This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (2 JUN 2015)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

  1. Amanda E Perry1,*,
  2. Matthew Neilson1,
  3. Marrissa Martyn-St James2,
  4. Julie M Glanville3,
  5. Rachael McCool3,
  6. Steven Duffy4,
  7. Christine Godfrey1,
  8. Catherine Hewitt1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group

Published Online: 19 DEC 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 20 JUL 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010862


How to Cite

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 of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD010862. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010862.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of York, Department of Health Sciences, York, UK

  2. 2

    University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK

  3. 3

    York Health Economics Consortium, York, UK

  4. 4

    University of York, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, York, UK

*Amanda E Perry, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, YO105DD, UK. amanda.perry@york.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 19 DEC 2013

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (02 JUN 2015)

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms

This review represents part of a family of four reviews undertaken to closely examine what works in reducing drug use and criminal activity among drug-using offenders. Overall, the four reviews contain 76 trials, generating 99 publications and 58 different comparisons (Perry 2013a; Perry 2013b; Perry 2013c). The four reviews represent specific interests in pharmacological interventions, non-pharmacological interventions, female offenders and offenders with co-occurring mental illness. All four reviews stem from an updated previous Cochrane systematic review (Perry 2006). In this set of four reviews, we consider the effectiveness of interventions based on two key outcomes and analyse the impact of setting and intervention type. Presented here is the revised methodology for this individual review, focusing on the impact of pharmacological interventions provided for drug-using offenders.

 

Description of the condition

Offenders as a socially excluded group of people demonstrate significant drug use and subsequent health problems. Studies investigating the prevalence of drug dependence in UK prisons report variable results of 10% (Gunn 1991), 39% (Brooke 1996) and 33% (Mason 1997). Similar trends have been reported elsewhere. In France, 30% of prison inmates are heroin addicted, and in Australia, 59% of prison inmates report injecting (primarily heroin) drug use histories. In the US, it is recognised that many offenders are in need of treatment to tackle their drug use (Lo 2000).The link between drug use, subsequent health and social and criminological consequences is well documented in the literature (e.g., Michel 2005), and offenders have a high risk of death from opioid overdose within two weeks of release from incarceration (Bird 2003; Binswanger 2007).

 

Description of the intervention

Internationally, methadone maintenance has been the primary choice for chronic opioid dependence in prisons and jails, including those in the Netherlands, Australia, Spain and Canada, and it is being increasingly implemented in the criminal justice setting (Moller 2007; Stallwitz 2007). The US has not generally endorsed the use of methadone treatment, and only 12% of correctional settings offer this option for incarcerated inmates (Fiscella 2004). Reasons for this lack of expansion suggest that methadone amongst the public and criminal justice system providers has been considered a substitute for another addiction. In contrast, buprenorphine appears not to carry the same social stigma associated with methadone treatment and has been used in France, Austria and Puerto Rico (Catania 2003; Reynaud-Maurupt 2005; Garcia 2007). Naltrexone treatment has shown some promising findings, but associated problems surrounding high attrition and low medication compliance in the community and high mortality rates (e.g. Gibson 2007; Minozzi 2011) pose concerns. Trials conducted in the criminal justice setting are still lacking, and continuity of care is considered crucial in the treatment of drug-involved offenders who transition between prison and the community.

 

How the intervention might work

A growing body of evidence shows the effects of pharmacological interventions for drug use among the general population. Existing reviews have focused on naltrexone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence (Amato 2005; Lobmaier 2008; Minozzi 2011) and the efficacy of methadone (Marsch 1998; Faggiano 2003; Mattick 2009) and buprenorphine maintenance (Mattick 2009). Recent guidance has been provided from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on evidence-based use of naltrexone, methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence (NICE 2007a; NICE 2007b). Five Cochrane reviews (including 52 studies) reported on the effectiveness of opiate methadone therapies (Amato 2005). Findings showed that methadone maintenance therapies at appropriate doses were most effective in retaining participants in treatment and in suppressing heroin use, but evidence of effectiveness for other relevant outcome measures such as criminal activity was weak and was not systematically evaluated.

Systematic reviews evaluating treatment programs more generally for offender populations have focused on evaluating treatment in one setting such as community-based programmes, (e.g.,Mitchell, 2012a; Mitchell, 2012b); or have based their evidence on literature from one country (e.g. Germany or the US) (Chanhatasilpa 2000; Egg 2000) or a number of specific treatments (Mitchell 2006). Pharmacological systematic reviews of offender treatment appear to be sparse. We identified two previous reviews, one focusing on specific drug- and property-related criminal behaviours in methadone maintenance treatment (Marsch 1998) and an evaluation of the effectiveness of opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) in prison and post-release. The later of these two reviews identified six experimental studies up until January 2011 (Hedrich 2011). The review authors found that OMT in prison was significantly associated with reduced heroin use, injecting and syringe sharing. Use of pre-release OMT was also found to have important implications for associated treatment uptake after release, but the impact on criminal activity was equivocal.

 

Why it is important to do this review

The current review will provide a systematic examination of trial evidence relating to the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders. We believe it is important to conduct this review because the link between drug use and subsequent criminological consequences and a high risk of death suggests that a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of routinely used pharmacological treatments is required. In order to address this broad topic a series of questions will consider the effectiveness of different interventions, in relation to criminal activity, drug misuse treatment setting and type of treatment. The review will additionally, report descriptively on the costs and cost effectiveness of such treatment programs.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity and/or drug misuse. The review addressed the following questions:

  • Do pharmacological treatments for drug-using offenders reduce drug use?

  • Do pharmacological treatments for drug-using offenders reduce criminal activity?

  • Does the treatment setting (e.g. court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect outcome(s) of pharmacological treatments?

  • Does the type of pharmacological treatment (e.g. medication type) affect treatment outcome(s)?

  • Does one type of pharmacological treatment perform better than one other?

Additionally, this review aimed to report on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological interventions to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders were included. Relapse was used to refer to individuals who may have returned to an incarcerated setting or been subsequently arrested, who relapsed back into drug misuse or who did both.

 

Types of participants

Illicit drug-misusing offenders were included in the review regardless of gender, age, ethnicity or psychiatric illness. Drug use was deemed relevant to any studies that referred to individuals using occasional drugs, being dependent on drugs or known to abuse drugs. We excluded studies that referred to tobacco or alcohol use. Offenders were defined as individuals who were involved in the criminal justice system. Offenders were those in police custody, being processed by the court system, residing in secure establishments (e.g. special hospitals, prisons or jails) or based in the community (i.e. under the care of probation or parole services).

 

Types of interventions

Included interventions were designed wholly or in part to eliminate or prevent relapse to drug use, criminal activity or both among participants. Different types of interventions were included in the review:

Experimental interventions included in the review:

  • Methadone.
  • Naltrexone.
  • Buprenorphine.
  • Diamorphine.
  • Combined pharmacological and counselling interventions.
  • Pharmacological treatments for cocaine and amphetamine dependence.

Control interventions included in the review.

  • No treatment.
  • Minimal treatment.
  • Waiting list.
  • Treatment as usual.
  • Other treatment (e.g., pharmacological or psychosocial)

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

For the purpose of our review, we categorised primary outcomes into those related to dichotomous and continuous drug use, criminal activity or both. When papers reported several different follow-up periods, the longest time period was included in the review. Given that reporting of criminal convictions can take time to be recorded and logged within the criminal justice system, we believe that such measures provide the most conservative estimate of effectiveness. For specific meta-analyses of sub groupings, all reported follow-up periods were reviewed so that the most appropriate time period for combining comparable studies would be selected.

  • Drug use measures were reported as:

    • self-report drug use (unspecified drug, specific drug use not including alcohol/tobacco, Addiction Severity Index drug composite scores); and
    • biological drug use (measured by drugs tested by urine or hair analysis).

  • Criminal activity as measured by:

    • self-report or official report of criminal activity (including arrest for any offence, drug offences, re-incarceration, convictions, charges and recidivism).

 

Secondary outcomes

Our secondary outcome reported on cost or cost-effectiveness information. These findings were presented in a descriptive narrative. A full critical appraisal based on the Drummond 1997 checklist was undertaken for those studies for which sufficient information was presented.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

Electronic searches

The update searches identified records from 2004 to March 2013.

  • MEDLINE (1966 to March 2013).
  • EMBASE (1980 to March 2013).
  • CENTRAL (1980 to March 2013).
  • PsycINFO (1978 to March 2013).
  • Pascal (1973 to November 2004)a.
  • SciSearch (Science Citation Index) (1974 to March 2013).
  • Social SciSearch (Social Science Citation Index) (1972 to March 2013).
  • ASSIA (1987 to March 2013).
  • Wilson Applied Science and Technology Abstracts (1983 to October 2004)a.
  • Inside Conferences (1993 to November 2004)a.
  • Dissertation Abstracts (1961 to October 2004)a.
  • NTIS (1964 to March 2013).
  • Sociological Abstracts (1963 to March 2013).
  • HMIC (to March 2013).
  • PAIS (1972 to March 2013).
  • SIGLE (1980 to June 2004)b.
  • Criminal Justice Abstracts (1968 to March 2013).
  • LILACS (2004 to March 2013).
  • National Research Register (March 2004)c.
  • Current Controlled Trials (December 2009).
  • Drugscope (February 2004)-unable to access.
  • SPECTR (March 2004)d.

aUnable to access further to 2004 search.
bDatabase not updated since original 2004 search.
cNo longer exists.
dNow Campbell Collaboration searched on line.

To update the original review (Perry et al, 2006), the search strategy was restricted to studies that were published or unpublished from 2004 onwards. A number of original databases were not searched for this update (indicated by the key at the end of the database list). Pascal, ASSIA, Wilson Applied Science and Technology Abstracts, Inside Conferences and Dissertation Abstracts were not searched. These databases are available only via the fee-charging DIALOG online host service. We did not have the resources to undertake these searches. The National Research Register no longer exists, and SIGLE has not been updated since 2005. Drugscope is available only to subscribing members. The original searches were undertaken by Drugscope staff.

Search strategies were developed for each database to exploit the search engine most effectively and to make use of any controlled vocabulary. Search strategies were designed to restrict the results to RCTs. No language restriction was placed on the search results. We included methodological search filters designed to identify trials. Whenever possible, filters retrieved from the InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG) Search Filter Resource site (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/intertasc/) were used. If filters were unavailable from this site, search terms based on existing filters were used instead.

In addition to the electronic databases, a range of relevant Internet sites (Home Office, National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) and European Association of Libraries and Information Services on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ELISAD)) were searched. Directory web sites, including OMNI (http://www.omni.ac.uk), were searched up until November 2011. The review did not place any language restrictions on identification and inclusion of studies in the review.

Details of the update search strategies and results and of the Internet sites searched are listed in Appendix 1; Appendix 2; Appendix 3; Appendix 4; Appendix 5; Appendix 6; Appendix 7; Appendix 8; Appendix 9; Appendix 10; Appendix 11; Appendix 12; Appendix 13.

 

Searching other resources

Reference checking

The reference lists of all retrieved articles were scrutinised for further references. Searches of the catalogues of relevant organisations and research founders were also undertaken.

Personal communication

Experts were contacted and were asked about their knowledge of other studies, published or unpublished, relevant to the review.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Two independent review authors inspected the search hits by reading the titles and abstracts. Each potentially relevant study located in the search was obtained as a full article and was independently assessed for inclusion by two review authors. In the case of discordance, a third independent review author arbitrated. Translation of articles not written in the English language was undertaken by a single review author.

The screening process was divided into two key phases. Phase one used the initial eight key questions reported in the original review (Perry 2006). These included the following.

Prescreening criteria: phase one

  • Is the document written in 2004 or later? [If "no," exclude document.]
  • Is the document an empirical study? [If "no," exclude document.]
  • Does the study evaluate an intervention, a component of which is designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse among drug-using offenders?
  • Are the participants referred by the criminal justice system at baseline?
  • Does the study report pre programme and post programme measures of drug use?
  • Does the study report pre programme and post programme measures of criminal behaviour?
  • Does the study include a comparison group?
  • Do the outcome measures refer to the same length of follow-up for two groups?

After relevant papers from phase one had been identified, phase two screening was performed to identify papers reporting on pharmacological interventions. Criteria included the following.

Prescreening: phase two

  • Is the intervention a pharmacological intervention? [if "yes" include document]

Pharmacological interventions (excluding those focused only on alcohol outcomes, only on tobacco outcomes or on both) were implied if the programme was targeted at reducing drug use in a group of individuals or if their use could be ascertained from the background characteristics of the group.

Offenders included individuals residing in special hospitals, prisons or the community (i.e. under the care of the probation service) and offenders who were diverted from court or placed on arrest referral schemes for treatment.

The study setting could change throughout the process of the study. For example, offenders could begin the study in prison but then progress through a work release project into a community setting.

Finally, studies need not report both drug and criminal activity outcomes. If either one of these was reported, the study was included in the review.

 

Data extraction and management

Data extraction forms were used to standardise the reporting of data from all included studies as potentially relevant. Data were extracted by two independent review authors.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Four independent review authors (AEP, JMG, MM-SJ, MN) assessed risk of bias in all included studies using risk of bias assessment criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

The risk of bias assessment for RCTs in this review was performed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). The recommended approach for assessing risk of bias in studies included in a Cochrane Review involves the use of a two-part tool that addresses six specific domains, namely, sequence generation and allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of participants and providers (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective outcome reporting (reporting bias) and other sources of bias. The first part of the tool involves describing what was reported to have happened in the study. The second part of the tool involves assigning a judgement related to the risk of bias for that entry in terms of low, high or unclear risk. To make these judgements, we used the criteria indicated by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as adapted for the addiction field.

The domains of sequence generation and allocation concealment (avoidance of selection bias) were addressed in the tool by a single entry for each study.

Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessor (avoidance of performance bias and detection bias) was considered separately for objective outcomes (e.g. dropping out, using substance of abuse as measured by urinalysis, relapsing of participants at the end of follow=up, engaging of participants in further treatments) and subjective outcomes (e.g. duration and severity of signs and symptoms of withdrawal, participant self-reported use of substance, side effects, social functioning as integration at school or at work, family relationships).

Incomplete outcome data (avoidance of attrition bias) were considered for all outcomes except dropping out of treatment, which very often is the primary outcome measure in trials on addiction. See Appendix 14 for details

For studies identified in the most recent search, the review authors attempted to contact study authors to establish whether a study protocol was available.

