. Initial funding through national health fund allocations signals governmental commitment and should cover infrastructure, workforce development, service delivery, and harm reduction initiatives. In California, the Drug Medi-Cal (DMC) Organized Delivery System waiver expanded SUD services covered by Medicaid, demonstrating a mechanism for federal and state funding integration (Department of Health Care Services, n.d.). Research indicates that integrating medical and substance abuse treatment can be cost-effective by reducing overall healthcare utilization and improving health outcomes (Weisner et al., 2001); more recent economic analyses continue to support the cost-effectiveness of SUD treatment, especially MOUD (Fairley et al., 2021).

Phase 2: Pilot Implementation (Months 13-24)

This phase involves testing the developed frameworks and protocols in selected diverse regions to gather practical insights, evaluate feasibility and acceptability, and refine the national strategy before full-scale rollout.

Pilot programs are an effective strategy for testing interventions in real-world settings. The launch of pilot networks in four diverse voivodeships (considering urban/rural characteristics, socioeconomic profiles, existing healthcare infrastructure, and prevalence of different substance use patterns) will allow for a comprehensive understanding of implementation challenges and successes. For instance, a pilot program in Poland focused on reducing prenatal alcohol exposure (Więckowska et al., 2023), demonstrating the utility of regional pilots.

This approach aligns with phased implementation, which helps manage development timelines and process updates effectively (Federal Student Aid, 2021; Tamiru et al., 2024). Pilots will specifically test the integration of digital health solutions (e.g., telehealth consultations, digital screening tools) where appropriate.

During the pilot phase, the national and regional coordination bodies will become operational in selected voivodeships. This involves testing inter-agency communication, data sharing protocols (with robust privacy measures), decision-making processes, and the initial integration of telehealth platforms for remote access to specialists or follow-up care. Quality improvement (QI) processes, drawing on models like NIATx (McCarty et al., 2007) and contemporary implementation facilitation strategies (Goodrich et al., 2021), will be actively implemented. This involves training local teams in QI methodologies (e.g., Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles) and supporting them in identifying and addressing service delivery bottlenecks, including those related to digital service delivery.

Rigorous evaluation is critical. This will involve collecting process data (e.g., number assessed, referral completion, waiting times, telehealth uptake) and initial outcome data (e.g., treatment engagement, patient satisfaction, short-term changes in substance use, harm reduction indicator improvements). Implementation outcomes such as acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability will be systematically assessed using frameworks like Proctor et al.'s (2011).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) often supports phased research for substance use interventions, emphasizing iterative development and evaluation (National Institutes of Health, 2023). Findings from the pilot evaluation, including feedback from service users and providers, will be used to refine guidelines, coordination mechanisms, training, digital tools, and the overall scale-up strategy.

Based on finalized guidelines and pilot experiences, comprehensive training materials will be developed. Capacity building will target a wide range of professionals (doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, pharmacists, peer support specialists) and address critical workforce challenges such as recruitment, retention, and burnout. Training will cover evidence-based treatments, harm reduction principles and practices, cultural humility, stigma reduction, trauma-informed care, and the use of digital health tools.

Addressing issues like physician reluctance to intervene in addiction, which can be influenced by factors such as lack of training, time constraints, and perceived low treatment efficacy (Bandara et al., 2024), will be a key component. Training will emphasize addiction as a treatable health condition and provide skills in screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBIRT), and MOUD provision.

Robust data systems are essential for ongoing monitoring, QI, accountability, and research. This involves implementing or upgrading interoperable electronic health records and creating regional/national data repositories that can track client pathways and outcomes across services. Telehealth infrastructure, including secure platforms and support for providers and users, will be established and integrated.

Minnesota's requirement for providers to participate in the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Normative Evaluation System (DAANES) (Minnesota Department of Human Services, n.d.) serves as an example of a state-level data collection system. These systems must ensure data privacy and security (e.g., GDPR compliance) while allowing for aggregated analysis to track trends, outcomes, service utilization, and health equity. Clear reporting mechanisms from local providers to regional and national bodies will be established.

Phase 3: National Scale-Up (Months 25-48)

Building on the lessons learned and refined strategies from the pilot phase, this phase involves expanding the reformed addiction services model across all remaining voivodeships, with a continued focus on equity and accessibility.

A phased national scale-up allows for better resource management, continuous learning, and adaptation, mitigating risks and ensuring that capacity (workforce, infrastructure, digital connectivity) can be developed in tandem with service expansion (Kaslow et al., 2012). The FAFSA Simplification Act's phased implementation provides a model for managing complex, large-scale changes (Federal Student Aid, 2021). Attention will be paid to ensuring equitable resource distribution to address potential disparities in access and outcomes between urban and rural areas, and for marginalized populations.

The QI processes tested and refined during the pilot phase will be rolled out nationally. This involves establishing QI teams in all treatment and harm reduction facilities, providing ongoing training and support, and integrating QI into routine operations. This framework will include regular performance monitoring against established benchmarks, feedback loops involving service users, and systematic monitoring of fidelity to evidence-based practices to ensure interventions are delivered as intended (Proctor et al., 2011). This aligns with principles in quality strategies like that of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012).

While core services should be universally available, certain populations have unique needs requiring specialized, culturally-sensitive protocols. These include pregnant and parenting women, adolescents and young adults, individuals with co-occurring mental health disorders, justice-involved individuals, older adults, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, and individuals experiencing homelessness. These protocols will be evidence-based, recovery-oriented, and co-designed with representatives from these populations.

Moving beyond initial allocations, this phase involves securing long-term, diversified funding streams. This could include dedicated budget lines within the national health system, integration into existing health insurance schemes, social impact bonds, and potentially performance-informed funding models that incentivize quality and outcomes rather than just volume. The cost-effectiveness of addiction treatment and harm reduction (Fairley et al., 2021; Weisner et al., 2001) should be leveraged to advocate for sustained investment. Addressing reimbursement challenges, including adequate rates for MOUD and psychosocial therapies, is crucial for sustainability and provider engagement (Bandara et al., 2024).

True integration requires breaking down silos. Formal agreements, shared care protocols, co-location of services, and interoperable data systems will strengthen links between addiction services, mental health services, primary healthcare, housing support, employment services, and other social support systems. The CalAIM initiative in California exemplifies a large-scale effort to integrate physical health, behavioral health, and social services (Department of Health Care Services, n.d.). Integrating primary medical care with addiction treatment improves access and addresses the high rates of comorbid physical health conditions among individuals with SUDs (NIDA, 2020; Weisner et al., 2001). This holistic approach aligns with a Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care (ROSC) model (White, 2008).

