Historique
![Interventions for female drug-using offenders [Review]](https://bdoc.ofdt.fr/img_cache/pmb_ofdt_record_84368.webp?v=1771274364)
Article de Périodique
Interventions for female drug-using offenders [Review] (2019)
Auteur(s) :
PERRY, A. E. ;
MARTYN-ST JAMES, M. ;
BURNS, L. ;
HEWITT, C. ;
GLANVILLE, J. M. ;
ABOAJA, A. ;
THAKKAR, P. ;
SANTOSH KUMAR, K. M. ;
PEARSON, C. ;
WRIGHT, K.
Année
2019
Page(s) :
CD010910 ; 112 p.
Sous-type de document :
Revue de la littérature / Literature review
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Domaine :
Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs
Thésaurus mots-clés
SEXE FEMININ
;
INTERVENTION
;
DELINQUANCE
;
PRODUIT ILLICITE
;
CRIMINALITE
;
EFFICACITE
;
TRAITEMENT
;
PRISON
;
BUPRENORPHINE
;
PSYCHOTHERAPIE
;
COMMUNAUTE THERAPEUTIQUE
;
THERAPIE COMPORTEMENTALE
Résumé :
What is the aim?
To assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce drug use, criminal activity, or both, in women involved in the criminal justice system.
What is the key message?
We are uncertain whether the treatments reduce subsequent drug use, criminal activity, or both. We identified too few studies to evaluate whether the treatment setting (for example, court or community) had an impact on the success of such programmes. The study sample sizes were small and the certainty of this evidence was very low. High quality research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of different treatment options.
What was studied?
We studied any intervention aimed at reducing drug use, criminal activity, or both. Many more people involved in the criminal justice system experience drug use compared to people who have no contact with the criminal justice system. Most of the interventions that are used to support the rehabilitation of drug use in the criminal justice system are aimed at men and not women. Women have different needs to men and existing schemes need to be evaluated and adapted to deal with the complexity of the kinds of problems that women experience in order to reduce female drug use, criminal activity, or both
What are the main results?
We found 13 trials including 2560 participants. The 13 trials included people who were assigned at random to one of two interventions, conducted mainly in the USA. Studies were conducted in prison and the community. Study participants received a range of different interventions in comparison to nothing, another intervention or treatment as usual.
The review shows that:
- when women engage with collaborative case management, it may make little or no difference to reducing drug use, reincarceration or rearrest in comparison to treatment as usual (low-certainty evidence);
- when women take buprenorphine, we are uncertain whether it reduces drug use in comparison to a placebo (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women take buprenorphine pre-release from prison, it may make little or no difference to reducing drug use or criminal activity in comparison to taking buprenorphine post-release from prison (low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with interpersonal psychotherapy, it may make little or no difference to reducing a relapse into drug use in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention (low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage in acceptance and commitment therapy, it may make little or no difference to reducing drug use/ abstinence from drug use in comparison to a waiting list control (low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with cognitive skills in comparison to a therapeutic community intervention, we are uncertain whether it produces a reduction in subsequent drug use, being rearrested, committing criminal activity or drug-related crimes (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with cognitive skills in comparison to a therapeutic community intervention, it may reduce subsequent arrest (not parole violations) (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with cognitive skills in comparison to standard therapy, we are uncertain whether it reduces subsequent drug use (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with a single session of a computerised intervention, it may make little or no difference to reducing subsequent drug use (low-certainty evidence) in comparison to face-to-face case management;
- when women engage with dialectic behavioural therapy and case management, we are uncertain whether it produces a reduction in subsequent drug use in comparison to a health promotion scheme (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage in a therapeutic community programme, we are uncertain whether it reduces subsequent drug use and criminal activity in comparison to a work release programme (very low- to low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with intensive discharge planning upon release, it probably does not reduce subsequent drug use and criminal activity in comparison to prison only (moderate-certainty evidence).
Funding sources were reported by all studies and included government and research/charitable foundations.
How up-to-date is this review?
February 2019.
To assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce drug use, criminal activity, or both, in women involved in the criminal justice system.
What is the key message?
We are uncertain whether the treatments reduce subsequent drug use, criminal activity, or both. We identified too few studies to evaluate whether the treatment setting (for example, court or community) had an impact on the success of such programmes. The study sample sizes were small and the certainty of this evidence was very low. High quality research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of different treatment options.
What was studied?
We studied any intervention aimed at reducing drug use, criminal activity, or both. Many more people involved in the criminal justice system experience drug use compared to people who have no contact with the criminal justice system. Most of the interventions that are used to support the rehabilitation of drug use in the criminal justice system are aimed at men and not women. Women have different needs to men and existing schemes need to be evaluated and adapted to deal with the complexity of the kinds of problems that women experience in order to reduce female drug use, criminal activity, or both
What are the main results?
We found 13 trials including 2560 participants. The 13 trials included people who were assigned at random to one of two interventions, conducted mainly in the USA. Studies were conducted in prison and the community. Study participants received a range of different interventions in comparison to nothing, another intervention or treatment as usual.
The review shows that:
- when women engage with collaborative case management, it may make little or no difference to reducing drug use, reincarceration or rearrest in comparison to treatment as usual (low-certainty evidence);
- when women take buprenorphine, we are uncertain whether it reduces drug use in comparison to a placebo (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women take buprenorphine pre-release from prison, it may make little or no difference to reducing drug use or criminal activity in comparison to taking buprenorphine post-release from prison (low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with interpersonal psychotherapy, it may make little or no difference to reducing a relapse into drug use in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention (low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage in acceptance and commitment therapy, it may make little or no difference to reducing drug use/ abstinence from drug use in comparison to a waiting list control (low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with cognitive skills in comparison to a therapeutic community intervention, we are uncertain whether it produces a reduction in subsequent drug use, being rearrested, committing criminal activity or drug-related crimes (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with cognitive skills in comparison to a therapeutic community intervention, it may reduce subsequent arrest (not parole violations) (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with cognitive skills in comparison to standard therapy, we are uncertain whether it reduces subsequent drug use (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with a single session of a computerised intervention, it may make little or no difference to reducing subsequent drug use (low-certainty evidence) in comparison to face-to-face case management;
- when women engage with dialectic behavioural therapy and case management, we are uncertain whether it produces a reduction in subsequent drug use in comparison to a health promotion scheme (very low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage in a therapeutic community programme, we are uncertain whether it reduces subsequent drug use and criminal activity in comparison to a work release programme (very low- to low-certainty evidence);
- when women engage with intensive discharge planning upon release, it probably does not reduce subsequent drug use and criminal activity in comparison to prison only (moderate-certainty evidence).
Funding sources were reported by all studies and included government and research/charitable foundations.
How up-to-date is this review?
February 2019.
Affiliation :
University of York, Department of Health Sciences, Heslington, York, UK