↓ 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

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 39 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 27%
Psychology 31 20%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 44 28%