Phase 4: Sustainability and Innovation (Months 49-60 and beyond)

This final phase focuses on embedding the reformed system into routine operations, ensuring its long-term viability, fostering a culture of continuous learning and innovation, and adapting to emerging needs and evidence.

The new addiction treatment and harm reduction system should now be standard practice. Ongoing improvement cycles, driven by data (including patient-reported outcome measures and patient experience data), research, and stakeholder feedback, become part of the organizational culture. This requires sustained leadership commitment, resources for QI activities, and active involvement of service users in governance and review processes. Sustainment of integrated care models requires ongoing attention to organizational factors, staff training, financing, and fidelity (Ford et al., 2022). Regular audits, performance reviews, and public reporting will inform these cycles.

Centers of excellence would serve as hubs for highly specialized care (e.g., complex co-occurring disorders, rare substance use patterns, polysubstance use), advanced research, professional training, and coordination of care for individuals with highly complex needs. They can drive innovation and disseminate best practices throughout the national network. For example, such centers in other countries focus on novel pharmacological and behavioral therapies, or specialized care for populations like healthcare professionals with SUDs (NHS Practitioner Health, n.d.).

To maintain a high-quality, resilient workforce, advanced training opportunities and specialized certification programs (e.g., addiction medicine fellowships for physicians, advanced practice certifications for nurses and counselors, specialized training for peer support workers) should be established or expanded. Crucially, strategies to promote workforce well-being, prevent burnout, and improve retention (e.g., supportive supervision, manageable caseloads, professional development opportunities) will be implemented, as workforce stability is key to system sustainability (SAMHSA, 2021).

Understanding the long-term impact of the reformed system requires ongoing research. Partnerships with universities and research institutions will facilitate longitudinal studies on treatment and harm reduction effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, relapse prevention, social reintegration outcomes, and impacts on health equity. Translational research, bridging scientific discovery and clinical practice (NIH, 2023), and implementation science research will be prioritized. This research will provide crucial data for future policy refinements, service improvements, and demonstrating return on investment.

The field of addiction is constantly evolving. An innovation incubator can provide a structured environment for piloting and evaluating novel interventions, technologies (e.g., AI-driven personalized treatment, advanced digital therapeutics, virtual reality tools for craving management), service delivery models (e.g., mobile outreach units, integrated primary care models), and peer-led initiatives. This could involve competitive grants for innovative projects, learning collaboratives, and partnerships with technology developers and recovery community organizations. This fosters a dynamic system that adapts to emerging needs, new evidence, and changing substance use trends (e.g., new psychoactive substances), ensuring the long-term relevance and effectiveness of the national strategy.

By following this comprehensive, phased implementation strategy, which emphasizes evidence-based practices, harm reduction, recovery orientation, stakeholder engagement, continuous quality improvement, and health equity, it is possible to build a resilient, effective, and continuously improving national addiction treatment, harm reduction, and prevention system that significantly enhances public health and well-being.

Funding and Resource Allocation for Addiction Treatment

The escalating public health crisis of addiction demands robust and strategically allocated financial and human resources. Implementing a comprehensive, collaborative addiction treatment network in Poland represents a critical public health priority, with success contingent upon strategic investment and sustainable funding mechanisms. While precise implementation costs require detailed national needs assessment and financial modeling specific to Poland, comparative analyses from other European countries indicate significant upfront investment is typical for major health system reforms (Reibling et al., 2019).

The global burden of substance use disorders underscores the urgency of this policy challenge. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2023), approximately 296 million people worldwide used drugs at least once in 2021, with around 39.5 million suffering from drug use disorders. In Europe, an estimated one in four adults have used illicit drugs in their lifetime, with cannabis being the most prevalent (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction [EMCDDA], 2024a). Treatment coverage remains inadequate across most jurisdictions; in the United States, only about 18.1% of people with a past-year substance use disorder received any treatment in 2022 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2023a). Poland faces similar challenges, with reports indicating significant unmet needs across various substance use disorders (Krajowe Centrum Przeciwdziałania Uzależnieniom [KCPU], 2023).

Diversified Funding Portfolio

A diversified funding approach is essential for sustainability and resilience against economic or political fluctuations. The National Health Fund (Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia - NFZ) should establish a dedicated allocation from its annual budget specifically for addiction treatment network development and service provision. A targeted allocation of 0.5% of the NFZ's total budget (approximately 157 billion PLN in 2023) would yield roughly 785 million PLN annually. This represents a substantial but necessary increase that could be phased in, beginning with an initial target of 60-80 million PLN annually for specific network enhancements, accompanied by a clear roadmap for incremental increases.

This approach aligns with international best practices. Many countries fund addiction treatment primarily through their national health systems. In Canada, addiction treatment services are largely publicly funded through provincial and territorial health insurance plans (Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, 2023). In the United States, substantial national health expenditures support mental health and substance abuse services, though funding streams are often fragmented (SAMHSA, 2023b). A dedicated NFZ allocation would ensure that addiction treatment is fully integrated into Poland's broader healthcare system, reducing stigma and improving access while building upon existing healthcare financing structures (Wojnar & Włoszczak-Szubzda, 2020).

European Union Structural and Investment Funds represent another valuable funding stream. Poland should strategically utilize EU cohesion funds, the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), and programs like EU4Health for infrastructure development, workforce training, research, and innovative service models. These mechanisms could provide significant co-financing, particularly during the initial 5-7 year implementation phase. The EU4Health Programme (2021-2027) has allocated €5.3 billion to strengthen health systems across member states (European Commission, n.d.a), while the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) supports health system reforms (European Commission, n.d.b). Poland has previously leveraged EU funds for health infrastructure and programs (Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy, 2023), and could follow Lithuania's example of utilizing EU structural funds to modernize mental health care infrastructure, including services for substance use disorders (World Health Organization [WHO] Regional Office for Europe, 2018).

Earmarking a percentage of existing alcohol excise taxes and gambling revenues represents a policy approach with strong ethical justification. Designating 5-10% of these revenues for addiction prevention and treatment would create a logical connection between substances that contribute to addiction and funding for treatment services. Based on Poland's 2022 alcohol excise revenue of approximately 15.5 billion PLN (Ministry of Finance, 2023a) and gambling tax revenue of around 3.9 billion PLN (Ministry of Finance, 2023b), even a modest initial earmark of 1-2% could yield 190-380 million PLN annually. This approach has precedent in various jurisdictions; some U.S. states direct portions of alcohol or cannabis taxes to addiction services (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2023). Research supports earmarking a proportion of such revenues as a logical mechanism to fund related health services (Hall & Lynskey, 2022).