 

Measures of treatment effect

For continuous outcome measures a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used. Higher scores for continuous measures are representative of greater harm. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs.

 

Dealing with missing data

When data were missing from the original publication, review authors attempted to contact the study author via email to obtain missing data.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

Heterogenity was assessed using I2 and Q statistics.

 

Data synthesis

The RevMan software package was used to perform a series of meta-analyses for continuous and dichotomous outcome measures. A random-effects model was used to account for the fact that participants did not come from a single underlying population. A narrative review were performed to address each of the key questions outlined in the objectives. The narrative tables included a presentation of study details (e.g. author, year of publication, and country of study origin), study methods (e.g. random assignment), participants (e.g. number in sample, age, gender, ethnicity, age, mental health status), interventions (e.g. description, duration, intensity, setting), outcomes (e.g. description, follow-up period, reporting mechanism), resource and cost information and resource savings (e.g. number of staff, intervention delivery, estimated costs, estimated savings) and notes (e.g. methodological and quality assessment information). For outcomes of criminal activity, data were sufficient to allow the review authors to divide this activity into re-arrest and re-incarceration categories.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

A subgroup analysis of setting (secure versus community) and pharmacological drug type (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) was conducted.

 

Sensitivity analysis

When appropriate, sensitivity analyses were planned to assess the impact of studies with high risk of bias. Because of the overall high risk of bias of the included studies, this analysis was not conducted.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms
 

Description of studies

 

Results of the search

The updated searches to March 2013 produced a total of 3885 new records. Submissions from expert authors provided a further 15 records. Assessment of titles and abstracts excluded a total of 3765 records, leaving 135 potentially relevant RCT publications. In phase two, a further 118 study comparisons were excluded, leaving 17 studies for review of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders with four different comparisons. Six of the 17 trials are awaiting classification, and data from the remaining eleven trials (n = 2678 participants) are presented (Figure 1).

 FigureFigure 1. Study flow diagram of papers within the review.

 

Included studies

  • A number of studies produced different comparisons and were combined appropriately according to time point of measurement (e.g. 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months) and type of outcome.

Treatment regimens and settings

  • Three studies used naltrexone in oral and implantation formats in comparison with probation or parole (Cornish 1997), psychosocial therapy (Coviello 2010) and methadone (Lobmaier 2010), and the final study compared the use of buprenorphine with a placebo (Cropsey 2011).

  • No identified studies were conducted in a court setting.

  • Different outcome measures were presented for each study, and just under half of all studies reported four or more outcome measures (see  Table 1). Criminal justice and drug outcomes were measured by all studies except four. Two studies (Cornish 1997; Coviello 2010) reported on criminal activity outcomes only, and two studies (Dolan 2003; Cropsey 2011) reported on drug use only.

Countries in which the studies were conducted

  • Seven studies were published in the US, one in Iran, one in Australia, one in Norway and another in Germany.

Duration of trials

  • Most studies (n = 7) reported outcomes of six months or less, and the longest follow-up period was 12 months.

Participants

  • The eleven studies included adult drug-using offenders, nine of the eleven studies used samples with a majority of men and one study used female offenders only (Cropsey 2011); in one study, gender was not reported (Lobmann 2007).

  • The average age of study participants ranged from a mean of 27 years to 40.9 years.

 

Excluded studies

A total of 118 study comparisons were excluded. Reasons for exclusion included lack of criminal justice involvement in referral to the intervention (29 studies). Twenty excluded studies did not report relevant drug and/or crime outcome measures at both pre intervention and postintervention periods. Eleven studies reported allocation of participants to study groups that were not strictly randomly assigned or did not contain original trial data. One study was excluded in which follow-up periods were not equivalent across study groups (Di Nitto 2002), and another (Berman 2004) was excluded because the intervention (acupuncture) was not included for evaluation in the present review. A total of 59 study comparisons were excluded because the study population did not include a pharmacological intervention or did not consist of offenders. One study reported the protocol of a trial only (Baldus 2011). We were unable to obtain the data for one paper (Cogswell 2011).

 

Risk of bias in included studies

See Figure 2 and Figure 3 for further information.

 FigureFigure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
 FigureFigure 3. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

 

Allocation

Randomisation: All of the 11 included studies were described as randomised. In two studies, the reporting of this information was not noted as unclear, as it was difficult to find an accurate description of the methodology used. Two studies were reported at high risk of bias and six studies at low risk of bias .

Allocation concealment: Of the 11 included studies, only three reported that the allocation process was concealed and were rated at low risk of bias. One study was rated at high risk of bias. All of the remaining seven studies were rated as unclear, and the review author was not able to decide whether allocation concealment had occurred within the studies.

 

Blinding

Blinding was assessed across four dimensions considering performance and detection bias across subjective and objective measures see Appendix 14. Eight studies were rated as unclear risk of bias providing no information on blinding across all four domains (Bayanzadeh, 2004; Cropsey 2011; Dolan 2003; Dole 1969; Kinlock 2005; Kinlock 2007; Lobmann 2007; Magura 2009). Three studies were rated at high risk of bias for participant and personnel blinding (Cornish 1997; Coviello 2010; Lobmaier 2010). One study (Cornish 1997) was rated at low risk of outcome assessors on objective measures.

 

Incomplete outcome data

Four studies and four comparisons were noted at low risk of bias, four studies were noted at high risk of bias and the final three studies were rated as unclear.

 

Selective reporting

Unclear reporting was allocated to most of the studies within this category. Of the 11 studies, nine were rated as unclear, and one study was rated at low risk. The final study was reported at high risk of bias.

 

Other potential sources of bias

Threats to other bias within the study designs generally yielded mixed results. In total, five studies were rated at high risk. Low risk was noted in three further studies, and three studies were rated as unclear.

See Figure 2 and Figure 3 for additional details.

 

Effects of interventions

The 11 studies were included in a series of meta-analyses. We group our studies by drug and criminal activity outcomes (re arrest and re incarceration), setting (community and secure establishment) and intervention type (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone). Tests for heterogeneity at the 0.01 level revealed that across all meta-analyses, the studies were found to be homogeneous. Relative Risk (RR) was used to investigate the results of combining dichotomous outcome measures, and Mean Difference were calculated for continuous data comparisons. Higher scores on continuous measures represented greater harm.

Comparison 1 Pharmacological treatment vs no pharmacological treatment

Do pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders reduce drug use?

For dichotomous measure, results show an overall statistically significant reduction in drug use for objective results (biological), three studies, 300 participants: RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.97) and for subjective (self -report), three studies, 317 participants: RR 0.42 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.81). Whereas for continuous measures, self-report drug use did not show statistically significant differences, one study, 51participants: MD -59.66 (95% CI -120.60 to 1.28), see  Analysis 1.1;  Analysis 1.4; and  Analysis 1.5.

Does setting of intervention (community, prison/secure establishment) affect outcomes of pharmacological interventions?

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 settings, (one study, 201 participants: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.10)), the results are no longer statistically significant, see  Analysis 1.2 and  Analysis 1.3.

Do pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders reduce criminal activity?

 Analysis 1.6; and  Analysis 1.7 shows the impact of dichotomous and continuous criminal activity outcome measures. The results support an overall reduction in criminal activity but favour a greater reduction in re-incarceration, three studies, 142 participants: RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) than in re-arrests, one study, 62 participants: RR 0.60 (95%CI 0.32 to 1.14). The impact on criminal activities was evaluated also utilizing continuous measures in one study, 51 participants: MD of -74.21 (95% CI -133.53, to 14.89) the result is statistically significant in favour of pharmacological interventions.

Does the type of pharmacological intervention (medication type) affect treatment outcomes?

Buprenorphine impact on drug use

The impact of buprenorphine vs no pharmacological treatment in reduction of self-report drug use, was evaluated in one study, 36 participants: RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.35). The result is not statistically significant see  Analysis 2.1

Methadone impact on drug use

The impact of methadone vs no pharmacological treatment in reduction of self-report drug use was evaluated using dichotomous measure in one study, 253 participants: RR 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.56) and using continuous measure in one study, 51 participants: MD -0.52 (95% CI -1.09 to 0.05). The results are statistically significant in favour of methadone for dichotomous outcome see  Analysis 3.1;  Analysis 3.2.

Methadone impact on criminal activity

One study, 62 participants suggest that, methadone interventions do not reduce subsequent criminal activity for re-incarceration, (RR of 1.23 (95% CI 0.53 to 2.87) see  Analysis 3.3.

Naltrexone impact on criminal activity

Two studies, 114 participants focusing on the use of naltrexone vs no pharmacological treatment and subsequent criminal activity. The results indicate that naltrexone does appear to reduce subsequent re incarceration, with an RR of 0.36 (95% CI 0.19, 0.69), see  Analysis 4.1.

Comparison 2. Different pharmacological treatments

Do one type of pharmacological treatment perform better than one other?

1.Methadone vs buprenorphine

Impact on drug use

One study (Magura 2009), showed a non statistically significant reduction in self report drug use for 193 participants using a dichotomous outcome RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.86-1.76) and continuous outcomes MD 0.70 (95% CI -5.33 - 6.73) see  Analysis 5.1 and  Analysis 5.2 .

Criminal activity

One study (Magura 2009) showed a non statistically significant reduction in criminal activity for 193 participants RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.83 -1.88) see  Analysis 5.3.

2. Methadone vs diamorphine

Criminal activity

Rearrest: One study, (Lobmann 2007) 825 participants shows a non statistically significant reduction in criminal activity for re-arrests: RR 1.25 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.51) see  Analysis 6.1.

3. Methadone vs Naltrexone

Impact on drug use

One study (Lobmaier 2010) showed a non statistically significant reduction in self reported drug use continuous MD 4.60 (95% CI -3.54 - 12.74) see  Analysis 7.1.

Criminal activity

one study (Lobmaier 2010) showed a non statistically significant reduction in dichotomous re incarceration, outcomes RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.37 - 3.26) and continuous outcomes MD -0.50 (95% CI -8.04 - 7.04) see  Analysis 7.2;  Analysis 7.3.

Cost and cost-effectiveness

The Magura study noted differences in the costs of administering buprenorphine and methadone, but were not sufficient for us to conduct a full cost effectiveness appraisal (Magura 2009). The investigators estimated that about ten times as many inmates can be served with methadone as with buprenorphine with the same staff resources. This cost implication is also endorsed in the community, where physicians have difficulty in obtaining reimbursement for buprenorphine treatment for released inmates, making the continued use of buprenorphine problematic after release.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms
 

Summary of main results

This systematic review provides evidence from 11 trials producing several meta-analyses. When combined, the results suggest that pharmacological interventions do reduce subsequent drug use and criminal activity (but to a lesser extent). No significant difference was found between treatment settings. We did not find any studies evaluating the impact of pharmacological interventions in court settings. Currently, we cannot comment on the effectiveness of such interventions in this setting. Findings of the effects of individual interventions on drug use and criminal activity show mixed results.

When compared to a non pharmacological intervention both buprenorphine and methadone were shown to reduce subsequent drug use. We could not determine the impact of buprenorphine on criminal activity because we did not have the relevant study data. As a result, we cannot comment on the success of this intervention in reducing criminal activity. For methadone and naltrexone the impact on criminal activity outcomes showed conflicting results: Methadone was not found to have a significant impact on reduction of re-incarceration whereas naltrexone significantly reduced re incarceration. When comparing the drugs to one another we found no significant differences between the drug comparisons (methadone vs buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone) on any of the outcome measures suggesting that one pharmacological drug does not preside over another. One study provided some cost comparisons between buprenorphine and methadone, but data were not sufficient to generate a cost-effectiveness analysis. In conclusion, we found that pharmacological interventions do reduce subsequent drug use and criminal activity (to a lesser extent). Additionally, we found individual differences and variation on different outcome measures when pharmacological interventions were compared to a non pharmacological treatment but no significant differences when compared to another pharmacological treatment.

Buprenorphine

The Cropsey study specifically evaluated buprenorphine for opioid-dependent women with HIV risk and found that buprenorphine given to participants in prison (followed by its use upon release into the community) was beneficial in preventing or delaying relapse to opioid use (Cropsey 2011). The findings of this study add to the growing body of evidence (which primarily includes men) suggesting that outcomes with buprenorphine are comparable with what others have found with both methadone and methadone maintenance (Lobmaier 2010). The findings however were not sustained post treatment, and most women had relapsed to active opioid treatment at the three-month follow-up point. Support for this conclusion is provided by the meta-analysis suggests no long-term significant effect. Future studies on the use of buprenorphine in women should evaluate its impact on long-term effects with the goal of assessing its effect on opioid abstinence and prevention of associated criminal activity (Cropsey 2011). Overall, the dosage of buprenorphine varied between studies; in one study, instances of 30 mg rising to 130 mg were reported (Lobmaier 2010). A meta-analysis of buprenorphine dose and treatment outcome found that a higher dosage (16 to 32 mg per day) predicted better retention in treatment when compared with a lower dosage (Fareed, 2012).

Methadone

The Dole study found that 3 of 12 prisoners who started using methadone before release were convicted of new crimes during an 11.5-month follow-up compared with 15 of 16 prisoners randomly assigned to a control condition (Dole 1969). In contrast, another study reported on opioid agonist maintenance by examining levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM) before prison release and found no significant differences with regard to subsequent arrest of participants who received LAAM and a control group at nine months post-release (Kinlock 2005). Subsequent Kinlock studies involving evaluations of counselling only and counselling with transfer in comparison with counselling and methadone support the findings of Dole 1969 and Dolan 2003 suggesting that methadone programmes can provide effective opioid agonist therapy for prisoners with a history of heroin addiction (Kinlock 2007). In support of methadone treatment, the World Health Organisation has listed methadone as an essential medication and has strongly recommended that treatment should be made available in prison and supported subsequently within the community to significantly reduce the likelihood of adverse health and criminogenic consequences (Hergert 2005).

