1
|
Bradford N. Interventions for Drug-Using Offenders With Co-Occurring Mental Illness. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2016; 37:66-7. [PMID: 26818936 DOI: 10.3109/01612840.2015.1115653] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Bradford
- a The University of Queensland , Centre for Online Health , Queensland , Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Perry AE, Neilson M, Martyn‐St James M, Glanville JM, Woodhouse R, Godfrey C, Hewitt C. Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD010862. [PMID: 26035084 PMCID: PMC11060505 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010862.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both, for illicit drug-using offenders. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS We searched Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological intervention a component of which is designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity, or both, in drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS Fourteen trials with 2647 participants met the inclusion criteria. The interventions included in this review report on agonistic pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) compared to no intervention, other non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Studies could not be combined all together because the comparisons were too different. Only subgroup analysis for type of pharmacological treatment were done. When compared to non-pharmacological, we found low quality evidence that agonist treatments are not effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity, objective results (biological) (two studies, 237 participants (RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.00); subjective (self-report), (three studies, 317 participants (RR 0.61 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); self-report drug use (three studies, 510 participants (SMD: -0.62 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.39). We found low quality of evidence that antagonist treatment was not effective in reducing drug use (one study, 63 participants (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.70) but we found moderate quality of evidence that they significantly reduced criminal activity (two studies, 114 participants, (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74).Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity showed mixed results. In the comparison of methadone to buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone, no significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (two studies, 370 participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.55), continuous measures of drug use (one study, 81 participants, (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% CI -5.33 to 6.73); or criminal activity (one study, 116 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similar results were found for comparisons with diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.51) or naltrexone for dichotomous measures of reincarceration (one study, 44 participants, (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.26), and continuous outcome measure of crime, (MD -0.50, 95% CI -8.04 to 7.04) or self report drug use (MD 4.60, 95% CI -3.54 to 12.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS When compared to non-pharmacological treatment, agonist treatments did not seem effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity. Antagonist treatments were not effective in reducing drug use but significantly reduced criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another we found no significant differences between the drug comparisons (methadone versus buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone) on any of the outcome measures. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Matthew Neilson
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Marrissa Martyn‐St James
- University of SheffieldSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)Regent Court, 30 Regent StreetSheffieldSouth YorkshireUKS1 4DA
| | - Julie M Glanville
- York Health Economics ConsortiumMarket SquareUniversity of York, HeslingtonYorkUKYO10 5NH
| | - Rebecca Woodhouse
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Christine Godfrey
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | - Catherine Hewitt
- University of YorkDepartment of Health SciencesHeslingtonYorkUKYO105DD
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Perry AE, Neilson M, Martyn-St James M, Glanville JM, Woodhouse R, Godfrey C, Hewitt C. Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD010901. [PMID: 26034938 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010901.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one from a family of four reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and 5 Internet resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2009). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent relapse of drug use and criminal activity, or both in drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS Eight trials with 2058 participants met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the trials was generally difficult to rate due to a lack of clear reporting. On most 'Risk of bias' items, we rated the majority of studies as unclear. Overall, we could not statistically combine the results due to the heterogenous nature of the different study interventions and comparison groups. A narrative summary of the findings identified that the interventions reported limited success with reducing self report drug use, but did have some impact on re-incarceration rates, but not re-arrest. In the single comparisons, we found moderate-quality evidence that therapeutic communities determine a reduction in re-incarceration but reported less success for outcomes of re-arrest, moderate quality of evidence and self report drug use. Three single studies evaluating case management via a mental health drug court (very low quality of evidence), motivational interviewing and cognitive skills (low and very low quality of evidence) and interpersonal psychotherapy (very low quality of evidence) did not report significant reductions in criminal activity and self report drug use respectively. Quality of evidence for these three types of interventions was low to very low. The trials reported some cost information, but it was not sufficient to be able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Two of the five trials showed some promising results for the use of therapeutic communities and aftercare, but only in relation to reducing subsequent re-incarceration. Overall, the studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. More evaluations are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO105DD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Perry AE, Neilson M, Martyn-St James M, Glanville JM, Woodhouse R, Hewitt C. Interventions for female drug-using offenders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD010910. [PMID: 26035085 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010910.