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) offer additional opportunities to engage private sector entities, including pharmaceutical companies and technology providers, for specific network components like developing electronic health records, telehealth infrastructure, or supporting research and training initiatives. While PPPs can leverage private sector expertise and innovation, they require careful structuring and robust governance to ensure public health objectives remain paramount. The UK's National Health Service has accumulated valuable experience with PPPs, yielding mixed results that highlight the importance of clear contracts and appropriate risk allocation (Barlow et al., 2013; Torjesen, 2016). Potential areas for PPPs in Poland could include developing digital health tools or specialized training programs, with transparency and strong public oversight to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or inequities in service access (Collier, 2017).

Poland should also consider strengthening dedicated national programs coordinated by the KCPU (formerly KBPN and PARPA) for strategic initiatives, research, and coordination. This approach parallels the U.S. Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant (SUBG) administered by SAMHSA (SAMHSA, 2024). National-level strategic funding allows for targeted interventions, addressing specific gaps, promoting evidence-based practices, and ensuring national consistency while complementing NFZ funding by focusing on areas like prevention, research, and specialized services not easily covered by standard healthcare contracts.

Resource Allocation Principles

Transparent, equitable, and evidence-informed resource allocation is vital for the network's effectiveness and public trust. A needs-based core funding approach should allocate resources to regions (voivodeships) and local levels (powiats) according to population size, age structure, socioeconomic indicators, and local addiction prevalence rates and identified service gaps. This ensures resources are directed where the need is greatest, informed by data from KCPU, GUS (Statistics Poland), and local epidemiological studies. The EMCDDA provides valuable guidance on monitoring drug situations, which can support comprehensive needs assessment (EMCDDA, 2024b). Adjustments for factors like urban/rural disparities and specific vulnerable populations are essential for equity (Marmot, 2010).

Performance-related funding should complement core funding, with a portion (10-15%) linked to achievement of clearly defined quality indicators and improvement targets. Pay-for-performance (P4P) or value-based payment models can incentivize quality and efficiency, though evidence for P4P in addiction treatment shows mixed results. Some studies demonstrate modest benefits in process measures or for specific client groups (Conrad et al., 2016; Olmstead et al., 2011), while others raise concerns about potential "cream-skimming" or data manipulation if not carefully designed (Lu et al., 2003; Werner & Asch, 2005). Key indicators should be co-developed with providers and focus on access, retention, use of evidence-based practices (e.g., NIDA, 2020), and patient-reported outcomes, with robust risk adjustment.

Innovation and capacity-building grants should provide competitive funding for pilot projects, research, workforce development, and adoption of new evidence-based approaches. Addiction treatment is an evolving field, and dedicated funds can foster innovation in areas like digital therapeutics, novel harm reduction strategies, integrated care models, or culturally specific interventions. Norway's investment in multidisciplinary community mental health teams, including for substance use, demonstrates a commitment to innovative service delivery (Norwegian Directorate of Health, 2021). Such grants must include rigorous evaluation frameworks to build the evidence base for effective interventions.

Equity adjustments are essential to address disparities in access and outcomes. Additional targeted resources should be allocated to underserved regions (e.g., rural areas, areas with high unemployment) or specific populations (e.g., homeless individuals, ethnic minorities if relevant in Poland, individuals within the criminal justice system). Certain groups face greater barriers to accessing addiction treatment, and equity-focused funding aims to correct these imbalances, aligning with public health ethics (Kasper et al., 2020; Braveman, 2006). This could fund mobile clinics, culturally adapted services, or enhanced outreach programs to reach marginalized populations.

The UK's approach of pooling funds from different sources at a local level to commission integrated addiction services offers valuable principles, though direct transplantation of models is rarely feasible. In the UK, local authorities conduct Joint Strategic Needs Assessments to understand local requirements and develop commissioning plans, emphasizing local accountability and flexibility within a national framework (HM Government, 2021; Public Health England, 2018). In Poland, this could inspire better coordination between NFZ funding, Ministry of Health programs, and local government (gmina/powiat) responsibilities for social assistance and health promotion related to addiction.

Evidence-Based Approaches to Addiction Treatment

Funding should prioritize interventions with demonstrated efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder, including medications like methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, has proven highly effective in reducing illicit opioid use, overdose deaths, and improving retention in treatment (WHO, 2009; SAMHSA, 2023c). For alcohol use disorder, medications like naltrexone, acamprosate, and disulfiram can support recovery (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2020; Jonas et al., 2014).

Behavioral therapies, including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Motivational Interviewing (MI), and Contingency Management (CM), have strong evidence bases for various substance use disorders (NIDA, 2020; Dutra et al., 2008). Harm reduction services, such as needle and syringe programs, naloxone distribution, and potentially supervised consumption services (where legally and socially appropriate), reduce the negative consequences of drug use, including HIV/HCV transmission and overdose deaths (EMCDDA, 2020; Ritter & Cameron, 2006).

Integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders is essential given the high prevalence of mental health conditions among individuals with substance use disorders. Integrated treatment addressing both simultaneously leads to better outcomes than sequential or parallel treatment approaches (Drake et al., 2008; Kelly & Daley, 2013). Prevention programs in schools, communities, and families are also crucial for reducing the incidence of substance use disorders and should receive dedicated funding (Nation et al., 2003).

Addressing Implementation Challenges

Effective funding and resource allocation must navigate several challenges pertinent to the Polish context. Funding adequacy and stability remain persistent concerns, as addiction services in Poland have historically faced underfunding relative to the scale of the problem and compared to other health conditions (KCPU, 2023). Funding stability is crucial, as services can be vulnerable to shifts in political priorities or economic downturns (Storbjörk & Room, 2011).

Workforce development and retention represent another critical challenge. Poland faces a shortage of trained addiction specialists, including doctors, nurses, psychologists, therapists, and peer support workers (Wojnar & Włoszczak-Szubzda, 2020). Competitive remuneration, continuous professional development, and supportive work environments are essential to attract and retain qualified staff (WHO, 2022).

Stigma against people who use drugs and those with addiction remains a substantial barrier to help-seeking and can negatively influence policy decisions and public support for funding increases (Volkow et al., 2021; van Boekel et al., 2013). Public education campaigns and professional training should address stigmatizing attitudes and promote understanding of addiction as a health condition requiring treatment rather than a moral failing.

Integration of services represents a persistent challenge, with fragmentation between addiction treatment, mental health services, primary healthcare, and social support systems. Improving care coordination and integration is vital, particularly given Poland's distinct funding and administrative streams for health and social care (Commonwealth Fund, 2020; Ganczak & Duda-Sikuła, 2021).