Dosage of methadone treatment varied across studies. For example, Magura 2009 reported problems with the use of sub optimal doses of methadone when higher doses were available. Investigators argue that higher doses appear to reflect participant preference because most did not intend to continue treatment after release. The Dolan study reported moderate doses of methadone (61 mg) and noted that outcomes may have improved if higher doses had been given (Dolan 2003). Significantly lower doses of methadone were noted in the Dole study, in which 10 mg of methadone per day was increased to a dosage of 35 mg per day (Dole 1969). Participants in the Kinlock 2005 study were medicated three times per week, starting at 10 mg and increasing by 5 mg every third medication day during incarceration to a target dose of 50 mg. Evidence from the Amato 2005 review suggests that low dosages of methadone maintenance lead to compromise in the effectiveness of treatment and that recommendations for dosage should be monitored at around 60 mg. Additional systematic review evidence considering the use of methadone and a tapered dose for the management of opioid withdrawal show a wide range of programmes with differing outcome measures, making the application of meta-analysis difficult (Amato 2013). The authors conclude that slow tapering with temporary substitution of long-acting opioids can reduce withdrawal severity; however, most participants still relapsed to heroin use (Amato 2013).

Naltrexone

For evaluation of naltrexone, two studies (one pilot: Cornish 1997) and a subsequent larger replication trial (Coviello 2010) show that use of a larger sample size consisting of a diverse group of offenders resulted in no differences in criminal behaviour between naltrexone and treatment as usual groups. The authors note that one of the major differences between the two studies remains the extent and quality of supervision provided by parole officers. The authors suggest that for treatment to be successful, use of oral naltrexone by probationers and parolees requires more supervision than is typically available within the criminal justice system. Study authors reported instances of 35 mg of naltrexone rising to 300 mg (Coviello 2010). Other research evidence related to naltrexone use and mortality rates highlights possible concerns about the high risk of death after treatment. Gibson 2007 compared mortality rates associated with naltrexone and methadone by using retrospective data analysis of coronial participants between 2000 and 2003. Findings show that participants receiving naltrexone were up to 7.4 times more likely to die after receiving treatment when compared with those using methadone over the same time period. Although this study was not conducted in a population of prisoners, it is likely that such risks are comparable; therefore generalised use of naltrexone and associated subsequent supervision of those taking naltrexone in its oral form require careful consideration.

 

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

Overall, the findings of this review suggest that pharmacological interventions have an impact on reducing self-report drug use. Individual pharmacological drugs had differing effects, particularly in relation to subsequent drug use. Promising results highlight the use of methadone within a prison environment but may be limited to shorter-term outcomes when prisoners are released into the community. For naltrexone, the evidence is sparse and presents problems associated with different mechanisms of drug administration (e.g. oral vs implants). We can say little about the cost and cost-effectiveness of these studies. One study reported some descriptive cost information, but the information was insufficient to generate a cost analysis Magura 2009. In conclusion, high-quality research is required to evaluate the processes involved in the engagement of offenders mandated to substance abuse programmes to enable us to understand better why a programme works and why it does not.

 

Quality of the evidence

A number of limitations within each of the studies are highlighted by the authors. High dropout rates were noted in the methadone group after prison release in the Lobmaier study and appear to be more difficult to maintain in offender populations (Lobmaier 2010). Major limitations of the Coviello 2010 study included low treatment retention and low six-month follow-up rates. Most offenders did not return for the follow-up evaluation because they could not be located (63%). Only two-thirds of treated participants remained in treatment in the Dolan study (Dolan 2003). As a consequence, the study does not provide conclusive evidence regarding the efficacy of oral naltrexone in this offender sample. Attrition was also a problem in the Kinlock 2005 study; this was due in part to the fact that individuals were being transferred to other prisons or were having their sentences extended because of preexisting charges (Kinlock 2005). Similiar problems of segregation and impact of sentence releases affected the sample size in the Bayanzadeh, 2004 study. Such attrition within studies threatens the comparability of experimental and control groups, thereby ensuring that any conclusions should be taken with considerable caution. In particular, the Bayanzadeh study noted some of the practical difficulties associated with contamination between experimental and control groups, given that the ideal would be to keep the groups apart.

Sample sizes were considered modest in a number of studies, with attrition presenting difficulties in interpretation of study findings. For example, 30% attrition at follow-up producing possible threats to the internal validity of the study design (Magura 2009) and similar small sample sizes in the Lobmaier trial may have been too small to reveal any differences between the two treatment conditions (Lobmaier 2010). Larger trials are therefore required to assess the possible advantages of one treatment over the other. The Cropsey 2011 study identified a sample of 36 women and randomly allocated 15 to the intervention and 12 to the placebo group. Investigators note that although the potency of buprenorphine for control of opioid use is clearly demonstrated, a larger sample size may be needed to detect significant differences between groups on other variables of interest. The study was limited to three months of treatment, and further studies should explore the provision of buprenorphine for longer periods of time to prolong opioid abstinence and prevent associated criminal activity. Similiar short follow-up periods were noted in other trials, including Dolan 2003.

 

Potential biases in the review process

Despite limitations associated with the literature, two limitations in review methodology were achieved. Specifically, the original review included an additional five fee paying databases and one search using DrugScope. In this current review resources did not allow such extensive searching. Whislt the electronic databases searches have been updated to March 2013. the web site search has been updated to November 2011. As a result some literature may have been missed from this current review

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

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.

 
Implications for research

Several research implications can be identified from this review.

  1. Generally, better quality research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions with extended long-term effects of aftercare following release into the community.
  2. Buprenorphine research in the prison environment requires evidence of the long-term impact and larger studies.
  3. Evidence for naltrexone is less convincing. Trials evaluating differences between oral and implantation naltrexone and associated supervision requirements under the criminal justice system are required.
  4. We know nothing about pharmacological interventions implemented through the court setting; exploration of some court diversionary schemes using different pharmacological interventions would be useful. Future clinical trials should collect information from all sectors of the criminal justice system. This would enhance the heterogeneous nature of the included studies and would facilitate generalisation of study findings.
  5. Evidence of comparable mortality rates in prisoners using pharmacological interventions (particularly after release) needs to be explored to assess the long-term outcomes of such treatments.
  6. The link between dosage, treatment retention and subsequent criminal activity should be examined across all three pharmacological treatment options. Evidence from other trial data suggests that dose has important implications for retention in treatment; in future studies, this should be considered alongside criminal activity outcomes.
  7. Cost and cost-effectiveness information should be standardized within trial evaluations; this will help policymakers to decide upon health versus criminal justice costs.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms

We would like to acknowledge the help of the York Health Economics Consortium and The Health Sciences Department at the University of York and the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms
Download statistical data

 
Comparison 1. Any pharmacological vs no pharmacological

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Drug use (objective)3300Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI)0.71 [0.52, 0.97]

 2 Drug use community setting299Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI)0.62 [0.35, 1.09]

 3 Drug use secure establishment1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 4 Drug use self reported dichotomous3317Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI)0.42 [0.22, 0.81]

 5 Drug use self reported continuous1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 6 Criminal activity dichotomous4Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    6.1 Arrests
162Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.60 [0.32, 1.14]

    6.2 Re-incarceration
3142Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.33 [0.19, 0.56]

 7 Criminal activity continuous1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 
Comparison 2. Buprenorphine vs no pharmacological

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Self report drug use dichotomous1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 
Comparison 3. Methadone vs no pharmacological

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Self-report drug use dichotomous1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 2 Self report drug use continuous1Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 3 Re-incarceration dichotomous1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 
Comparison 4. Naltrexone vs no pharmacological

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Criminal activity dichotomous2Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    1.1 Reincarceration
2114Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.36 [0.19, 0.69]

 
Comparison 5. Methadone vs buprenorphine

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Self reported drug use dichotomous1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 2 Self reported drug use continuous1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 3 Criminal activity dichotomous1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    3.1 re incarceration
1116Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.25 [0.83, 1.88]

 
Comparison 6. Methadone vs diamorphine

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 criminal activity dichotomous1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    1.1 arrest
1825Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.25 [1.03, 1.51]

 
Comparison 7. Methadone vs naltrexone

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 self reported drug use continuous1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 2 criminal activity dichotomous1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

    2.1 re incarceration
144Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.10 [0.37, 3.26]

 3 criminal activity continuous1Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms
 

Appendix 1. MEDLINE search strategy


MEDLINE search

1. exp "Substance-Related-Disorders"/

2. ((drug or substance) adj (abuse* or addict* or dependen* or misuse*)).ti,ab

3. (drug* adj (treat* or intervention* or program*)

4. substance near (treat* or intervention* or program*)

5.(detox* or methadone) in ti,ab

6. narcotic* near (treat* or intervention* or program*)

7. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6

8. prison*. ti,ab

9. exp "Prisoners"/

10. offender* or criminal* or inmate* or convict* or probation* or remand or felon*).ti,ab

11. exp "Prisons"/

12. 8 or 9 or 10 or 11

13. 7 and 12



 

Appendix 2. EMBASE search strategy


Embase search

1. (detox$ or methadone or antagonist prescri$).ti,ab.

2. detoxification/ or drug detoxification/ or drug withdrawal/ or drug dependence treatment/ or methadone/ or methadone treatment/ or diamorphine/ or naltrexone/

3. (diamorphine or naltrexone or therapeutic communit$).ti,ab.

4. morality/

5. (motivational interview$ or motivational enhancement).ti,ab.

6. (counselling or counseling).ti,ab.

7. exp counseling/

8. (psychotherap$ or cognitive behavioral or cognitive behavioural).ti,ab.

9. exp psychotherapy/

10. (moral adj3 training).ti,ab.

11. (cognitive restructuring or assertiveness training).ti,ab.

12. reinforcement/ or self monitoring/ or self control/

13. (relaxation training or rational emotive or family relationship therap$).ti,ab.

14. social learning/ or withdrawal syndrome/ or coping behavior/

15. (community reinforcement or self monitoring or self control or self management or interpersonal skills).ti,ab.

16. (goal$ adj3 setting).ti,ab.

17. (social skills adj3 training).ti,ab.

18. anger/ or lifestyle/

19. (basic skills adj3 training).ti,ab.

20. (relapse adj3 prevent$).ti,ab.

21. (craving adj3 (minimi$ or reduc$)).ti,ab.

22. (trigger or triggers or coping skills or anger management or group work).ti,ab.

23. (lifestyle adj3 modifi$).ti,ab.

24. (high intensity training or resettlement or throughcare or aftercare or after care).ti,ab.

25. aftercare/ or halfway house/

26. (brief solution or brief intervention$ or minnesota program$ or 12 step$ or twelve step$).ti,ab.

27. (needle exchange or nes or syringe exchange or dual diagnosis or narcotics anonymous).ti,ab.

28. self help/ or support group/

29. (self-help or selfhelp or self help or outreach or bail support or arrest referral$).ti,ab.

30. exp urinalysis/ or rehabilitation/ or rehabilitation center/

31. (diversion or dtto or dttos or drug treatment or testing order$ or carat or carats).ti,ab

32. (combined orders or drug-free or drug free).ti,ab.

33. (peer support or evaluation$ or urinalysis or drug testing or drug test or drug tests).ti,ab.

34. ((rehab or rehabilitation or residential or discrete) adj2 (service$ or program$)).ti,ab.

35. (asro or addressing substance$ or pasro or prisons addressing or acupuncture or shock or boot camp or boot camps).ti,ab.

36. (work ethic camp$ or drug education or tasc or treatment accountability).ti,ab

37. exp acupuncture/

38. or/1-36

39. (remand or prison or prisoner or prisoners or offender$ or criminal$ or probation or court or courts).ti,ab.

40. (secure establishment$ or secure facilit$).ti,ab.

41. (reoffend$ or reincarcerat$ or recidivi$ or ex-offender$ or jail or jails or goal or goals).ti,ab.

42. (incarcerat$ or convict or convicts or convicted or felon or felons or conviction$ or revocation or inmate$ or high security).ti,ab.

43. criminal justice/ or custody/ or detention/ or prison/ or prisoner/ or offender/ or probation/ or court/ or recidivism/ or crime/ or criminal behavior/ or punishment/

44. or/39-43

45. 38 and 44

46. (substance abuse$ or substance misuse$ or substance use$).ti,ab.

47. (drug dependanc$ or drug abuse$ or drug use$ or drug misuse$ or drug addict$).ti,ab.

48. (narcotics adj3 (addict$ or use$ or misuse$ or abuse$)).ti,ab.

49. (chemical dependanc$ or opiates or heroin or crack or cocaine or amphetamines or addiction or dependance disorder or drug involved).ti,ab.

50. substance abuse/ or drug abuse/ or analgesic agent abuse/ or drug abuse pattern/ or drug misuse/ or intravenous drug abuse/ or multiple drug abuse/

51. addiction/ or drug dependence/ or narcotic dependence/ or exp narcotic agent/ or narcotic analgesic agent/

52. opiate addiction/ or heroin dependence/ or morphine addiction/

53. cocaine/ or amphetamine derivative/ or psychotropic agent/

54. or/46-53

55. 45 and 54

56. limit 55 to yr=1980-2004



 

Appendix 3. PsycInfo search strategy


PsycInfo

1. (detoxification in de) or (drug withdrawal in de)

2. (drug usage screening in de) or (methadone maintenance) in de

3. explode "Narcotic-Antagonists" in DE

4. 1 or 2 or 3

5. (counseling in de) or (explode "psychotherapeutic-counseling" in de)

6. (explode "cognitive-therapy" in de) or (explode "psychotherapeutic-techniques" in de)

7. (cognitive restructuring in de) or (assertiveness training in de)

8. explode "relaxation-therapy" in de

9. (rational emotive therapy in de) or (rational-emotive therapy in de)

10. (explode "self monitoring" in de) or (explode self-monitoring) in de

11. (goal setting in de) or (self control in de) or (explode "self-management" in de)

12. (social skills in de) or (relapse prevention in de) or (craving in de) or (coping behavior in de)

13. (anger control in de) or (explode "group-psychotherapy" in de) or (brief psychotherapy in de)

14. (explode "behavior-modification" in de) or (posttreatment followup in de) or (aftercare in de)

15. (halfway houses in de) or (twelve step programs in de)

16. (dual diagnoses in de) or (explode "self help techniques" in de) or (outreach programs in de) or (court referrals in de)

17. (peer pressure in de) or (urinalysis in de)

18. (drug rehabilitation in de) or (residential care institutions in de) or (acupuncture in de) or (drug education in de)

19. (detox* or methadone or antagonist prescri* or diamorphine or naltrexone or therapeutic communit*) in ti,ab

20. (motivational interview* or motivational enhancemen* or counseling or psychotherapy or psychotherapies) in ti,ab

21. (cognitive behav* or cognitive therapy or cognitive therapies or moral training or cognitive restructuring) in ti,ab

22. (assertiveness training or relaxation training or relaxation therapy or relaxation therapies) in ti,ab

