Open port sampling interface mass spectrometry of wipe-based explosives, oxidizers, and narcotics for trace contraband detection

Ambient ionisation mass spectrometry for drug and toxin analysis: A review of the recent literature

Ambient ionisation mass spectrometry (AIMS) is a form of mass spectrometry whereby analyte ionisation occurs outside of a vacuum source under ambient conditions. This enables the direct analysis of samples in their native state, with little or no sample preparation and without chromatographic separation. The removal of these steps facilitates a much faster analytical process, enabling the direct analysis of samples within minutes if not seconds. Consequently, AIMS has gained rapid popularity across a diverse range of applications, in particular the analysis of drugs and toxins. Numerous fields rely upon mass spectrometry for the detection and identification of drugs, including clinical diagnostics, forensic chemistry, and food safety. However, all of these fields are hindered by the time-consuming and laboratory-confined nature of traditional techniques. As such, the potential for AIMS to resolve these challenges has resulted in a growing interest in ambient ionisation for drug and toxin analysis. Since the early 2000s, forensic science, diagnostic testing, anti-doping, pharmaceuticals, environmental analysis and food safety have all seen a marked increase in AIMS applications, foreshadowing a new future for drug testing. In this review, some of the most promising AIMS techniques for drug analysis will be discussed, alongside different applications of AIMS published over a 5-year period, to provide a summary of the recent research activity for ambient ionisation for drug and toxin analysis.

Criminal justice interventions for preventing radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism: An evidence and gap map

Background

Criminal justice agencies are well positioned to help prevent the radicalisation of individuals and groups, stop those radicalised from engaging in violence, and reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks. This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) presents the existing evidence and gaps in the evaluation research.

Objectives

To identify the existing evidence that considers the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in preventing radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism.

Search Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of the academic and grey literature to locate relevant studies for the EGM. Our search locations included the Global Policing Database (GPD), eight electronic platforms encompassing over 20 academic databases, five trial registries and over 30 government and non-government websites. The systematic search was carried out between 8 June 2022 and 1 August 2022.

Selection Criteria

We captured criminal justice interventions published between January 2002 and December 2021 that aimed to prevent radicalisation, violent extremism, and/or terrorism. Criminal justice agencies were broadly defined to include police, courts, and corrections (both custodial and community). Eligible populations included criminal justice practitioners, places, communities or family members, victims, or individuals/groups who are radicalised or at risk of becoming radicalised. Our map includes systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, and strong quasi-experimental studies. We placed no limits on study outcomes, language, or geographic location.

Data Collection and Analysis

Our screening approach differed slightly for the different sources, but all documents were assessed in the systematic review software program DistillerSR on the same final eligibility criteria. Once included, we extracted information from studies using a standardised form that allowed us to collect key data for our EGM. Eligible systematic reviews were assessed for risk of bias using the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool.

Main Results

The systematic search identified 63,763 unique records. After screening, there were 70 studies eligible for the EGM (from 71 documents), of which two were systematic reviews (assessed as moderate quality), 16 were randomised controlled trials, and 52 were strong quasi-experimental studies. The majority of studies (n = 58) reported on policing interventions. Limited evidence was found related to courts or corrections interventions. The impact of these interventions was measured by a wide variety of outcomes (n = 50). These measures were thematically grouped under nine broad categories including (1) terrorism, (2) extremism or radicalisation, (3) non-terror related crime and recidivism, (4) citizen perceptions/intentions toward the criminal justice system and government, (5) psychosocial, (6) criminal justice practitioner behaviours/attitudes/beliefs, (7) racially targeted criminal justice practices, (8) investigation efficacy, and (9) organisational factors. The most commonly assessed outcomes included measures of terrorism, investigation efficacy, and organisational factors. Very limited research assessed intervention effectiveness against measures of extremism and/or radicalisation.

Authors’ Conclusions

Conducting high-quality evaluation research on rare and hidden problems presents a challenge for criminal justice research. The map reveals a number of significant gaps in studies evaluating criminal justice responses to terrorism and radicalisation. We conclude that future research should focus attention on studies that consolidate sound measurement of terrorism-related outcomes to better capture the potential benefits and harms of counter-terrorism programs, policies and practices which involve criminal justice agencies.