Robust data collection, monitoring, and evaluation systems are needed to monitor addiction trends, treatment access and quality, service capacity, and patient outcomes. This is essential for informed resource allocation, policy adjustments, and demonstrating return on investment (EMCDDA, 2024b). Poland has made progress with KCPU data, but further enhancement is needed to create a comprehensive national monitoring system.

The emergence of new psychoactive substances (NPS) and changes in the illicit drug supply (e.g., synthetic opioids, adulterants) require flexible and responsive treatment systems, ongoing monitoring, and rapid dissemination of information to service providers (Europol & EMCDDA, 2023). Funding mechanisms must be adaptable to address emerging threats to public health.

Demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of addiction treatment is crucial for securing sustained public investment. Untreated addiction incurs significant societal costs through increased healthcare utilization for comorbidities, reduced productivity, and criminal justice involvement (Bouchery et al., 2011). Economic analyses that quantify these costs and the potential savings from effective treatment can strengthen the case for increased investment.

By implementing a diversified, evidence-informed funding and resource allocation strategy tailored to the Polish context, the proposed collaborative network can significantly improve addiction prevention and treatment access, quality, and outcomes. A detailed implementation plan with a clear timeline, governance structure, and robust monitoring and evaluation framework will be essential for translating policy into effective practice that addresses the complex challenge of addiction in Poland.

Conclusion

The Polish Addiction Treatment Quality Collaborative Network represents a transformative vision for addressing substance use disorders in Poland through a comprehensive, evidence-based, and person-centered approach. The current fragmented system, divided between healthcare facilities under the Ministry of Health and social welfare institutions managed by the Ministry of Family and Social Policy, fails to meet the complex needs of individuals with substance use disorders. This policy paper has outlined a detailed framework to overcome these challenges through strategic coordination, quality improvement, and sustainable resource allocation.

The proposed three-tiered structure—National Coordination Center, Regional Coordination Hubs, and Local Provider Networks—provides a robust organizational framework that balances national consistency with regional adaptation. This structure addresses the stark regional disparities in treatment access while promoting the integration of evidence-based practices like Medication-Assisted Treatment and harm reduction strategies that are currently underutilized in Poland.

The phased implementation approach acknowledges the complexity of system transformation and allows for learning, adaptation, and gradual capacity building. Beginning with foundational legal and organizational changes, followed by pilot implementation in diverse regions, then national scale-up, and finally focusing on sustainability and innovation ensures that the network can develop in a measured, evidence-informed manner.

Critical to the success of this initiative is adequate and sustainable funding. The diversified funding portfolio recommended—combining National Health Fund allocations, EU structural funds, earmarked taxes, and strategic partnerships—provides resilience against political and economic fluctuations while creating logical connections between revenue sources and addiction services.

The Quality Improvement Framework, with its emphasis on measurable indicators and continuous improvement cycles, ensures that the network remains responsive to emerging needs and evidence. By systematically collecting and analyzing data on access, quality, outcomes, and equity, the network can identify and address gaps while demonstrating value to stakeholders and policymakers.

Several challenges must be addressed for successful implementation, including stigma against individuals with addiction and evidence-based treatments like MAT, workforce shortages particularly in rural areas, data sharing complexities, and potential resistance from existing stakeholders. These challenges require proactive strategies, stakeholder engagement, and political will to overcome.

The ultimate success of the PATQCN will be measured by its impact on the lives of individuals with substance use disorders and their families. By improving access to evidence-based care, reducing waiting times, addressing regional disparities, integrating services across sectors, and promoting recovery-oriented approaches, the network has the potential to significantly reduce the burden of addiction in Poland.

Final recommendations include:

1. Establish a high-level interministerial task force to initiate the development of the National Coordination Center with representation from health, social welfare, justice, and education sectors
2. Conduct a comprehensive national needs assessment to identify priority regions for pilot implementation and specific service gaps
3. Develop a detailed financial model and secure initial funding commitments from the National Health Fund and relevant ministries
4. Engage individuals with lived experience, professional associations, and academic institutions in the co-design of quality standards and guidelines
5. Prioritize workforce development through enhanced training programs, certification pathways, and recruitment strategies
6. Implement public awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and increase understanding of addiction as a treatable health condition
7. Establish robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms from the outset to demonstrate impact and guide ongoing improvement

By implementing the Polish Addiction Treatment Quality Collaborative Network with fidelity to evidence-based practices, commitment to equity, and meaningful involvement of all stakeholders, Poland has the opportunity to create a model system that effectively addresses the complex challenge of addiction while respecting the dignity and autonomy of those affected.

References

Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7

Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). (2021). Part 1: A review of the evidence for the benefits of drug treatment and recovery. GOV.UK. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acmd-review-of-the-evidence-for-drug-treatment-and-recovery-outcomes

Aguilera, E. (2022, June 30). Patient data: Health facilities to start sharing it. CalMatters. Retrieved from https://calmatters.org/health/2022/06/patient-data-california/

American Addiction Centers (AAC). (2024, February 28). Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT): Addiction Medications.

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). American Psychiatric Publishing.

American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). (n.d.-a). ASAM Clinical Practice Guideline on Alcohol Withdrawal Management. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://www.asam.org/quality-care/clinical-guidelines/alcohol-withdrawal-management

American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). (n.d.-b). Clinical Resources. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://www.asam.org/quality-care/clinical-guidelines

Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. (2017). National Drug Strategy 2017–2026. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-drug-strategy-2017-2026

Babor, T. F., McRee, B. G., Kassebaum, P. A., Grimaldi, P. L., Ahmed, K., & Bray, J. (2007). Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): Toward a public health approach to the management of substance abuse. Substance Abuse, 28(3), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J465v28n03_03

Bandara, S. N., Singleton, A., Liyanage, S. H., & Dissanayake, V. H. W. (2024). Physician reluctance to intervene in addiction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 7(7), e2421497. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.21497

Barlow, J., Roehrich, J., & Wright, S. (2013). Europe sees mixed results from public-private partnerships in health care. Health Affairs, 32(1), 146-154.

Bassuk, E. L., Hanson, J., Greene, R. N., Richard, M., & Laudet, A. (2016). Peer-Delivered Recovery Support Services for Addictions in the United States: A Systematic Review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 63, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2016.01.003

BC Centre on Substance Use. (2023). Guideline for the Clinical Management of Opioid Use Disorder. Retrieved from https://www.bccsu.ca/care-guidance-publications/clinical-care-guidelines/opioid-use-disorder/

Berridge, V. (2022). Demons: Our changing attitudes to alcohol, tobacco, & drugs. Oxford University Press.

Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel. (2007). What is recovery? A working definition from the Betty Ford Institute. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33(3), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2007.06.001

Blueprint for Health. (n.d.). Hub and Spoke. Vermont Agency of Human Services. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://blueprintforhealth.vermont.gov/about-blueprint/hub-and-spoke

Bouchery, E. E., Harwood, H. J., Sacks, J. J., Simon, C. J., & Brewer, R. D. (2011). Economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S., 2006. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(5), 516-524.

Braveman, P. (2006). Health disparities and health equity: concepts and measurement. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 167-194.

Brooklyn, J. R., & Sigmon, S. C. (2018). Vermont Hub-and-Spoke Model of Care for Opioid Use Disorder: Development, Implementation, and Impact. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 11(4), 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000310

Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA). (2022). Canadian substance use costs and harms 2015-2017. CCSA.

Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. (2023). Continuum of care for substance use. https://www.ccsa.ca/continuum-care-substance-use

Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. (2023). Continuum of Care. Retrieved from [Insert actual CCSA URL if available, e.g., https://www.ccsa.ca/continuum-care]

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2023). Safer supply projects. Retrieved from https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/52790.html

Carrieri, M. P., Amass, L., Lucas, G. M., Vlahov, D., Thomas, D., & Wodak, A. (2006). Buprenorphine use: the international experience. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 43(Suppl 4), S197-S215. https://doi.org/10.1086/508186

Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS). (2022). Building Cross-Sector Collaboration Between Health Care and Homeless Services: Ground-Level Insights from California. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://www.chcs.org/resource/building-cross-sector-collaboration-between-health-care-and-homeless-services-ground-level-insights-from-california/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2024, April 25). Treatment of Substance Use Disorders | Overdose Prevention.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2012). Medicare Advantage and Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Quality Improvement Program: Quality Strategy. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/Medicare-Advantage-Quality-Improvement-Program/Downloads/Quality_Strategy_061212.pdf

Centrum Medyczne Kształcenia Podyplomowego [CMKP]. (2022). Standardy kształcenia specjalistów terapii uzależnień [Training standards for addiction therapy specialists]. CMKP.

Chao, Y. Y., Ebell, M. H., & He, J. (2021). Value of information analysis: A review of methods and applications. Medical Decision Making, 41(6), 627-639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X211001802

Cocozza, J. J., Jackson, E. W., Hennigan, K., Morrissey, J. P., Reed, B. G., & Fallot, R. (2005). Outcomes for women with co-occurring disorders and trauma: Program-level effects. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2004.09.003

Collier, R. (2017). Public-private partnerships in health care: The case of Lesotho. CMAJ, 189(20), E731-E732.

Commonwealth Fund. (2020, May 21). Mental Health and Substance Use in U.S. and 10 Other Countries. Retrieved from https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/may/mental-health-conditions-substance-use-comparing-us-other-countries

Compton, M. T., & Shim, R. S. (2015). The social determinants of mental health. Focus, 13(4), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.130401

Conrad, K. J., Matters, M. D., Han, X., & Hahm, J. (2016). Pay-for-performance and the quality of substance use disorder treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 69, 1-9.

CSAT (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment). (2000). Chapter 5—Effective Referrals and Collaborations. In Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment and Vocational Services. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 38. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64299/

D'Onofrio, G., O'Connor, P. G., Pantalon, M. V., Chawarski, M. C., Busch, S. H., Owens, P. H., ... & Fiellin, D. A. (2015). Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 313(16), 1636–1644. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3474

Department of Health Care Services. (n.d.). CalAIM Behavioral Health Initiative. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/Pages/BH-CalAIM-Webpage.aspx

Department of Health. (2017). Reducing Harm, Supporting Recovery: A health-led response to drug and alcohol use in Ireland 2017-2025. Government of Ireland.

Domosławska, A. (2020). Drug policy in Portugal: The benefits of decriminalizing drug use. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 21(3), 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1921/swssr.v21i3.1403

Drainoni, M. L., Koppelman, E. A., Hughto, J. M. W., Alcook, K., Wiewel, E., & Bazzi, A. R. (2022). Barriers and facilitators to implementing harm reduction services in community-based organizations: A qualitative study. Harm Reduction Journal, 19(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00591-x

Drake, R. E., Essock, S. M., Shaner, A., Carey, K. B., Minkoff, K., Kola, L., ... & Rickards, L. (2001). Implementing dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52(4), 469-476. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.52.4.469

Drake, R. E., Essock, S. M., Shaner, A., Carey, K. B., Minkoff, K., Kola, L., ... & Rickards, L. (2008). Implementing dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52(4), 469-476. (Original publication 2001, often cited for the model).

Drake, R. E., Essock, S. M., Shaner, A., Carey, K. B., Minkoff, K., Kola, L., Lynde, D., Osher, F. C., Clark, R. E., & Rickards, L. (2001). Implementing dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52(4), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.52.4.469

Dutra, L., Stathopoulou, G., Basden, S. L., Leyro, T. M., Powers, M. B., & Otto, M. W. (2008). A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(2), 179-192.

Eastwood, N., Shiner, M., & Bear, D. (2022). A quiet devastation: The impact of austerity on local authority drug and alcohol treatment services in England. London School of Economics and Political Science.

El Morr, C., EDRIS System Community of Practice, & Ginsburg, J. (2015). Effects of Shared Electronic Health Record Systems on Drug-Drug Interactions: A Systematic Literature Review. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 218, 45–50.

European Commission. (n.d.a). EU4Health Programme. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/funding/eu4health-programme-2021-2027-vision-healthier-european-union_en

European Commission. (n.d.b). Recovery and Resilience Facility. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) & WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2021). European framework for quality standards in drug treatment: An EMCDDA–WHO expert consensus. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2020). Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2021a). European quality standards in drug demand reduction: A manual for practice. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2023). European Drug Report 2023: Trends and Developments. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2023a). European Drug Report 2023: Trends and Developments. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2023a). Poland, Country Drug Report 2023. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2023a). European Drug Report 2023: Trends and Developments. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2023b). Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: A health-centred approach. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2023b). Portugal: Country Drug Report 2023. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2024a). European Drug Report 2024: Trends and Developments. Publications Office of the European Union. (Note: Assuming 2024 report is out by time of use; if not, use latest available, e.g., 2023).