23. (rational emotive therap* or rational emotive behav* therap* or family relationship therap* or community reinforcement) in ti,ab

24. (self-monitor* or self monitor* or goal setting or self control or self-control or self management or self-management) in ti,ab

25. (interpersonal skills training or social skills training or basic skills training) in ti,ab

26. (relapse with prevent*) in ti,ab

27. (craving near reduc*) in ti,ab

28. craving with (reduc* in ti,ab)

29. (trigger* or coping skills or anger management or group work or lifestyle modif* or high intensity training or resettlement) in ti,ab

30. (throughcare or aftercare or after care or brief solution* or brief intervention*) in ti,ab

31. (minnesota or 12 step* or twelve step* or needle exchange or nes or syringe exchange or dual diagnosis) in ti,ab

32. (narcotics anonymous or self-help or self help or outreach or bail support or arrest referral*) in ti,ab

33. (diversion or dtto* or testing order* or carat* or counseling assessment referral or combined order or combined orders or drug free wing* or drug free environment*) in ti,ab

34. (peer support or user evaluations or urinalysis or urinalyses or mandatory drug test* or rehabilitation or discrete service* or discrete program*) in ti,ab

35. (residential program* or residential scheme* or asro or addressing substance* or pasro or prisons addressing substance) in ti,ab

36. (acupuncture or shock or boot camp* or work ethic or drug education or tasc or treatment accountability) in ti,ab

37. or/4-36

38. (secure facilities or convict* or revocation or inmate* or high security) in ti,ab

39. (prisoners in de) or (explode "correctional-institutions" in de)

40. (perpetrators in de) or (explode criminals in de)

41. (probation in de) or (parole in de) or (incarceration in de) or (recidivism in de) or (criminal conviction in de) or (crime in de)

42. (remand or prison* or offender* or criminal* or probation or court or courts or secure establishment* or reoffend* or reincarcerat* or recidivi* or ex-offender* or jail or jails or incarcerat*) in ti,ab

43. (drug abuse in de) or (explode "inhalant-abuse" in de) or (explode "drug-dependency" in de)

44. (polydrug abuse in de) or (drug abuse in de) or (intravenous drug usage in de)

45. (narcotic drugs in de) or (heroin in de) or (cocaine in de) or (explode amphetamine in de)

46. (substance abuse* or substance misuse* or substance user*) in ti,ab

47. (drug dependen* or drug abuse* or drug misuse* or drug addict* or drug use) in ti,ab

48. (narcotic abuse* or narcotic misuse* or chemical dependen* or opiate misuse* or opiate abuse*) in ti,ab

49. (heroin use* or heroin addict* or heroin misuse* or heroin abuse*) in ti,ab

50. (crack use* or crack addict* or crack misuse* or crack abuse*) in ti,ab

51. (cocaine use* or cocaine addict* or cocaine misuse* or cocaine abuse*) in ti,ab

52. (amphetamine* use* or amphetamine* addict* or amphetamine* misuse* or amphetamine* abuse*) in ti,ab

53. (dependence disorder or drug involved or dug-involved) in ti,ab

54. #38 or #39 or #40 or #41 or #42

55. #4 or #43 or #44 or #45 or #46 or #47 or #48 or #49 or #50 or #51 or #52 or #53

56. #37 and #54 and #55



 

Appendix 4. SPECTRA search strategy


SPECTRA search

1. {remand} or {prison} or {offender} or {criminal} or {probation} or {court} or {tribunal} or {secure establishment} or {secure facilit} or {reoffend} or {reincarcerat} or {recidivi} or {ex-offender} or {jail} or {incarcerat} or {convict} or {felon} or {reconvict} or {high security} or {law enforcement}
{remand} or {prison} or {offender} or {criminal} or {probation} or {court} or {tribunal} or {secure establishment} or {secure facilit} or {reoffend} or {reincarcerat} or {recidivi} or {ex-offender} or {jail} or {incarcerat} or {convict} or {felon} or {reconvict} or {high security} or {law enforcement}

2. {substance} or {dependenc} or {drug abuse} or {drug use} or {drug misuse} or {addict}


All indexed fields: {remand} or {prison} or {offender} or {criminal} or {probation} or {court} or {tribunal} or {secure establishment} or {secure facilit} or {reoffend} or {reincarcerat} or {recidivi} or {ex-offender} or {jail} or {incarcerat} or {convict} or {felon} or {reconvict} or {high security} or {law enforcement}
OR
All unindexed fields: {remand} or {prison} or {offender} or {criminal} or {probation} or {court} or {tribunal} or {secure establishment} or {secure facilit} or {reoffend} or {reincarcerat} or {recidivi} or {ex-offender} or {jail} or {incarcerat} or {convict} or {felon} or {reconvict} or {high security} or {law enforcement}
AND
All unindexed fields: {substance} or {dependenc} or {drug abuse} or {drug use} or {drug misuse} or {addict} or {narcotics} or {opiates} or {heroin} or {crack} or {cocaine} or {amphetamines} or {drug involved} or {substance-related} or {amphetamine-related} or {cocaine-related} or {marijuana} or {opioid} or {street drug} or {designer drug}

3. narcotics

4. opiates

5. heroin

6. {crack}

7. cocaine

8. amphetamines

9. drug involved

10. substance-related

11. amphetamine-related

12. cocaine-related

13. marijuana

14. opioid

15. street drug

16. designer drug

17. 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16

18. 1 AND 17



 

Appendix 5. PASCAL. SciSearch, Social SciSSciSearch, Wilson Applied Science and Technology Abstracts search strategy


PASCAL search

1. (DETOX? OR METHADONE OR ANTAGONIST()PRESCRI?)/TI,AB

2. METHADONE/DE OR NALTREXONE/DE

3. (DIAMORPHINE OR NALTREXONE)/TI,AB

4. THERAPEUTIC()COMMUNITY/DE OR THERAPEUTIC()COMMUNIT?)/TI,AB

5. (MOTIVATIONAL()INTERVIEW? OR MOTIVATIONAL()ENHANCEMENT)/TI,AB

6. (COUNSELLING OR COUNSELING)/TI,AB

7. COUNSELING/DE

8. (PSYCHOTHERAP? OR COGNITIVE()BEHAVIORAL OR COGNITIVE()BEHAVIOURAL)/TI,AB

9. PSYCHOTHERAPY!/DE

10. (MORAL(3W)TRAINING)/TI,AB

11. (COGNITIVE()RESTRUCTURING OR ASSERTIVENESS()TRAINING)/TI,AB

12. ASSERTIVENESS/DE OR RELAXATION()TECHNIQUES/DE

13. (RELAXATION()TRAINING OR RATIONAL()EMOTIVE OR FAMILY()RELATIONSHIP()THERAP?)/TI,AB

14. FAMILY()RELATIONS/DE

15. (COMMUNITY()REINFORCEMENT OR SELF()MONITORING OR SELF()CONTROL OR SELF()MANAGEMENT OR INTERPERSONAL()SKILLS)/TI,AB

16. (GOAL?(3W)SETTING)/TI,AB

17. (SOCIAL(3W)TRAINING)/TI,AB

18. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY/DE

19. (BASIC()SKILLS(3W)TRAINING)/TI,AB

20. (RELAPSE(3W)PREVENT?)/TI,AB

21. (CRAVING(3W)(MINIMI? OR REDUC?))/TI,AB

22. (TRIGGER OR TRIGGERS OR COPING()SKILLS OR ANGER()MANAGEMENT OR GROUP()WORK)/TI,AB

23. (LIFESTYLE(3W)MODIFI?)/TI,AB

24. (HIGH()INTENSITY()TRAINING OR RESETTLEMENT OR THROUGHCARE OR AFTERCARE OR AFTER()CARE)/TI,AB

25. ADAPTATION,-PSYCHOLOGICAL!/DE OR ANGER/DE OR LIFE()STYLE/DE OR AFTER()CARE/DE OR HALFWAY()HOUSES/DE

26. (BRIEF()SOLUTION OR BRIEF()INTERVENTION? OR MINNESOTA()PROGRAM? OR 12()STEP? OR TWELVE()STEP?)/TI,AB

27. (NEEDLE()EXCHANGE OR NES OR SYRINGE()EXCHANGE OR DUAL()DIAGNOSIS OR NARCOTICS()ANONYMOUS)/TI,AB

28. NEEDLE-EXCHANGE()PROGRAMS/DE

29. (SELF-HELP OR SELFHELP OR SELF()HELP OR OUTREACH OR BAIL()SUPPORT OR ARREST()REFERRAL?)/TI,AB

30. SELF-HELP()GROUPS/DE OR URINALYSIS/DE OR SUBSTANCE()ABUSE()DETECTION/DE

31. (DIVERSION OR DTTO OR DTTOS OR DRUG()TREATMENT OR TESTING()ORDER? ? OR CARAT OR CARATS)/TI,AB

32. (COMBINED()ORDERS OR DRUG-FREE OR DRUG()FREE)/TI,AB

33. (PEER()SUPPORT OR EVALUATION? ? OR URINALYSIS OR DRUG()TESTING OR DRUG()TEST? ?)/TI,AB

34. ((REHAB OR REHABILITATION OR RESIDENTIAL OR DISCRETE)(2W)(SERVICE? ? OR PROGRAM?))/TI,AB

35. (ASRO OR ADDRESSING()SUBSTANCE? OR PASRO OR PRISONS()ADDRESSING OR ACUPUNCTURE OR SHOCK OR BOOT()CAMP OR BOOT()CAMPS)/TI,AB

36. (WORK()ETHIC()CAMP? ? OR DRUG()EDUCATION OR TASC OR TREATMENT()ACCOUNTABILITY)/TI,AB

37. ACUPUNCTURE-THERAPY!/DE OR ACUPUNCTURE/DE OR HEALTH()EDUCATION/DE OR SUBSTANCE()ABUSE()TREATMENT()CENTERS/DE

38. S1:S3

39. S4:S37

40. S38 AND S39

40. (REMAND OR PRISON OR PRISONER OR PRISONERS OR OFFENDER? ? OR CRIMINAL? ? OR PROBATION OR COURT OR COURTS)/TI,AB

41. (SECURE()ESTABLISHMENT? ? OR SECURE()FACILIT?)/TI,AB

42. (REOFFEND? OR REINCARCERAT? OR RECIDIVI? OR EX()OFFENDER? ? OR JAIL OR JAILS)/TI,AB

43. (INCARCERAT? OR CONVICT OR CONVICTS OR CONVICTED OR FELON? ? OR CONVICTION? ? OR REVOCATION OR INMATE? ? OR HIGH()SECURITY)/TI,AB

44. PRISONERS/DE OR LAW()ENFORCEMENT/DE OR JURISPRUDENCE/DE

45. S40:S44

46. S40 AND S45

47. (SUBSTANCE()ABUSE? OR SUBSTANCE()MISUSE? OR SUBSTANCE()USE?)/TI,AB

48. (DRUG()DEPENDANC? OR DRUG()ABUSE? OR DRUG()USE? OR DRUG()MISUSE? OR DRUG()ADDICT?)/TI,AB

49. (NARCOTICS(3W)(ADDICT? OR USE? OR MISUSE? OR ABUSE?))/TI,AB

50. (CHEMICAL()DEPENDANC? OR OPIATES OR HEROIN OR CRACK OR COCAINE OR AMPHETAMINES OR ADDICTION OR DEPENDENCE()DISORDER OR DRUG()INVOLVED)/TI,AB

51. SUBSTANCE-RELATED()DISORDERS/DE OR AMPHETAMINE-RELATED()DISORDERS/DE OR COCAINE-RELATED()DISORDERS/DE OR MARIJUANA ()ABUSE/DE

52. OPIOID-RELATED-DISORDERS!/DE OR PHENCYCLIDINE()ABUSE/DE OR SUBSTANCE()ABUSE()INTRAVENOUS/DE

53. STREET()DRUGS/DE OR DESIGNER()DRUGS/DE OR NARCOTICS/DE

54. COCAINE!/DE OR AMPHETAMINES!/DE OR ANALGESICS()OPIOID/DE

55. S47:S54

56. S46 AND S55

57. (DETOXIFICATION OR METHADONE OR ANTAGONIST-PRESCRIBING)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

58. (DIAMORPHINE OR NALTREXONE)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

59. THERAPEUTIC-COMMUNITY)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

60. (MOTIVATIONAL-INTERVIEW OR MOTIVATIONAL-ENHANCEMENT)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

61. (COUNSELLING OR COUNSELING)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

62. (PSYCHOTHERAPY! OR COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL OR COGNITIVE-BEHAVIOURAL)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

63. (MORAL-TRAINING)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

64. (COGNITIVE-RESTRUCTURING OR ASSERTIVENESS-TRAINING)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

65. (RELAXATION-TRAINING OR RATIONAL-EMOTIVE OR FAMILY-RELATIONSHIP-THERAPY)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

66. FAMILY-RELATIONS/DE

67. (COMMUNITY-REINFORCEMENT OR SELF-MONITORING OR SELF-CONTROL OR SELF-MANAGEMENT OR INTERPERSONAL-SKILLS)/DE FROM 44,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

68. (GOAL-SETTING)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

69. (SOCIAL-SKILLS-TRAINING)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

70. SOCIAL-RESPONSIBILITY/DE

71. (BASIC-SKILLS-TRAINING)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

72. (RELAPSE-PREVENTION)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

73. CRAVING/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

74. (TRIGGER OR COPING-SKILLS OR ANGER-MANAGEMENT OR GROUP-WORK)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

75. (LIFESTYLE-MODIFICATION)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

76. (HIGH-INTENSITY-TRAINING OR RESETTLEMENT OR THROUGHCARE OR AFTERCARE OR AFTER-CARE)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

77. (BRIEF-SOLUTION OR BRIEF-INTERVENTIONS OR MINNESOTA-PROGRAM OR 12-STEP-PROGRAM OR TWELVE-STEP-PROGRAM)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

77. (NEEDLE-EXCHANGE OR SYRINGE-EXCHANGE OR DUAL-DIAGNOSIS OR NARCOTICS-ANONYMOUS)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

79. (SELF-HELP OR OUTREACH OR BAIL-SUPPORT OR ARREST-REFERRAL)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

80. (DRUG-TREATMENT OR TESTING-ORDERS OR CARAT)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

81. (COMBINED-ORDERS OR DRUG-FREE)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

82. (PEER-SUPPORT OR EVALUATION OR URINALYSIS OR DRUG-TESTING OR DRUG-TESTS)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

