↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for female drug‐using offenders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for female drug‐using offenders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010910.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda E Perry, Matthew Neilson, Marrissa Martyn‐St James, Julie M Glanville, Rebecca Woodhouse, Catherine Hewitt

Abstract

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. To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both. 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. 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. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. 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. 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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 167 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 47 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 26%
Psychology 32 19%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 50 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2019.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,479
of 282,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#212
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.