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2024b). Key epidemiological indicators. Retrieved from [Insert actual EMCDDA indicators URL, e.g., https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/stats2023/kei_en]

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (n.d.-a). Treatment demand indicator (TDI) standard protocol 3.0. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/activities/treatment-demand-indicator_en

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (n.d.-b). Poland: National Drug Report 2023 overview. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/poland_en

Europol & EMCDDA. (2023). EU Drug Markets: Key insights for policy and practice. Publications Office of the European Union.

Fairley, M., Humphreys, K., Joyce, V. R., Bounthavong, M., Trafton, J., Combs, A., Oliva, E. M., Goldhaber-Fiebert, J. D., & Asch, S. M. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of treatments for opioid use disorder. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(6), 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4477

Fatseas, M., & Auriacombe, M. (2019). Why buprenorphine is so successful in treating opioid addiction in France. Current Psychiatry Reports, 21(8), 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1059-9

Federal Student Aid. (2021, June 11). Beginning phased implementation of the FAFSA Simplification Act and the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act (EA ID: GENERAL-21-39). U.S. Department of Education. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2021-06-11/beginning-phased-implementation-fafsa-simplification-act-ea-id-general-21-39

Florida Statutes. (n.d.). Section 397.334: Treatment-based drug court programs; coordinators; responsibilities. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0397/Sections/0397.334.html

Folkhälsomyndigheten (Public Health Agency of Sweden). (2021). Läkemedelsassisterad behandling vid opioidberoende (LARO) – Årsrapport 2020 [Medication-assisted treatment for opioid dependence (LARO) – Annual Report 2020].

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2023, December 26). Information about Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD).

Ford, J. H., II, Green, C. A., Hoffman, K. A., Wisdom, J. P., Riley, K. J., Gustafson, D. H., & McCarty, D. (2010). Process improvement in addiction treatment: NIATx and the Health Disparities Collaborative. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38(Suppl 1), S53–S61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.03.001

Ford, J. H., II, Stumbo, S. P., & Robinson, M. F. (2022). Sustainment of integrated care in addiction treatment settings: A qualitative study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 134, 108648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108648

FSSA: DMHA (Indiana Family and Social Services Administration: Division of Mental Health and Addiction). (n.d.). Regional Recovery Hubs. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://www.in.gov/fssa/dmha/recovery-support/regional-recovery-hubs/

Fundacja "Głos Pacjenta". (2023). Doświadczenia osób leczacych się z uzależnienia: Raport z badań jakościowych [Experiences of people undergoing addiction treatment: A qualitative research report]. Fundacja "Głos Pacjenta".

Ganczak, M., & Duda-Sikuła, A. (2021). Primary healthcare in Poland: Current state and future perspectives. Family Medicine & Primary Care Review, 23(1), 83-88.

Gerdner, A., Bingefors, K., & Heilig, M. (2019). Retention in medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder in Sweden: A register-based cohort study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 205, 107620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107620

Główny Urząd Statystyczny (GUS). (2022). Zdrowie i ochrona zdrowia w 2021 roku [Health and healthcare in 2021]. GUS.

Główny Urząd Statystyczny [GUS]. (2023). Zdrowie i ochrona zdrowia w 2022 roku [Health and healthcare in 2022]. GUS.

Goodrich, D. E., Molfenter, T., Pustell, T., Brown, J., Wiewel, A., & Glickman, M. (2021). A facilitation model for implementing quality improvement practices in addiction treatment organizations. Implementation Science, 16(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01076-x

Gorry, C., O'Neill, C., & Mac Domhnaill, C. (2020). The cost-effectiveness of opioid substitution treatment: A systematic review of the evidence. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 20(4), 333-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2020.1760591

Grella, C. E., Ostile, E., Scott, C. K., Dennis, M., & Carno, M. P. (2014). A scoping review of barriers and facilitators to implementation of evidence-based practices in substance use disorder treatment. Substance Abuse and Misuse, 49(10), 1231-1243. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2014.903404

Hall, J. L., & McGraw, D. (2014). For telehealth to succeed, privacy and security risks must be identified and addressed. Health Affairs, 33(2), 216-221. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0997

Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. (2022). Earmarking Excise Taxes on Recreational Cannabis for Investments in Mental Health Services. JAMA Health Forum, 3(4), e220530. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0530

Health Consumers NSW. (2018). Partnering with consumers in health service governance: A practical guide. Retrieved from https://www.hcnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Partnering-with-consumers-in-health-service-governance-A-practical-guide.pdf

Health Equity Institute. (2019). Achieving health equity in substance use disorder treatment. San Francisco State University.

Health Foundation. (2013). Quality improvement made simple: What every board should know about health care quality improvement. Retrieved from https://www.health.org.uk/publications/quality-improvement-made-simple

Health Foundation. (2018). Funding health and social care: A new settlement for health and social care. Retrieved from https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/funding-health-and-social-care

Health Quality Ontario. (2018). Opioid Agonist Therapy for Opioid Use Disorder: A Quality Standard. Health Quality Ontario.

Hellman, M., Berridge, V., Duke, K., & Mold, A. (Eds.). (2019). Concepts of addictive substances and behaviours across time and place. Oxford University Press.

Helsedirektoratet. (2019). Pakkeforløp for tverrfaglig spesialisert rusbehandling (TSB) [Standardized patient pathways for interdisciplinary specialized addiction treatment (TSB)]. Norwegian Directorate of Health.

HM Government. (2021). From harm to hope: A 10-year drugs plan to cut crime and save lives. GOV.UK. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/from-harm-to-hope-a-10-year-drugs-plan-to-cut-crime-and-save-lives

HM Government. (2021). From harm to hope: A 10-year drugs plan to cut crime and save lives. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/from-harm-to-hope-a-10-year-drugs-plan-to-cut-crime-and-save-lives

Hudson, B. (2009). Understanding collaboration: A literature review. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(6), 641-651. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820903070018

Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A. (2010). What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs? British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 999-1022. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq038

Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A. (2010). What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs? British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq038

Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A. (2010). What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs? The British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq038

Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A. (2012). A resounding success or a disastrous failure: Re-examining the interpretation of evidence on the Portuguese decriminalisation of illicit drugs. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31(1), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00383.x

Humeniuk, R., Ali, R., Babor, T., Farrell, M., Formigoni, M., Jittiwutikarn, J., ... & Monteiro, M. (2008). Validation of the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Addiction, 103(6), 1039–1047. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02114.x

Indiana Department of Correction. (2023, February 1). Policy 01-02-106: Addiction recovery services. https://www.in.gov/idoc/files/policy-and-procedure/policies/01-02-106-ARS-2-1-2023.pdf

Instytut Psychiatrii i Neurologii [IPiN]. (2022a). Wpływ pandemii COVID-19 na konsumpcję alkoholu w Polsce: Raport 2022 [The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on alcohol consumption in Poland: 2022 Report]. IPiN.