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Website resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity in female drug-using offenders. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS Nine trials with 1792 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. We rated the majority of studies as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. We divided the studies into different categories for the purpose of meta-analyses: for any psychosocial treatments in comparison to treatment as usual we found low quality evidence that there were no significant differences in arrest rates, (two studies; 489 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52) or drug use (one study; 77 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but we found moderate quality evidence that there was a significant reduction in reincarceration, (three studies; 630 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce self reported drug use (one study; 36 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35). No cost or cost-effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Three of the nine trials show a positive trend towards the use of any psychosocial treatment in comparison to treatment as usual showing an overall significant reduction in subsequent reincarceration, but not arrest rates or drug use. Pharmacological interventions in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce drug use and did not measure criminal activity. Four different treatment comparisons showed varying results and were not combined due to differences in the intervention and comparison groups. The studies overall showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons and outcome measures assessed, which limited the possibility to pool the data. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the precision of confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO105DD
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Perry AE, Neilson M, Martyn-St James M, Glanville JM, McCool R, Duffy S, Godfrey C, Hewitt C. Interventions for female drug-using offenders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:CD010910. [PMID: 24399765 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010910] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases (between 2004 and 21st March 2013) and five additional web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA We include randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse in female drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS We identified 76 trials across the four reviews. Following a process of prescreening, we judged that 11 trials met the inclusion criteria of the specified review; four of the 11 trials are awaiting classification in the review. The remaining seven trials cover 1236 participants. The interventions included in this review report on therapeutic communities (TCs), gender-responsive treatment (GRT), use of case management and cognitive skills, and a pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. The majority of studies were rated as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. Overall the interventions showed statistically significant reductions in self-reported drug use, (four studies, 734 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.80) and re-incarceration, (four studies, 745 participants, RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.72). We found a statistically non-significant result for re-arrest (three studies, 803 participants, RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.19). Individual treatment results found that TCs and a GRT programme showed a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration (one study, 509 participants, RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.60) but not for re-arrest, (one study, 314 participants, RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03) and self-reported drug use (two studies, 825 participants, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.53). Case management and cognitive skills programmes did not significantly reduce re-arrests, (one study, 183 participants RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.41) or self-reported drug use, (one study, 77 participants, RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but did show a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration, (three studies, 236 participants, RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81). Buprenorphine did not significantly reduce self-reported drug use (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35), but this result came from a single study with only 36 participants. Due to the small number of studies we were unable to analyse the impact of treatment setting on outcome. No cost and cost effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The seven trials show some positive results for the use of treatments to reduce self-reported drug use and subsequent re-incarceration. However, the studies overall showed a high degree of statistical variation, requiring a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO105DD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Perry AE, Neilson M, Martyn-St James M, Glanville JM, McCool R, Duffy S, Godfrey C, Hewitt C. Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:CD010901. [PMID: 24385324 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one from a family of four reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases (searched between 2004 and 21 March 2013) and five internet resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2009). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse in drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. We also reported data on the cost and cost effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS We identified 76 trials across the four reviews. Following a process of pre-screening, we judged eight trials to meet the inclusion criteria for this specific review (three of the five trials are awaiting classification). The five included 1502 participants. The interventions reported on case management via a mental health drugs court, a therapeutic community, and an evaluation of a motivational interviewing technique and cognitive skills in comparison to relaxation training. The methodological quality of the trials was generally difficult to rate due to a lack of clear reporting. On most risk of bias items, we rated the majority of studies as unclear. Overall, the combined interventions did not show a statistically significant reduction in self reported drug use (2 studies, 715 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.55). A statistically significantly reduction was shown for re-incarceration (4 studies, 627 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67 and mean difference (MD) 28.72, 95% CI 5.89 to 51.54) but not re-arrest (2 studies, 518 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12). A specific subgroup analysis combining studies using therapeutic community interventions showed a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration (2 studies, 266 participants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.54) but not re-arrest (1 study, 428 participants; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.33). Case management via a mental health court and motivational interviewing with cognitive skills did not show a statistically significant reduction in criminal activity (1 study, 235 participants; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or self reported drug misuse (1 study, 162 participants; MD -7.42, 95% CI -20.12 to 5.28). Due to the small number of studies, we were unable to analyse the impact of setting on outcome. Some cost information was provided in the trials but not sufficient to be able to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review highlights the paucity of evidence for drug misusing offenders with co-occurring mental health problems. Two of the five trials showed some promising results for the use of therapeutic communities and aftercare, but only in relation to reducing subsequent re-incarceration. The studies overall, showed a high degree of statistical variation demonstrating a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. More evaluations are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO105DD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Perry AE, Neilson M, Martyn-St James M, Glanville JM, McCool R, Duffy S, Godfrey C, Hewitt C. Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD010862. [PMID: 24353217 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010862] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use and/or criminal activity for illicit drug-using offenders. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity and/or drug use. SEARCH METHODS Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases (searched between 2004 and 21 March 2013) and five additional Web resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2011) were searched. Experts in the field were contacted for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological interventions for reducing, eliminating or preventing relapse in drug-using offenders were included. Data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions were reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS A total of 76 trials across the four reviews were identified. After a process of prescreening had been completed, 17 trials were judged to meet the inclusion criteria for this specific review (six of the 17 trials are awaiting classification for the review). The remaining 11 trials contained a total of 2,678 participants. Nine of the eleven studies used samples with a majority of men. The interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) were compared to non pharmacological treatments (e.g., counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). When combined, the results suggest that pharmacological interventions do significantly reduce subsequent drug use using biological measures, (three studies, 300 participants, RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.97)), self report dichotomous data (three studies, 317 participants, RR 0.42, (95% CI 0.22 to 0.81)) and continuous measures (one study, MD -59.66 (95% CI -120.60 to 1.28)) . In the subgroups analysis for community setting, (two studies, 99 participants: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.09)) and for secure establishment setting, (one study, 201 participants: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.10)), the results are no longer statistically significant. Criminal activity was significantly reduced favouring the dichotomous measures of re arrest, (one study, 62 participants, RR 0.60 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.14)), re-incarceration, (three studies, 142 participants, RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.56)) and continuous measures (one study, 51 participants, MD -74.21 (95% CI -133.53 to -14.89)). Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity show mixed results. Buprenorphine in comparison to a non pharmacological treatment seemed to favour buprenorphine but not significantly with self report drug use, (one study, 36 participants, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.35)). Methadone and cognitive behavioural skills in comparison to standard psychiatric services, did show a significant reduction for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 253 participants, RR 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.56)) but not for self report continuous data (one study 51 participants) MD -0.52 (95% CI -1.09 to 0.05)), or re incarceration RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.53 to 2.87)). Naltrexone was favoured significantly over routine parole and probation for re incarceration (two studies 114 participants, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.69)) but no data was available on drug use. Finally, we compared each pharmacological treatment to another. In each case we compared methadone to: buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone. No significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 193 participants RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.76)), continuous measures of drug use MD 0.70 (95% CI -5.33 to 6.73) or criminal activity RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.88)) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similiar results were found for comparisons with Diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants RR 1.25 (95% CI 1.03-1.51)) or Naltrexone for dichotomous measures of re incarceration (one study, 44 participants, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.26)), and continuous outcome measure of crime MD -0.50 (95% CI -8.04 to 7.04)) or self report drug use MD 4.60 (95% CI -3.54 to 12.74)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders do appear to reduce overall subsequent drug use and criminal activity (but to a lesser extent). No statistically significant differences were displayed by treatment setting. Individual differences are displayed between the three pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) when compared to a non pharmacological intervention, but not when compared to each other. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias because trial information was inadequately described.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda E Perry