83. (REHABILITATION OR RESIDENTIAL OR DISCRETE-SERVICES)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

84. (ASRO OR PASRO ACUPUNCTURE OR BOOT-CAMP)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

85. (WORK-ETHIC-CAMP OR DRUG-EDUCATION OR TASC OR TREATMENT-ACCOUNTABILITY)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

86. (REMAND OR PRISON OR PRISONER OR PRISONERS OR OFFENDER OR OFFENDERS OR CRIMINAL OR CRIMINALS OR PROBATION OR COURT OR COURTS)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

87. (SECURE-ESTABLISHMENTS OR SECURE-FACILITY)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

88. (REOFFENDERS OR REINCARCERATION OR RECIDIVISM OR EX-OFFENDERS OR JAILS)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

89. (INCARCERATION OR CONVICT OR CONVICTS OR FELON OR FELONS OR CONVICTIONS OR REVOCATION OR INMATE OR INMATES OR HIGH-SECURITY)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

90. (SUBSTANCE-ABUSE OR SUBSTANCE-MISUSE OR SUBSTANCE-USE)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

91. (DRUG-DEPENDANCE OR DRUG-DEPENDENCY OR DRUG-ABUSE OR DRUG-MISUSE OR DRUG-ADDICT OR DRUG-ADDICTION)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

92. (CHEMICAL-DEPENDANCY OR OPIATE-DEPENDENCY OR HEROIN-DEPENDENCY OR CRACK-DEPENDENCY OR COCAINE-DEPENDENCY OR AMPHETAMINES OR ADDICTION OR DEPENDENCE-DISORDER OR DRUG-INVOLVED)/DE FROM 144,34,434,7,99,65,35,6

93. S40 OR S57:S85

94. S45 OR S86:S89

95. S55 OR S90:S92

96. S93 AND S94 AND S95

97. S96/1980-2004



 

Appendix 6. The CENTRAL Register of Controlled trials search strategy


CENTRAL search

1. prison*

2. offender*

3. (criminal* or probation or court*)

4. (secure next establishment*)

5. reoffend*

6. reincarcerat*

7. recidiv*

8. exoffend*

9. (jail or jails or incarcerat*)

10. (secure next facilit*)

10(secure next facilit*)

11. (convict* or revocation or inmate* or (high next security))

12. PRISONERS

13. LAW ENFORCEMENT

14. JURISPRUDENCE

15. CRIME

16. #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15

17. SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS

18. ((substance or drug*) next (abuse* or misuse* or dependen*or use* or addict*))

19. (narcotics or chemical or opiate) next (dependen* or addict* or abuse* or misuse*))

20. ((heroin) next (addict* or dependen* or misuse* or abuse*))

21. ((crack) next (addict* or dependen* or misuse* or abuse* or use*))

22. ((cocaine next addict*) or (cocaine next dependenc*) or (cocaine next misuse*) or (cocaine next abuse*) or (cocaine next use*))

23. ((amphetamine*) next (addict* or dependen* or misuse* or abuse* or use*))

24. (addicts or (dependence next disorder) or (drug next involved))

25. (street next drugs)

26. STREET DRUGS

27. DESIGNER DRUGS

28. NARCOTICS

29. COCAINE

30. AMPHETAMINES

31. ANALGESICS ADDICTIVE

32. ANALGESICS OPIOID

33. PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS

34. opioid* or opiat*

35. #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 or #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 or #26 or #27 or #28 or #29 or #30 or #31 or #32 or #33 or #34

35. (#16 and #35)



 

Appendix 7. SIGLE search strategy


SIGLE

1. ((reoffend* or reincarcerat* or recidivi* or ex-offend* or jail or jails or incarcerat* or secure facilit* or convict* or revocation or inmate*) in ti,ab)

2. ((remand or prison* or offender* or criminal* or probation or court or courts or secure establishment*) in ti,ab

3. ((drug dependenc* or drug addict* or narcotics abuse* or narcotics use* or narcotics misuse* or narcotics addict*) in ti,ab

4. ((drug abuse* or drug misuse* or drug use*) in ti,ab

5. ((substance abuse* or substance misuse* or substance use*) in ti,ab

6. ((detox* or methadone maintenance or methadone prescri* or antagonist prescri* or dimorphine or naltrexone) in ti,ab

7. ((dependence disorder or drug involved) in ti,ab

8. ((amphetamine* abuse* or amphetamine* misuse* or amphetamine* use* or amphetamine* addict*) in ti,ab

9. ((cocaine abuse* or cocaine misuse* or cocaine use* or cocaine addict*) in ti,ab

10. ((crack abuse* or crack misuse* or crack use* or crack addict*) in ti,ab

11. ((heroin abuse* or heroin misuse* or heroin use* or heroin addict*) in ti,ab

12. ((chemical dependenc* or opiate abuse* or opiate misuse* or opiate use* or opiate addict*) in ti,ab

13. #1 or #2

14. #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12

15. #13 and #14



 

Appendix 8. Sociological Abstracts search strategy


Sociological Abstrac

1. remand in de

2. detention in de

3. prisoners in de

4. prisons in de

5. offenders in de

6. parole in de

7. probation in de

8. correctional system in de

9. courts in de

10. imprisonment in de

11. criminal justice in de

12. criminal proceedings in de

13. recidivism in de

14. jail in de

15. institutionalization (persons) in de

16. conviction/convictions in de

17. (remand or prison* or offender* or criminal* or probation or court or courts or secure establishment*) in ti,ab

18. (reoffend* or reincarcerat* or recidivi* or ex-offend* or jail or jails or incarcerat* or secure facilit* or convict* or revocation or inmate*) in ti,ab

19. #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19

20. substance abuse in de

21. explode "Drug-Abuse" in DE

22. "Drug-Injection" in DE

23. explode "Narcotic-Drugs" in DE

24. "Cocaine-" in DE

25. "Addiction-" in DE

26. explode "Psychedelic-Drugs" in DE

27. (substance abuse* or substance misuse* or substance use*) in ti,ab

28. (drug abuse* or drug misuse* or drug use*) in ti,ab

29. (drug dependenc* or drug addict* or narcotics abuse* or narcotics use* or narcotics misuse* or narcotics addict*) in ti,ab

30. (chemical dependenc* or opiate abuse* or opiate misuse* or opiate use* or opiate addict*) in ti,ab

31. (heroin abuse* or heroin misuse* or heroin use* or heroin addict*) in ti,ab

32. (crack abuse* or crack misuse* or crack use* or crack addict*) in ti,ab

33. (cocaine abuse* or cocaine misuse* or cocaine use* or cocaine addict*) in ti,ab

34. (amphetamine* abuse* or amphetamine* misuse* or amphetamine* use* or amphetamine* addict*) in ti,ab

35. (dependence disorder or drug involved) in ti,ab

36. #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 or #26 or #27 or #28 or #29 or #30 or #31 or #32 or #33 or #34 or #35

37. #19 and #36

38. "Detoxification-" in DE

39. "Methadone-Maintenance" in DE

40. "Counseling-" in DE

41. "Psychotherapy-" in DE

42. "Assertiveness-" in DE

43. (detoxification in de) or (methadone maintenance in de) or (treatment programs in de)

44. (counseling in de) or (psychotherapy in de) or (assertiveness in de) or (group therapy in de) or (goals in de) or (self control in de)

45. (interpersonal communication in de) or (social interaction in de) or (social competence in de) or (coping in de)

46. (social behavior in de) or (group work in de) or (lifestyle in de)

47. (after care in de) or (support networks in de) or (self help in de) or (self help groups in de) or (outreach programmes in de)

48. (outreach programs in de) or (referral in de) or (delinquency prevention in de) or (diversion/diversions in de)

49. (peer groups in de) or (peer influence in de) or (drug use screening in de) or (rehabilitation in de) or (work experience in de)

50. (detox* or methadone maintenance or methadone prescri* or antagonist prescri* or dimorphine or naltrexone) in ti,ab

51. (therapeutic communit* or motivational interview* or motivational enhance* or counseling or counselling or psychotherapy or cognitive behavi*) in ti,ab

52. (moral training or cognitive restructuring or assertiveness training or relaxation training) in ti,ab

53. (rational-emotive or rational emotive or family relationship therap* or community reinforcement or self monitoring or goal setting or self control training) in ti,ab

54. (self management or interpersonal skills or social skills or basic skills or relapse prevent* or prevent* relapse or craving reduc* or reduc* craving) in ti,ab

55. (trigger* or coping skills or anger management or group work or lifestyle modif* or high intensity training or resettlement or throughcare) in ti,ab

56. (aftercare or after care or brief solution or brief intervention* or 12 step* or twelve step* or minnesota program* or needle exchange or nes) in ti,ab

57. (syringe exchange or dual diagnosis or narcotics anonymous or self help or selfhelp or outreach or bail support) in ti,ab

58. (arrest referral* or diversion or dtto or dttos or drug treatment or carat or carats or counseling assessment or combined orders) in ti,ab

59. (drug-free or drug free or peer support or evaluation* or urinalysis or drug testing or drug use screen* or rehabilitation or discrete service* or discrete program*) in ti,ab

60. (residential program* or residential scheme* or residential service*) in ti,ab

61. (asro or addressing substance or pasro or prisons addressing or acupuncture or shock or boot camp*) in ti,ab

62. (work ethic or drug education or tasc or treatment accountability) in ti,ab

63. #38 or #39 #or #40 or #41 or #42 or #43 or #44 or #45 or #46 or #47 or #48 or #49 or #50 or #51 or #52 or #53 or #54 or #55 or #56 or #57 or #58 or #59 or #60 or #61 or #62

64. #37 and #63



 

Appendix 9. ASSIA search strategy


ASSIA search

1. remand

2. prison or prisoner or prisoners

3. offender*

4. criminal*

5. probation

6. court or courts

7. tribunal or tribunals

8. secure establishment*

9. secure facilit*

10. reoffend*

11. reincarcerat*

12. recidivi*

13. ex-offender*

14. jail or jails

15. incarcerat*

16. convict or convicts

17. convicted

18. felon or felons

19. conviction*

20. reconviction*

21. high security

22. law enforcement

23. Substance abuse* or substance misuse* or substance use*

24. drug dependanc* or drug abuse* or drug use*

25. drug misuse* or drug addict*

26. narcotics addict* narcotics use* narcotics misuse* narcotics abuse*

27. chemical dependanc*

28. opiates

29. heroin

30. crack

31. cocaine

32. amphetamines

33. cocaine

34. addiction

35. dependence disorder*

36. drug involved

37. Substance-related disorders

38. amphetamine-related disorders

39. cocaine-related disorders

40. marijuana abuse

41. opioid-related disorders

42. street drugs

43. designer drugs

44. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22

45. 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 or 38 or 39 or 40 or 41 or 42 or 43

46. 44 and 45



 

Appendix 10. HMIC search strategy


HMIC

1. remand in de

2. detention in de

3. prisoners in de

4. prisons in de

5. offenders in de

6. parole in de

7. probation in de

8. correctional system in de

9. courts in de

10. imprisonment in de

11. criminal justice in de

12. criminal proceedings in de

13. recidivism in de

14. jail in de

15. institutionalization (persons) in de

16. conviction/convictions in de

17. (remand or prison* or offender* or criminal* or probation or court or courts or secure establishment*) in ti,ab

18. (reoffend* or reincarcerat* or recidivi* or ex-offend* or jail or jails or incarcerat* or secure facilit* or convict* or revocation or inmate*) in ti,ab

19. #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18

20. substance abuse in de

21. explode "Drug-Abuse" in DE

22. "Drug-Injection" in DE

23. explode "Narcotic-Drugs" in DE

24. "Cocaine-" in DE

25. "Addiction-" in DE

26. explode "Psychedelic-Drugs" in DE

27. (substance abuse* or substance misuse* or substance use*) in ti,ab

28. (drug abuse* or drug misuse* or drug use*) in ti,ab

29. (drug dependenc* or drug addict* or narcotics abuse* or narcotics use* or narcotics misuse* or narcotics addict*) in ti,ab

30. (chemical dependenc* or opiate abuse* or opiate misuse* or opiate use* or opiate addict*) in ti,ab

31. (heroin abuse* or heroin misuse* or heroin use* or heroin addict*) in ti,ab

32. (crack abuse* or crack misuse* or crack use* or crack addict*) in ti,ab

33. (cocaine abuse* or cocaine misuse* or cocaine use* or cocaine addict*) in ti,ab

34. (amphetamine* abuse* or amphetamine* misuse* or amphetamine* use* or amphetamine* addict*) in ti,ab

35. (dependence disorder or drug involved) in ti,ab

36. #20 or #21 or #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 or #26 or #27 or #28 or #29 or #30 or #31 or #32 or #33 or #34 or #35

37. #19 and #36



 

Appendix 11. National Research Register search strategy


NRR search

1. REMAND

2. PRISON*

3. OFFENDER*

4. ((CRIMINAL* or PROBATION) or COURT) or COURTS)

5. (SECURE next ESTABLISHMENT*)

6. REOFFEND*

7. REINCARCERAT*

8. RECIDIV*

9. EXOFFEND*

10. ((JAIL or JAILS) or INCARCERAT*)

11. (SECURE next FACILIT*)

12. (((CONVICT* or REVOCATION) or INMATE*) OR (HIGH next SECURITY))

13. PRISONERS:ME

14. LAW-ENFORCEMENT:ME

15. JURISPRUDENCE:ME

16. CRIME:ME

17. #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10

18. #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16

19. #17 or #18

20. ((SUBSTANCE next ABUSE*) or (SUBSTANCE next MISUSE*)) OR (DRUG NEXT DEPENDENC*)) OR (DRUG NEXT ABUSE*)) OR (DRUG NEXT MISUSE*)) OR (DRUG NEXT USE*)) OR (DRUG NEXT ADDICTION))

21. ((NARCOTICS or (CHEMICAL next DEPENDENC*)) OR (OPIATE NEXT ADDICT*)) OR (OPIATE NEXT DEPENDENC*)) OR (OPIATE NEXT ABUSE*)) OR (OPIATE NEXT MISUSE*))

22. ((HEROIN next ADDICT*) or (HEROIN next DEPENDENC*)) OR (HEROIN NEXT MISUSE*)) OR (HEROIN NEXT ABUSE*))