International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). (n.d.). Substance Use Disorder. Retrieved March 15, 2024, from https://connect.ichom.org/standard-sets/substance-use-disorder/

International Harm Reduction Association. (2020). What is Harm Reduction? Retrieved from https://www.hri.global/what-is-harm-reduction

Jabłoński, P. (2021). Modele leczenia uzależnień w Polsce: Tradycja i nowe wyzwania [Addiction treatment models in Poland: Tradition and new challenges]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (2022, February 16). What Is Harm Reduction?

Jonas, D. E., Amick, H. R., Feltner, C., Bobashev, G., Thomas, K., Wines, R., ... & Garbutt, J. C. (2014). Pharmacotherapy for adults with alcohol use disorders in outpatient settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA, 311(18), 1889-1900.

Kaslow, N. J., Broth, M. R., Smith, C. O., & Collins, M. H. (2012). Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological interventions: A review of current efforts. American Psychologist, 67(2), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026003

Kasper, J., Hustedde, C., & Scharschmidt, T. (2020). Applying the ethical principles of resource allocation to drugs in shortage. AMA Journal of Ethics, 22(5), E421-427.

Kelly, J. F., & Fazio, S. (2022). Integrated care for co-occurring disorders: Current landscape and future directions. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 30(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000320

Kelly, P. J., Robinson, L. D., & Baker, A. L. (2021). The impact of burnout on the workforce in the alcohol and other drug field: A systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Review, 40(4), 549-561. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13210

Kelly, T. M., & Daley, D. C. (2013). Integrated treatment of substance use and psychiatric disorders. Social Work in Public Health, 28(3-4), 388-406.

Kirby, M. J., & Keon, W. J. (2006). Out of the shadows at last: Transforming mental health, mental illness and addiction services in Canada. Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Kowalski, J., & Nowak, A. (2022). Fragmentacja systemu pomocy osobom uzależnionym w Polsce: Analiza i rekomendacje [Fragmentation of the support system for addicted individuals in Poland: Analysis and recommendations]. Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.

Krajowe Biuro ds. Przeciwdziałania Narkomanii (KBPN). (2021). Raport Krajowy 2020: Sytuacja narkotykowa w Polsce [National Report 2020: The drug situation in Poland]. KBPN.

Krajowe Centrum Przeciwdziałania Uzależnieniom (KCPU). (2023). Raport o stanie narkomanii w Polsce [Report on the state of drug addiction in Poland]. KCPU. (Note: This is a typical title; actual title and year may vary. Consult KCPU website: https://www.kcpu.gov.pl/)

Krajowe Centrum Przeciwdziałania Uzależnieniom [KCPU]. (2023a). Stan narkomanii w Polsce: Raport 2023 [The state of drug addiction in Poland: 2023 Report]. KCPU.

Krajowe Centrum Przeciwdziałania Uzależnieniom [KCPU]. (2023b). Działalność Krajowego Centrum Przeciwdziałania Uzależnieniom: Sprawozdanie roczne 2022 [Activities of the National Center for Counteracting Addictions: Annual Report 2022]. KCPU.

Krajowe Centrum Przeciwdziałania Uzależnieniom [KCPU]. (2023c). Narodowy Program Przeciwdziałania Uzależnieniom 2023-2027 [National Program for Counteracting Addictions 2023-2027]. KCPU.

Krawczyk, N., Negron, T., Nieto, M., Agus, D., & Fingerhood, M. (2020). Integrating social services into addiction treatment: A qualitative study of patient and staff perspectives. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 112, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.02.003

Lagerlöf, H. (2022). A transition of power in opioid substitution treatment: Clinic staff's perceptions of patient choice. International Journal of Drug Policy, 101, 103558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdp.2021.103558

Laqueur, H. S. (2015). Uses and abuses of drug decriminalization in Portugal. Law & Social Inquiry, 40(3), 746-781. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12104

Leis, J. A., & Shojania, K. G. (2017). A primer on PDSA: Executing plan–do–study–act cycles in practice, not just in name. BMJ Quality & Safety, 26(4), 265-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006245

Lewicka, M., & Baranowski, P. (2021). Koszty społeczne uzależnień w Polsce [Social costs of addiction in Poland]. Polityka Społeczna, 48(2), 25-34.

Lin, L., Casteel, D., Shigekawa, E., Weyrich, M. S., Roby, D. H., & McMenamin, S. B. (2021). Telemedicine-delivered treatment interventions for substance use disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 120, 108151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108151

Lin, L., Casteel, D., Shigekawa, E., Weyrich, M. S., Roby, D. H., & McMenamin, S. B. (2022). Telehealth for the treatment of serious mental illness and substance use disorders in California: A qualitative study of clinicians and administrators. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 138, 108736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2022.108736

Lingford-Hughes, A. R., Welch, S., Peters, L., & Nutt, D. J. (2012). BAP updated guidelines: evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological management of substance abuse, harmful use, addiction and comorbidity: recommendations from BAP. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 26(7), 899-952. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881112444304

Lipińska-Szałek, A., Duda-Sobczak, A., Kropiwnicki, P., & Samochowiec, J. (2022). Stigma towards people with mental disorders and addictions in Poland–a narrative review. Psychiatria Polska, 56(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/134876

LIS Virginia. (n.d.). § 15.2-1627.5. Coordination of multidisciplinary response to child sexual abuse. Virginia's Legislative Information System. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter16/section15.2-1627.5/

Livingston, J. D., Milne, T., Fang, M. L., & Amari, E. (2

Livingston, J. D., Milne, T., Fang, M. L., & Amari, E. (2012). The effectiveness of interventions for reducing stigma related to substance use disorders: a systematic review. Addiction, 107(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03601.x

Lu, M., Hser, Y. I., & Nosyk, B. (2003). Selection incentives in a performance-based contracting system for substance abuse treatment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26(2), 193-200.

Marmot, M. (2010). Fair society, healthy lives: The Marmot review. Institute of Health Equity.

McCarty, D., Gustafson, D. H., Wisdom, J. P., Ford, J., Choi, D., Molfenter, T., Capoccia, V., & Cotter, F. (2007). The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx): Enhancing access and retention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88(2–3), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.10.012

McLellan, A. T., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I., Grissom, G., Pettinati, H., & Argeriou, M. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9(3), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s

Ministerstwo Zdrowia. (2023a). Rozwój e-zdrowia w obszarze leczenia uzależnień: Stan obecny i perspektywy [Development of e-health in addiction treatment: Current state and perspectives]. Ministerstwo Zdrowia.