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, UK, YO105DD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sered S, Norton-Hawk M. Criminalized women and the health care system: the case for continuity of services. JOURNAL OF CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE 2013; 19:164-77. [PMID: 23711803 DOI: 10.1177/1078345813486323] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Drawing upon research with criminalized women in Massachusetts, this article examines barriers to health care before, during, and after incarceration. Although very few of the surveyed women reported having had to forgo medical treatment because of an inability to pay, almost all of them reported being unable to access consistent, ongoing health care services. Typically, the women recalled sequential contact with dozens of providers at dozens of facilities, treatment plans that had been developed but never executed, psychotherapy that opened wounds but was terminated before healing them, and involuntary interruptions in legally prescribed courses of psychiatric medications. Acknowledging that these problems are related to wider structures of health care delivery in the United States, this article ends with a modest proposal for developing a role for health care advocates assigned to coordinate care for those with complicated medical problems to help them manage their health care needs over a long period of time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan Sered
- Department of Sociology, Suffolk University, Boston, MA 02108, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Woods LN, Lanza AS, Dyson W, Gordon DM. The role of prevention in promoting continuity of health care in prisoner reentry initiatives. Am J Public Health 2013; 103:830-8. [PMID: 23488516 DOI: 10.2105/ajph.2012.300961] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
Most incarcerated individuals will return to the community, and their successful reentry requires consideration of their health and how their health will affect their families and communities. We propose the use of a prevention science framework that integrates universal, selective, and indicated strategies to facilitate the successful reentry of men released from prison. Understanding how health risks and disparities affect the transition from prison to the community will enhance reentry intervention efforts. To explore the application of the prevention rubric, we evaluated a community-based prisoner reentry initiative. The findings challenge all involved in reentry initiatives to reconceptualize prisoner reentry from a program model to a prevention model that considers multilevel risks to and facilitators of successful reentry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lakeesha N Woods
- The Consultation Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Prendergast M, Frisman L, Sacks JY, Staton-Tindall M, Greenwell L, Lin HJ, Cartier J. A multi-site, randomized study of strengths-based case management with substance-abusing parolees. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY 2011; 7:225-253. [PMID: 21949490 PMCID: PMC3157195 DOI: 10.1007/s11292-011-9123-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test whether strengths-based case management provided during an inmate's transition from incarceration to the community increases participation in community substance abuse treatment, enhances access to needed social services, and improves drug use, crime, and HIV risk outcomes. METHODS: In a multi-site trial, inmates (men and women) in four states (n = 812) were randomly assigned (within site) to receive either Transitional Case Management (TCM group), based on strengths-based principles, or standard parole services (SR group). Data were collected at baseline and at 3 and 9 months following release from prison. Analyses compared the two groups with respect to services received and to drug use, crime, and HIV risk behavior outcomes. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between parolees in the TCM group and the SR group on outcomes related to participation in drug abuse treatment, receipt of social services, or drug use, crime, and HIV risk behaviors. For specific services (e.g., residential treatment, mental health), although significant differences were found for length of participation or for number of visits, the number of participants in these services was small and the direction of effect was not consistent. CONCLUSION: In contrast to positive findings in earlier studies of strengths-based case management with mental-health and drug-abuse clients, this study found that case management did not improve treatment participation or behavioral outcomes for parolees with drug problems. The discussion includes possible reasons for the findings and suggestions for modifications to the intervention that could be addressed in future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Prendergast
- Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California Los Angeles, 1640 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 320, Los Angeles, CA 90025 USA
| | - Linda Frisman
- Research Division, Connecticut Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services, Hartford, CT USA
| | - JoAnn Y. Sacks
- Center for the Integration of Research & Practice, National Development & Research Institutes, Inc, New York, NY USA
| | | | - Lisa Greenwell
- Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California Los Angeles, 1640 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 320, Los Angeles, CA 90025 USA
| | - Hsiu-Ju Lin
- Research Division, Connecticut Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services, Hartford, CT USA
| | - Jerry Cartier
- Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California Los Angeles, 1640 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 320, Los Angeles, CA 90025 USA
| |
Collapse
|