23. ((CRACK next ADDICT*) or (CRACK next DEPENDENC*)) OR (CRACK NEXT MISUSE*)) OR (CRACK NEXT ABUSE*)) OR (CRACK NEXT USE*))

24. ((COCAINE next ADDICT*) or (COCAINE next DEPENDENC*)) OR (COCAINE NEXT MISUSE*)) OR (COCAINE NEXT ABUSE*)) OR (COCAINE NEXT USE*))

25. ((AMPHETAMINE* next ADDICT*) or (AMPHETAMINE* next DEPENDENC*)) OR (AMPHETAMINE* NEXT MISUSE*)) OR (AMPHETAMINE* NEXT ABUSE*)) OR (AMPHETAMINE* NEXT USE*))

26. ((ADDICTS or (DEPENDENCE next DISORDER)) OR (DRUG NEXT INVOLVED))

27. (SUBSTANCE-RELATED and DISORDERS:ME)

28. SUBSTANCE-RELATED-DISORDERS:ME

29. AMPHETAMINE-ABUSE:ME

30. COCAINE-ABUSE:ME

31. MARIJUANA-ABUSE:ME

32. OPIOID-RELATED-DISORDERS:ME

33. PHENCYCLIDINE-ABUSE:ME

34. SUBSTANCE-ABUSE-INTRAVENOUS:ME

35. SUBSTANCE-WITHDRAWAL-SYNDROME:ME

36. (STREET next DRUGS)

38. STREET-DRUGS:ME

39. DESIGNER-DRUGS:ME

40. NARCOTICS:ME

41. (COCAINE:ME or AMPHETAMINES:ME)

42. ANALGESICS-ADDICTIVE:ME

43. ANALGESICS-OPIOID:ME

44. PSYCHOTROPIC-DRUGS:ME

45. #20 or #21 or #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 or #26 or #27 or #28 or #29 or #30 or #31 or #32 or #33 or #34 or #35 or #36 or #37 or #38 or #39 or #40 or #41 or #42 or #43 or #44

46. 19 and 45



 

Appendix 12. PAIS search strategy


PAIS

1. ((reoffend* or reincarcerat* or recidivi* or ex-offend* or jail or jails or incarcerat* or secure facilit* or convict* or revocation or inmate*) in ti,ab)

2. ((remand or prison* or offender* or criminal* or probation or court or courts or secure establishment*) in ti,ab)

3. ((drug dependenc* or drug addict* or narcotics abuse* or narcotics use* or narcotics misuse* or narcotics addict*) in ti,ab)

4. ((drug abuse* or drug misuse* or drug use*) in ti,ab) or ((substance abuse* or substance misuse* or substance use*) in ti,ab)

5. ((detox* or methadone maintenance or methadone prescri* or antagonist prescri* or dimorphine or naltrexone) in ti,ab)

6. ((dependence disorder or drug involved) in ti,ab)

7. ((amphetamine* abuse* or amphetamine* misuse* or amphetamine* use* or amphetamine* addict*) in ti,ab)

8. ((cocaine abuse* or cocaine misuse* or cocaine use* or cocaine addict*) in ti,ab)

9. ((crack abuse* or crack misuse* or crack use* or crack addict*) in ti,ab)

10. ((heroin abuse* or heroin misuse* or heroin use* or heroin addict*) in ti,ab)

11. ((chemical dependenc* or opiate abuse* or opiate misuse* or opiate use* or opiate addict*) in ti,ab)

12. ((moral training or cognitive restructuring or assertiveness training or relaxation training) in ti,ab)

13. ((therapeutic communit* or motivational interview* or motivational enhance* or counseling or counselling or psychotherapy or cognitive behavi*) in ti,ab)

14. ((work ethic or drug education or tasc or treatment accountability) in ti,ab)

15. ((asro or addressing substance or pasro or prisons addressing or acupuncture or shock or boot camp*) in ti,ab)

16. ((arrest referral* or diversion or dtto or dttos or drug treatment or carat or carats or counseling assessment or combined orders) in ti,ab)

17. ((residential program* or residential scheme* or residential service*) in ti,ab)

18. ((syringe exchange or dual diagnosis or narcotics anonymous or self help or selfhelp or outreach or bail support) in ti,ab)

19. ((drug-free or drug free or peer support or evaluation* or urinalysis or drug testing or drug use screen* or rehabilitation or discrete service* or discrete program*) in ti,ab)

20. ((aftercare or after care or brief solution or brief intervention* or 12 step* or twelve step* or minnesota program* or needle exchange or nes) in ti,ab)

21. ((trigger* or coping skills or anger management or group work or lifestyle modif* or high intensity training or resettlement or throughcare) in ti,ab)

22. ((self management or interpersonal skills or social skills or basic skills or relapse prevent* or prevent* relapse or craving reduc* or reduc* craving) in ti,ab)

24. ((rational-emotive or rational emotive or family relationship therap* or community reinforcement or self monitoring or goal setting or self control training) in ti,ab)

25. #1 or #2

26. #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or 9 or #10 or #11

27. #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 or #22 or #23 or #24

28. 25 and #26 and #27



 

Appendix 13. Criminal Justice Abstracts search strategy


CJA search

1. (substance abuse* or substance misuse* or substance use or substance users) in ti,ab,de

2. substance related in ti,ab,de

3. drug related in ti,ab,de

4. (drug dependenc* or drug abuse* or drug misuse* or drug use or drug users or drug addiction) in ti,ab,de

5. (narcotics use or narcotics users or narcotics abuse* or narcotics misuse* or chemical dependenc*) in ti,ab,de

6. (opiates or heroin or crack or cocaine or amphetamines or addict or addicts or addicted or dependence disorder* or drug involved) in ti,ab,de

7. (designer drugs or street drugs or polydrug misuse* or polydrug abuse*) in ti,ab,de

8. #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7

9. ((antagonist near prescri*) or diamorphine or naltrexone) in ti,ab,de

10(therapeutic communit* or (motivational near interview*)) in ti,ab,de

11. (motivational near enhancement) in ti,ab,de

12. (counselling or counseling) in ti,ab,de

13. (psychotherap* or cognitive behav* or behav* therap* or (moral near training)) in ti,ab,de

14. (cognitive restructuring or (assertiveness near train*) or relaxation training) in ti,ab,de

15. (rational emotive or family relationship therap*) in ti,ab,de

16. (community reinforcement or self monitoring or goal setting or goalsetting) in ti,ab,de

17. (self control near training) in ti,ab,de

18. (self management) in ti,ab,de

19. (interpersonal skills near training) in ti,ab,de

20. ((social skills or basic skills) near training) in ti,ab,de

21. ((relapse near prevent*) or (craving near reduc*)) in ti,ab,de

22. (trigger* or coping skills or anger management or group work or (lifestyle near modif*)) in ti,ab,de

23. (high intensity training or resettlement or throughcare or aftercare or after care) in ti,ab,de

24. (brief solution* or brief intervention*) in ti,ab,de

25. (minnesota in ti,ab) in ti,ab,de

26. (12 step* or twelve step*) in ti,ab,de

27. (needle exchange or nes or syringe exchange) in ti,ab,de

28. (dual diagnosis or narcotics anonymous or self help or selfhelp or outreach) in ti,ab,de

29. (bail support or bail program* or arrest referral* or diversion or dtto* or drug treatment) in ti,ab,de

30. (carat or counselling assessment or counseling assessment) in ti,ab,de

31. (combined order* or drug free wing* or drug free environment* or peer support) in ti,ab,de

32. (user evaluations or urinalys* or urinanalys* or drug test* or rehab* or discrete service*) in ti,ab,de

33. (discrete program* or residential program* or residential scheme*) in ti,ab,de

34. (asro or addressing substance*) in ti,ab,de

35. (pasro or prisons addressing) in ti,ab,de

36. (acupuncture or shock or boot camp or boot camps or work ethic camp*) in ti,ab,de

37. (drug education or tasc or treatment accountability) in ti,ab,de

38. (detoxification or detox or methadone maintenance or (methadone near prescri*)) in ti,ab,de

39. #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 or #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 or #26 or #27 or #28 or #29

40. #30 or #31 or #32 or #33 or #34 or #35 or #36 or #37 or #38 or #39

41. #39 or #40

42. #8 and #41

9. #42 and (PY > "1979")



 

Appendix 14. Criteria for assessing risk of bias


 Item Judgment Description

1. random sequence generation (selection bias)low riskThe investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation process such as: random number table; computer random number generator; coin tossing; shuffling cards or envelopes; throwing dice; drawing of lots; minimization

 high riskThe investigators describe a non-random component in the sequence generation process such as: odd or even date of birth; date (or day) of admission; hospital or clinic record number; alternation; judgement of the clinician; results of a laboratory test or a series of tests; availability of the intervention

 Unclear riskInsufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of low or high risk

2. allocation concealment (selection bias)low riskInvestigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment because one of the following, or an equivalent method, was used to conceal allocation: central allocation (including telephone, web-based, and pharmacy-controlled, randomisation); sequentially numbered drug containers of identical appearance; sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes.

 high riskInvestigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments because one of the following method was used: open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers); assignment envelopes without appropriate safeguards (e.g. if envelopes were unsealed or non­opaque or not sequentially numbered); alternation or rotation; date of birth; case record number; any other explicitly unconcealed procedure.

 Unclear riskInsufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk This is usually the case if the method of concealment is not described or not described in sufficient detail to allow a definite judgement

3. blinding of participants and providers (performance bias)

Objective outcomes 
low risk

 

 
No blinding or incomplete blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding;

Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.

 

4. blinding of participants and providers (performance bias)

Subjective outcomes
low risk

 
Blinding of participants and  providers and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken;

 

 high riskNo blinding or incomplete blinding, and the outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding;

Blinding of key study participants and personnel attempted, but likely that the blinding could have been broken, and the outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

 Unclear riskInsufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk;

5. blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias)

Objective outcomes 
low risk

 

 
No blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding;

Blinding of outcome assessment ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken

6.blinding of outcome assessor (detection  bias)

Subjective outcomes
low risk

 
No blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding;

Blinding of outcome assessment ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken

 high riskNo blinding of outcome assessment, and the outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding;

Blinding of outcome assessment, but likely that the blinding could have been broken, and the outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding

 Unclear riskInsufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk;

7. incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

For all outcomes except retention in treatment or drop out
low risk

 

 

 
No missing outcome data;

Reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome (for survival data, censoring unlikely to be introducing bias);

Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups;

For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate;

For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardized difference in means) among missing outcomes not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on observed effect size;

Missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods

All randomised patients are reported/analysed in the group they were allocated to by randomisation irrespective of non-compliance and co-interventions (intention to treat)

 high riskReason for missing outcome data likely to be related to true outcome, with either imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups;

For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk enough to induce clinically relevant bias in intervention effect estimate;

For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardized difference in means) among missing outcomes enough to induce clinically relevant bias in observed effect size;

‘As-treated’ analysis done with substantial departure of the intervention received from that assigned at randomisation; 

 Unclear riskInsufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk (e.g. number randomised not stated, no reasons for missing data provided; number of drop out not reported for each group);

8 selective reporting (reporting bias)low riskThe study protocol is available and all of the study’s pre-specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre-specified way;

The study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre-specified (convincing text of this nature may be uncommon).

 high riskNot all of the study’s pre-specified primary outcomes have been reported;

One or more primary outcomes is reported using measurements, analysis methods or subsets of the data (e.g. sub scales) that were not pre-specified;

One or more reported primary outcomes were not pre-specified (unless clear justification for their reporting is provided, such as an unexpected adverse effect);

One or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta-analysis;

The study report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a study.

 Unclear riskInsufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk

9. Other bias *low risk Evidence to suggest other problems identified with the study which might threaten the validity of the random allocation, attrition or data integrity and results of the trial.

 high risk Evidence to suggest that the trial might be underpowered/problems with the random allocation process leading to potential self selection bias/ issues of analysis not conducted using intent to treat analysis or evidence of missing data. Concerns of attrition and measurement error including reliance on self report measures.

 Unclear risk insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk



 

What's new

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms

Last assessed as up-to-date: 20 July 2013.


DateEventDescription

27 January 2014AmendedPlain language summary title correction



 

History

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms

Review first published: Issue 12, 2013


DateEventDescription

16 July 2012New search has been performedThis review has been updated using searches to 21 March 2013. The review represents one in a family of four reviews. The other reviews cover non- pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders and interventions for drug-using female offenders and offenders with co-occurring mental illness. This new review of pharmacological interventions with drug-using offenders contains 17 randomised controlled trials. Six of the 17 trials are awaiting classification for the review; the remaining 11 trials represent a total of 2,678 participants.

2 March 2012New search has been performedThe updated edit of this review produced a new document with additional findings reflecting searches up to 11 November 2011. Five new review authors have been added to this version of the review, including Steven Duffy, Rachael McCool, Matthew Neilson, Catherine Hewitt and Marrissa Martyn-St James.

19 May 2006New citation required and conclusions have changedSubstantive amendment



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms

Searches were constructed and conducted by JMG and SD. Three independent review authors inspected the search hits by reading the titles and abstracts (AEP, MN). Each potentially relevant study located in the search was obtained as a full article and was independently assessed for inclusion by two review authors. In the case of discordance, a third independent review author arbitrated. Where it was not possible to evaluate the study because of language problems or missing information, the studies were classified as 'translation/information required to determine decision' until a translation or further details were provided. Five review authors conducted data extraction for the papers (MM-SJ, JMG,RMcC, SD and MN), and review author CG conducted data extraction and a narrative summary of the cost-effectiveness studies. The results were compiled and organised by MM-ST, MN, CH and AEP, and all eight authors contributed towards the final draft text.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms

None

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. What's new
  12. History
  13. Contributions of authors
  14. Declarations of interest
  15. Sources of support
  16. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • Reviewer from Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group, Not specified.
    A reviewer from the Drugs and Alcohol Group provided the researchers with the results of a search strategy for three databases

 

External sources

  • The Department of Health funded the original review, UK.