Ministerstwo Zdrowia. (2023b). Dostępność specjalistów terapii uzależnień w Polsce: Analiza regionalna [Availability of addiction therapy specialists in Poland: Regional analysis]. Departament Zdrowia Publicznego, Ministerstwo Zdrowia.

Ministry of Finance, Poland. (2023a). Dochody budżetu państwa z tytułu podatku akcyzowego [State budget revenues from excise duty]. Retrieved from [Official Ministry of Finance statistics portal or report for excise data].

Ministry of Finance, Poland. (2023b). Dochody budżetu państwa z tytułu podatków od gier [State budget revenues from gambling taxes]. Retrieved from [Official Ministry of Finance statistics portal or report for gambling tax data].

Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy, Poland. (2023). Fundusze Europejskie dla Polski [European Funds for Poland]. Retrieved from https://www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl/

Minnesota Department of Human Services. (n.d.). Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Services. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://mn.gov/dhs/partners-and-providers/program-overviews/substance-use-disorder-services/

Mittman, B. S. (2012). Creating the evidence for evidence-based practice. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(3), 208–211. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-3-201208070-00009

Naczelna Izba Lekarska [NIL]. (2023). Raport o stanie kadr medycznych w Polsce [Report on the state of medical personnel in Poland]. NIL.

Najwyższa Izba Kontroli [NIK]. (2022). Dostępność i jakość leczenia uzależnień w Polsce: Raport z kontroli [Availability and quality of addiction treatment in Poland: Audit report]. NIK.

Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia (NFZ). (2022). Plan finansowy NFZ na 2023 rok [NFZ Financial Plan for 2023]. Retrieved from [Official NFZ website, e.g., https://www.nfz.gov.pl/bip/finanse-nfz/]. (Note: Specific document for budget figures).

Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia [NFZ]. (2022a). Wzrost zapotrzebowania na świadczenia z zakresu leczenia uzależnień: Raport roczny 2021 [Increased demand for addiction treatment services: Annual Report 2021]. NFZ.

Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia [NFZ]. (2023a). Finansowanie leczenia uzależnień ze środków publicznych w 2022 roku [Financing of addiction treatment from public funds in 2022]. NFZ.

Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 449-456.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2016). Ending discrimination against people with mental and substance use disorders: The evidence for stigma change. National Academies Press.

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). (2019). Poland - Organization and financing of public health services in selected OECD and EU countries. In Health Systems in Transition.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2023). State Approaches to Earmarking Cannabis Tax Revenue. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/financial-services/state-approaches-to-earmarking-cannabis-tax-revenue

National Harm Reduction Coalition (NHRC). (n.d.). Harm Reduction Principles.

National Health Service. (n.d.). Commissioning mental health services. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.england.nhs.uk/mental-health/commissioning/

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2017). Drug misuse in over 16s: opioid detoxification. Clinical guideline [CG52]. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg52

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2023). Alcohol-use disorders: diagnosis, assessment and management of harmful drinking (high risk drinking) and alcohol dependence. Clinical guideline [NG115]. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng115

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2020). Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide (Third Edition). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from https://nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Principles_of_Drug_Addiction_Treatment_Third_Edition.pdf

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2020a). Common Comorbidities with Substance Use Disorders Research Report Part 1: The Connection Between Substance Use Disorders and Mental Illness. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/common-comorbidities-substance-use-disorders/part-1-connection-between-substance-use-disorders-mental-illness

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2020b). Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide (Third Edition). Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://nida.nih.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2023, July). Treatment and Recovery.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2023a). Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide (Fourth Edition). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (Third Edition). https://nida.nih.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition

National Institutes of Health. (2023, November 8). Expired PAR-24-062: Phased research to support substance use epidemiology, services, and prevention research that informs policy. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-24-062.html

Nebraska Legislature. (n.d.). *Statute 28-728: Child advocacy center; child abuse and negl

Nguyen, T. Q., Weir, B. W., Des Jarlais, D. C., Baral, S. D., & Heimer, R. (2021). Syringe exchange programs for persons who inject drugs in urban, rural, and suburban areas of the United States, 2013. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 86(Suppl 1), S27-S35. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000002565

NHS Practitioner Health. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.practitionerhealth.nhs.uk/about-us

Norwegian Directorate of Health. (2021). *Opptrappingsplanen for rusfeltet 2016-2020: Sluttrapport [The Escalation Plan for the

Nouri, S., Khoong, E. C., Lyles, C. R., & Karliner, L. (2020). Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management during the Covid-19 pandemic. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.20.0123

Nowicki, G., & Zajączkowska, E. (2020). Rola społeczności terapeutycznych w leczeniu uzależnień w Polsce [The role of therapeutic communities in addiction treatment in Poland]. Psychiatria Polska, 54(3), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/104587

Oleszczyk, M., & Wnuk, M. (2022). Bariery we wdrażaniu leczenia substytucyjnego w Polsce z perspektywy świadczeniodawców [Barriers to implementing substitution treatment in Poland from the perspective of service providers]. Alkoholizm i Narkomania, 35(1), 55-70.

Ontario Ministry of Health. (2020). Expanding Access to Addiction Treatment in Primary Care: A Framework for Ontario. Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Oregon Health Authority. (2023b). CCO Metrics. Retrieved March 15, 2024, from https://www.oregon.gov/oha/hpa/analytics/Pages/cco-metrics.aspx

Państwowa Agencja Rozwiązywania Problemów Alkoholowych [PARPA]. (2023a). Rozpowszechnienie zaburzeń związanych z alkoholem w Polsce: Dane za 2022 rok [Prevalence of alcohol-related disorders in Poland: Data for 2022]. PARPA.

Piat, M., Grant, G., & Ashcroft, R. (2020). The ethics of involving people with lived experience in research: A scoping review. Health Expectations, 23(6), 1311–1321. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13127

Priest, J., Kashiwagi, D., Miu, A., Doyle, T., & Parambil, J. (2019). Improving Opioid Management and Resource Utilization in an Internal Medicine Residency Clinic: A Before-After Study over Two Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles. Pain Medicine, 20(10), 1937–1943. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pny269

Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

Reed, J. E., & Card, A. J

San Francisco Police Department. (n.d.). Drug Market Agency Coordination Center. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/drug-market-agency-coordination-center

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (n.d.a). About us. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (n.d.b). Tribal affairs. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://

Test list:

• Test bullet item 1
• Test bullet item 2

Test numbered list:

1. Numbered item 1
2. Numbered item 2