* Indicates the major publication for the study

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
Bayanzadeh, 2004 {unpublished data only}
  • Bayanzadeh SA. Final report of research project: a study of the effectiveness of psychopharmacological and psychological interventions in reducing harmful/high risk behaviours among substance user prisoners. Iran University of Medical Education and Health and Treatment Services, Tehran Psychology Institute. Centre for Psychological Health Research Polarity of Science, Education and Research 2004.
Cornish 1997 {published data only}
  • Cornish JW, Metzger D, Woody GE, Wilson D, McLellan AT, Vandergrift B, et al. Naltrexone pharmacotherapy for opioid dependent federal probationers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1997;14(6):529-34.
Coviello 2010 {published data only}
Cropsey 2011 {published data only}
  • Cropsey KL, Lane PS, Hale GJ, Jackson DO, Clark CB, Ingersoll KS, et al. Results of a pilot randomized controlled trial of buprenorphine for opioid dependent women in the criminal justice system. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2011;119(3):172-8.
Dolan 2003 {published data only}
  • Dolan K A, Shearer J, MacDonald M, Mattick RP, Hall W, Wodak AD. A randomised controlled trial of methadone maintenance treatment versus wait list control in an Australian prison system. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2003;72(1):59-65.
Dole 1969 {published data only}
Kinlock 2005 {published data only}
  • Kinlock TW, Battjes RJ, Schwartz RP, MTC Project Team. A novel opioid maintenance program for prisoners: report of post-release outcomes. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2005; Vol. 31, issue 3:433-54. [: CN-00590052]
Kinlock 2007 {published data only}
Lobmaier 2010 {published data only}
  • Lobmaier PP, Kunoe N, Gossop M, Katevoll T, Waal H. Naltrexone implants compared to methadone: outcomes six months after prison release. European Addiction Research 2010;16(3):139-45.
Lobmann 2007 {published data only}
  • Lobmann R. Diamorphine substitution therapy and criminal activity. Sucht: Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaft und Praxis 2007; Vol. 53, issue 5:288-95. [: CN-00627424]
Magura 2009 {published data only}
  • Magura S, Lee JD, Hershberger J, Joseph H, Marsch L, Shropshire C, et al. Buprenorphine and methadone maintenance in jail and post-release: a randomized clinical trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2009; Vol. 99, issue 1-3:222-30.

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
Alemi 2010 {published and unpublished data}
  • Alemi F, Haack M, Nemes S, Harge A, Baghi H. Impact of online counseling on drug use: a pilot study. Quality Management Health Care 2010;19(1):62-9.
Alessi 2011 {published data only}
  • Alessi SM, Rash C, Petry NM. Contingency management is efficacious and improves outcomes in cocaine patients with pretreatment marijuana use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2011;118(1):62-7.
Anglin 1999 {published data only}
Awgu 2010 {published data only}
  • Awgu E, Magura S, Rosenblum A. Heroin-dependent inmates' experiences with buprenorphine or methadone maintenance. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 2010;42(3):339-46.
Baldus 2011 {published data only}
  • Baldus C, Miranda A, Weymann N, Reis O, More K, Thomasius R. "CAN Stop"-implementation and evaluation of a secondary group prevention for adolescent and young adult cannabis users in various contexts-study protocol. BMC Health Services Research 2011;11:80.
Banks 2004 {published data only}
Berman 2004 {published data only}
  • Berman AH, Lundberg U, Krook AL, Gyllenhammar C. Treating drug using prison inmates with auricular acupuncture: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2004;26(2):95-102. [0740-5472: (Print)]
Black 2011 {published data only}
  • Black S, Carey E, Webber A, Neish N, Gilbert R. Determining the efficacy of auricular acupuncture for reducing anxiety in patients withdrawing from psychoactive drugs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2011;41(3):279-87.
Brady 2010 {published data only}
  • Brady LLC, Najavits LM, Toussaint D, Bonavota D, Veysey B. Does recent criminal involvement matter? A study of women with co-occurring disorders in a multisite national trial. Mental Health and Substance Use: Dual Diagnosis 2010;3 (3):193-202.
Braithwaite 2005 {published data only}
  • Braithwaite RL, Stephens TT, Treadwell HM, Braithwaite K, Conerly R. Short-term impact of an HIV risk reduction intervention for soon-to-be released inmates in Georgia. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 2005;16(4Suppl B):130-9. [: CN-00532300]
Britt 1992 a {published data only}
  • Britt IC, Gottfredson MR, Goldkamp JS. Drug testing and pretrial misconduct: an experiment on the specific deterrent effects of drug monitoring defendants on pretrial release. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 1992;29(1):62-78.
Britt 1992 b {published data only}
  • Britt IC, Gottfredson MR, Goldkamp JS. Drug testing and pretrial misconduct: an experiment on the specific deterrent effects of drug monitoring defendants on pretrial release. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 1992;29(1):62-78.
Britt 1992 c {published data only}
  • Britt IC, Gottfredson MR, Goldkamp JS. Drug testing and pretrial misconduct: an experiment on the specific deterrent effects of drug monitoring defendants on pretrial release. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 1992;29(1):62-78.
Britt 1992 d {published data only}
  • Britt IC, Gottfredson MR, Goldkamp JS. Drug testing and pretrial misconduct: an experiment on the specific deterrent effects of drug monitoring defendants on pretrial release. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 1992;29(1):62-78.
Brown 2001 {published data only}
  • Brown BS, O'Grady KE, Battjesd RJ, Farrelld EE, Smithd NP, Nurcod DN. Effectiveness of a stand-alone aftercare program for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2001;21:185-92.
Carr 2008 {published data only}
  • Carr CJ, Xu J, Redko C, Lane D, Rapp RC, Goris J, et al. Individual and system influences on waiting time for substance abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2008;34(2):192-201. [: 0740-5472]
Carroll 2006 {published data only}
  • Carroll KM, Easton CJ, Nich C, Hunkele KA, Neavins TM, Sinha R, et al. The use of contingency management and motivational/skills-building therapy to treat young adults with marijuana dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2006;74(5):955-66. [: 0022-006X]
Carroll 2011 {published data only}
  • Carroll KM, Kiluk BD, Nich C, Babuscio TA, Brewer JA, Potenza MN, et al. Cognitive function and treatment response in a randomized clinical trial of computer-based training in cognitive-behavioral therapy. Substance Use and Misuse 2011;46(1):23-34.
Chandler 2006 {published data only}
  • Chandler DW, Spicer G. Integrated treatment for jail recidivists with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders. Community Mental Health Journal 2006;42(4):405-25. [0010-3853: (Print)]
Cogswell 2011 {published data only}
  • Cogswell J, Negley SK. The effect of autonomy-supportive therapeutic recreation programming on integrated motivation for treatment among persons who abuse substances. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 2011;45(1):1st Quarter:47-61.
Cosden 2003 {published data only}
Cosden 2005 {published data only}
Cusack 2010 {published data only}
  • Cusack KJ, Morrissey JP, Cuddeback GS, Prins A, Williams DM. Criminal justice involvement, behavioral health service use, and costs of forensic assertive community treatment: a randomized trial. Community Mental Health Journal 2010;46(4):356-63.
Dakof 2010 {published data only}
  • Dakof GA, Cohen JB, Henderson CE, Duarte E, Boustani M, Blackburn A, et al. A randomized pilot study of the Engaging Moms Program for family drug court. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2010;38(3):263-74.
Dembo 2000 {published data only}
  • Dembo R, Ramirez GG, Rollie M, Schmeidler J, Livingston S, Hartsfield A. Youth recidivism twelve months after a family empowerment intervention: final report. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2000;31(3/4):29-65.
Deschenes 1994 {published data only}
  • Deschenes EP, Greenwood PW. Maricopa-County Drug Court - an innovative program for 1st-time drug offenders on probation. Justice System Journal 1994;17(1):99-115.
Diamond 2006 {published data only}
  • Diamond G, Panichelli-Mindel SM, Shrea D, Dennis M, Tims F, Ungemack J. Psychiatric syndromes in adolescents with marijuana abuse and dependency in outpatient treatment. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 2006; Vol. 15, issue 4:37-54.
Di Nitto 2002 {published data only}
  • Di Nitto DM, Webb DK, Rubin A. The effectiveness of an integrated treatment approach for clients with dual diagnoses. Research on Social Work Practice 2002;12(5):621-41.
Dugan 1998 {published data only}
  • Dugan JR, Everett RS. An experimental test of chemical dependency therapy for jail inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology 1998;42(4):360-8.
Forsberg 2011 {published data only}
  • Forsberg LG, Ernst D, Sundqvist K, Farbring CA. Motivational Interviewing delivered by existing prison staff: a randomized controlled study of effectiveness on substance use after release. Substance Use and Misuse 2011;46(12):1477-85.
Freudenberg 2010 {published data only}
  • Freudenberg N, Ramaswamy M, Daniels J, Crum M, Ompad DC, Vlahov D. Reducing drug use, human immunodeficiency virus risk, and recidivism among young men leaving jail: evaluation of the REAL MEN re-entry program. Journal of Adolescent Health 2010;47(5):448-55.
Gagnon 2010 {published data only}
  • Gagnon H, Godin G, Alary M, Bruneau J, Otis J. A randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of a computer-tailored intervention to promote safer injection practices among drug users. AIDS & Behavior 2010;14(3):538-48.
Gil 2004 {published data only}
Gottfredson 2002 {published data only}
  • Gottfredson DC, Exum ML. The Baltimore City drug treatment court: one-year results from a randomized study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2002;39(3):337-56.
Gottfredson 2003 {published data only}
  • Gottfredson DC, Najaka SS, Kearley B. Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: evidence from a randomized trial.. Criminology and Public Policy 2003;2 (2):171-96.
Gottfredson 2005 {published data only}
Gottfredson 2006 {published data only}
  • Gottfredson DC, Najaka SS, Kearley BW. Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: results from an experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2006;2(1):67-98. [: 1573-3750]
Grohman 2002 {published data only}
  • Grohman K, Fals-Stewart W, Bates ME. Cognitive rehabilitation for neuropsychologically impaired substance-abusing patients: posttreatment outcomes [web page]. http://addictionandfamily.org [2004, 29 Oct] 2002.
Guydish 2011 {published data only}
  • Guydish J, Chan M, Bostrom A, Jessup M, Davis T, Marsh C. A randomized trial of probation case management for drug-involved women offenders. Crime and Delinquency 2011;57(2):167-98.
Haapanen 2002 {published data only}
  • Haapanen R, Britton L. Drug testing for youthful offenders on parole: an experimental evaluation. Criminology and Public Policy 2002;1(2):217-44.
Haasen 2010 {published data only}
  • Haasen C, Verthein U, Eiroa-Orosa F J, Schäfer I, Reimer J. Is heroin-assisted treatment effective for patients with no previous maintenance treatment? Results from a German randomised controlled trial. European Addiction Research 2010;16(3):124-30.
Hall 2009 {published data only}
  • Hall EA, Prendergast ML, Roll JM, Warda U. Reinforcing abstinence and treatment participation among offenders in a drug diversion program: are vouchers effective?. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2009;36(9):935-53. [: 0093-8548]
Hanlon 1999 {published data only}
  • Hanlon TE, Bateman RW, O'Grady KE. The relative effects of three approaches to the parole supervision of narcotic addicts and cocaine abusers. Prison Journal 1999;79(2):163-81.
Harrell 2001 {published data only}
Henderson 2010 {published data only}
  • Henderson CE, Dakof GA, Greenbaum PE, Liddle HA. Effectiveness of multidimensional family therapy with higher severity substance-abusing adolescents: report from two randomized controlled trials. Journal of Consulting in Clinical Psychology 2010;78(6):885-97.
Henggeler 1991 {published data only}
  • Henggeler SW, Borduin CM, Melton GB, Mann BJ. Effects of multisystemic therapy on drug use and abuse in serious juvenile offenders: a progress report from two outcome studies. Family Dynamics of Addiction Quarterly 1991;1(3):40-51.
Henggeler 1999 {published data only}
  • Henggeler SW, Pickrel SG, Brondino MJ. Multisystemic treatment of substance-abusing and dependent delinquents: outcomes, treatment fidelity, and transportability. Mental Health Services Research 1999;1(3):171-84.
Henggeler 2002 {published data only}
  • Henggeler SW, Clingempeel WG, Brondino MJ, Pickrel SG. Four-year follow-up of multisystemic therapy with substance-abusing and substance-dependent juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 41;7:868-74.
Henggeler 2006 {published data only}
  • Henggeler SW, Halliday-Boykins CA, Cunningham PB, Randall J, Shapiro SB, Chapman JE. Juvenile drug court: enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-based treatments. Journal of Consulting in Clinical Psychology 2006;74(1):42-54. [0022-006X: (Print)]
Hser 2011 {published data only}
Inciardi 2004 {published data only}
  • Inciardi JA, Martin SS, Butzin CA. Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime & Delinquency 2004;50(1):88-107. [: 0011-1287]
Jain 2011 {published data only}
  • Jain K, Jain R, Dhawan A. A double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled study of memantine versus buprenorphine in naloxone-precipitated acute withdrawal in heroin addicts. Journal of Opioid Management 2011;7(1):11-20.
Johnson 2011 {published data only}
  • Johnson JE, Friedmann PD, Green TC, Harrington M, Taxman FS. Gender and treatment response in substance use treatment-mandated parolees. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2011;40(3):313-21.
Katz 2007 {published data only}
  • Katz EC, Brown BS, Schwartz RP, King SD, Weintraub E, Barksdale W. Impact of role induction on long-term drug treatment outcomes. Journal of Addictive Diseases 2007;26(2):81-90. [: CN-00590052]
Liddle 2011 {published data only}
  • Liddle HA, Dakof GA, Henderson C, Rowe C. Implementation outcomes of multidimensional family therapy-detention to community: a reintegration program for drug-using juvenile detainees. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 2011;55(4):587-604.
Marlowe 2003 {published data only}
  • Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA, Schepise MM, Hazzard JER, Merrill JC, et al. Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? During treatment data from a randomized trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2008;30(2):141-62.
Marlowe2005 {published data only}
  • Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Dugosh KL, Lee PA. Are judicial status hearings a "key component" of drug court? Six and twelve month outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2009;79(2):145-55.
Marlowe 2007 {published data only}
  • Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Dugosh KL, Lee PA, Benasutti KM. Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2007;88(Suppl 2):S4-S13.
Marlowe 2008 {published data only}
Martin 1993 {published data only}
  • Martin SS, Scarpitti SR. An intensive case management approach for paroled IV drug users. Journal of Drug Issues 1993;23(1):43-59.
Mbilinyi 2011 {published data only}
  • Mbilinyi LF, Neighbors C, Walker DD, Roffman RA, Zegree J, Edleson J, et al. A telephone intervention for substance-using adult male perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Research on Social Work Practice 2011;21(1):43-56.
McCollister 2009a {published data only}
  • McCollister KE, French MT, Sheidow AJ, Henggeler SW, Halliday-Boykins CA. Estimating the differential costs of criminal activity for juvenile drug court participants: challenges and recommendations. Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research 2009;36(1):111-26. [1556-3308: (Electronic)]
McCollister 2009b {published data only}
  • McCollister KE, French MT, Sheidow AJ, Henggeler SW, Halliday-Boykins CA. Estimating the differential costs of criminal activity for juvenile drug court participants: challenges and recommendations. Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research 2009;36(1):111-26.
McKendrick 2007 {published data only}
  • McKendrick K, Sullivan C, Banks S, Sacks S. Modified therapeutic community treatment for offenders with MICA disorders: antisocial personality disorder and treatment outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2006; Vol. 44, issue 2-3:133-59. [: 1050-9674]
Messina 2000 {published data only}
Milloy 2011 {published data only}
  • Milloy MJS, Kerr T, Zhang R, Tyndall M, Montaner J. Randomised Trial of the Effectiveness of Naloxone. London: Department of Health, 2011.
Needels 2005 {published data only}
  • Needels K, James-Burdumy S, Burghardt J. Community case management for former jail inmates: its impacts on rearrest, drug use, and HIV risk. Journal of Urban Health 2005;82(3):420-33. [1099-3460: (Print)]
Nemes 1998 {published data only}
  • Nemes S, Wish E, Messina N. The District of Columbia Treatment Initiative (DCI) final report. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, National Evaluation Data and Technical Assistance Center (NEDTAC), 1998.
Nemes 1999 {published data only}
  • Nemes S, Wish ED, Messina N. Comparing the impact of standard and abbreviated treatment in a therapeutic community: findings from the District of Columbia treatment initiative experiment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1999;17(4):339-47.
Nielsen 1996 {published data only}
  • Farrell A. Women, crime and drugs: testing the effect of therapeutic communities. Women and Criminal Justice 2000;11(1):21-48.
  • Nielsen AL, Scarpitti FR, Inciardi JA. Integrating the therapeutic community and work release for drug-involved offenders: the CREST program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1996;13(4):349-58.
Nosyk 2010 {published data only}
  • Nosyk B, Geller J, Guh DP, Oviedo-Joekes E, Brissette S, Marsh DC, et al. The effect of motivational status on treatment outcome in the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2010;111(1-2):161-5.
Petersilia 1992 {published data only}
  • Petersilia J, Turner S, Deschenes EP. Intensive supervision programs for drug offenders. In: Byrne JM, Lurigio AJ editor(s). Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc, 1992:18-37.
Petry 2011 {published data only}
  • Petry NM, Ford J D, Barry D. Contingency management is especially efficacious in engendering long durations of abstinence in patients with sexual abuse histories. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2011;25(2):293-300.
Polsky 2010 {published data only}
Prendergast 2003 {published data only}
  • Prendergast ML, Hall EA, Wexler HK. Multiple measures of outcome in assessing a prison-based drug treatment program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2003;37:65-94.
Prendergast 2004 {published data only}
Prendergast 2008 {published data only}
  • Prendergast ML, Hall EA, Roll J, Warda U. Use of vouchers to reinforce abstinence and positive behaviors among clients in a drug court treatment program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2008;35(2):125-36. [1873-6483: (Electronic)]
Prendergast 2009 {published data only}
  • Prendergast M, Greenwell L, Cartier J, Sacks J, Frisman L, Rodis E, et al. Adherence to scheduled sessions in a randomized field trial of case management: the criminal justice-drug abuse treatment studies transitional case management study. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2009;5(3):273-97.
Prendergast 2011 {published data only}
  • Prendergast M, Frisman L, Sacks JY, Staton-Tindall M, Greenwell L, Lin HJ, et al. A multi-site, randomized study of strengths-based case management with substance-abusing parolees. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2011;7(3):225-53.
Proctor 2011 {published data only}
  • Proctor SL, Hoffmann NG, Allison S. The effectiveness of interactive journaling in reducing recidivism among substance-dependent jail inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 2012;56(2):317-32.
Reimer 2011 {published data only}
Robertson 2006 {published data only}
Rosengard 2008 {published data only}
  • Rosengard C, Stein LAR, Barnett NP, Monti PM, Golembeske C, Lebeau-Craven R, et al. Randomized clinical trial of motivational enhancement of substance use treatment among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention in Children and Youth 2008;8(2):45-64.
Rossman 1999 {published data only}
  • Rossman S, Sridharan S, Gouvis C, Buck J, Morley E. Impact of the Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) Aftercare Program for Substance-Abusing Felons: comprehensive Final Report. Washington DC: Urban Institute, 1999.
Rowan-Szal 2005 {published data only}
  • Rowan-Szal GA, Bartholomew NG, Chatham LR, Simpson DD. A combined cognitive and behavioral intervention for cocaine-using methadone clients. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 2005;37(1):75-84.
Rowan-Szal 2009 {published data only}
  • Rowan-Szal GA, Joe GW, Simpson D, Greener JM, Vance J. During-treatment outcomes among female methamphetamine-using offenders in prison-based treatments. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2009;48(5):388-401.
Rowe 2007 {published data only}
  • Rowe M, Bellamy C, Baranoski M, Wieland M, Connell MJO, Benedict P, et al. A peer-support, group intervention to reduce substance use and criminality among persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services 2007;58(7):955-61. [: 1075-2730]
Sacks 2004 {published data only}
Sacks 2008 {published data only}
  • Sacks JY, Sacks S, McKendrick K, Banks S, Schoeneberger M, Hamilton Z, et al. Prison therapeutic community treatment for female offenders: profiles and preliminary findings for mental health and other variables (crime, substance use and HIV risk). Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2008;46(3-4):233-61. [: 1050-9674]
Sacks 2011 {published data only}
  • Sacks S, Chaple M, Sacks JY, McKendrick K, Cleland CM. Randomized trial of a reentry modified therapeutic community for offenders with co-occurring disorders: crime outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2012;42(3):247-59.
Sanchez-Hervas 2010 {published data only}
  • Sanchez-Hervas E, Secades-Villa R, Romaguera FZ, Fernandez GG, Gomez FJS, Garcia-Rodriguez O. Behavioral therapy for cocaine addicts: outcomes of a follow-up six month study. Revista Mexicana De Psicologia 2010;27(2):159-67.
Schwartz 2006 {published data only}
  • Schwartz RP, Highfield DA, Jaffe JH, Brady JV, Butler CB, Rouse CO, et al. A randomized controlled trial of interim methadone maintenance. Archives of General Psychiatry 2006;63(1):102-9.
Sheard 2009 {published data only}
  • Sheard L, Wright NM, El-Sayeh CE, Adams C, Li R, Tompkins CN. The Leeds evaluation of efficacy of detoxification study (LEEDS) prisons project: a randomised controlled trial comparing dihydrocodeine and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification. Substance Abuse Treatment Prevention and Policy 2009;4:1.
Siegal 1999 {published data only}
  • Siegal HA, Jichuan W, Carlson RG, Falck RS, Rahman AM, Fine RL. Ohio's prison-based therapeutic community treatment programs for substance abusers: preliminary analysis of re-arrest data. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 1999;28(3/4):33-48.
Smith 2010 {published data only}
  • Smith DK, Chamberlain P, Eddy JM. Preliminary support for multidimensional treatment foster care in reducing substance use in delinquent boys. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 2010;19:343-58.
Stanger 2009 {published data only}
  • Stanger C, Budney AJ, Kamon JL, Thostensen J. A randomized trial of contingency management for adolescent marijuana abuse and dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2009;105(3):240-7. [: 0376-8716]
Staton-Tindall 2009 {published data only}
  • Staton-Tindall M, McNees E, Leukefeld CG, Walker R, Thompson L, Pangburn K, et al. Systematic outcomes research for corrections-based treatment: implications from the criminal justice Kentucky treatment outcome study. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2009;48(8):710-24.
Stein 2010 {published data only}
  • Stein MD, Herman DS, Kettavong M, Cioe PA, Friedmann PD, Tellioglu T, et al. Antidepressant treatment does not improve buprenorphine retention among opioid-dependent persons. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2010;39(2):157-66.
Stein 2011 {published data only}
  • Stein LA, Clair M, Lebeau R, Colby SM, Barnett NP, Golembeske CM, et al. Motivational interviewing to reduce substance-related consequences: effects for incarcerated adolescents with depressed mood. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2011;118(2-3):475-8.
Stein 2011a {published data only}
  • Stein LA, Lebeau R, Colby SM, Barnett NP, Golembeske C, Monti PM. Motivational interviewing for incarcerated adolescents: effects of depressive symptoms on reducing alcohol and marijuana use after release. Journal of the Study of Alcohol and Drugs 2011;72(3):497-506.
Stevens 1998 {published data only}
  • Stevens SJ, Patton T. Residential treatment for drug addicted women and their children: Effective treatment strategies. Drugs & Society 1998;13(1-2):235-49.
Sullivan 2007 {published data only}
  • Sullivan CJ, McKendrick K, Sacks S, Banks S. Modified therapeutic community treatment for offenders with MICA disorders: substance use outcomes. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2007;33(6):823-32. [0095-2990: (Print)]
Svikis 2011 {published data only}
  • Svikis DS, Keyser-Marcus L, Stitzer M, Rieckmann T, Safford L, Loeb P, et al. Randomized multi-site trial of the Job Seekers' Workshop in patients with substance use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2012;1(1,20):1-3.
Taxman 2006 {published data only}
Thanner 2003 {published data only}
  • Thanner MH, Taxman FS. Responsivity: the value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2003;24(2):137-47. [0740-5472: (Print)]
Wang 2010 {published data only}
  • Wang EA, Moore BA, Sullivan LE, Fiellin DA. Effect of incarceration history on outcomes of primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2010;25(7):670-4.
Wexler 1999 {published data only}
  • Wexler HK, DeLeon G, Thomas G, Kressel D, Peters J. The Amity prison TC evaluation-re incarceration outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior 1999;26(2):147-67.
White 2006 {published data only}
  • White MD, Goldkamp JS, Robinson JB. Acupuncture in drug treatment: exploring its role and impact on participant behavior in the drug court setting. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2006;2(1):45-65. [: 1573-3750]
Williams 2011 {published data only}
Winstanley 2011 {published data only}
  • Winstanley EL, Bigelow GE, Silverman K, Johnson RE, Strain EC. A randomized controlled trial of fluoxetine in the treatment of cocaine dependence among methadone-maintained patients. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2011;40(3):255-64.
Witkiewitz 2010 {published data only}
  • Witkiewitz K, Bowen S. Depression, craving, and substance use following a randomized trial of mindfulness-based relapse prevention. Journal of Consulting in Clinical Psychology 2010;78(3):362-74.
Zlotnick 2009 {published data only}
  • Zlotnick C, Johnson J, Najavits LM. Randomized controlled pilot study of cognitive-behavioral therapy in a sample of incarcerated women with substance use disorder and PTSD. Behavior Therapy 2009;40(4):325-36. [: 0005-7894]

References to studies awaiting assessment

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
Coviello 2013 {published data only}
  • Coviello DM, Cornish JW. A multisite pilot study of extended -release injectable naltrexone treatment for previously opioid dependent parolees and probationers. Substance Abuse 2012;33(1):48-59.
Gordon 2012 {published data only}
  • Gordon MS, Kinlock TW. A randomized clinical trial of methadone maintenance for prisoners: Prediction of treatment entry and completion in prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2012;51(4):222-38.
Kelly 2012 {published data only}
  • Kelly SM, Oʼgrady KE, Jaffe JH, Gandhi D, Schwartz RP. Improvements in outcomes in methadone patients on probation/parole regardless of counseling early in treatment. Journal of Addictive Medicine 2013;7(2):133-8.
McKenzie 2012 {published data only}
  • McKenzie M, Zaller N, Dickman SL, Green TC, Parihk A, Friedmann PD, Rich JD. A randomised trial of methadone initiation prior to release from incarceration. Substance Abuse 2012;33(1):19-29.
Wilson 2012 {published data only}
Wright 2011 {published data only}
  • Wright NM, Sheard L, Adams CE, Rushforth BJ, Harrison W, Bound N, Hart R, Tompkins CN. Comparison of methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification (LEEDS trial): a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of General Practice 2011;61(593):772-80.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. What's new
  13. History
  14. Contributions of authors
  15. Declarations of interest
  16. Sources of support
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. References to studies excluded from this review
  20. References to studies awaiting assessment
  21. Additional references
Amato 2005
  • Amato L, Davoli M, Perucci CA, Ferri M, Faggiano F, Mattick RP. An overview of systematic reviews of effectiveness of opiate maintenance therapies: available evidence to information clinical practice and research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2005;28:321-9.
Amato 2013
Binswanger 2007
Bird 2003
Brooke 1996
Catania 2003
  • Catania H. Prison health needed in prisons. Harm reduction news: Newsletter of the International Harm Reduction Development Program of the Open Society Institute. Open Society Institute 2003; Vol. 4, issue 11:13.
Chanhatasilpa 2000
  • Chanhatasilpa C, Mackenzie DL, Hickman LJ. The effectiveness of community-based programs for chemically dependent offenders: a review and assessment of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2000;19:383-93.
Drummond 1997
  • Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd Edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Egg 2000
  • Egg R, Pearson FS, Cleland CM, Lipton DS. Evaluations of correctional treatment programs in Germany: a review and meta-analysis. Substance Use and Misuse 2000;35(12-14):1967-2009.
Faggiano 2003
Fareed, 2012
Fiscella 2004
  • Fiscella K, Moore A, Engerman J, Meldrum S. Jail management of arrestees/inmates enrolled in community methadone maintenance programs. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 2004;81:645-54.
Garcia 2007
  • Garcia CA, Correa GC, Viver AD, Hernandez BS, Kinlock TW, Gordon MS, et al. Buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for pre-release opiod dependent inmates in Puerto Rico. Journal of Addiction Medicine 2007;1:126-32.
Gibson 2007
Gunn 1991
Hedrich 2011
Hergert 2005
  • Hergert G. Methadone and buprenorphine added to the WHO list of essential medicines. HIV, AIDS Policy Law Review 2005;10:23-4.
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.handbook.org 2011.
Lo 2000
Lobmaier 2008
Marsch 1998
Mason 1997
Mattick 2009
Michel 2005
Minozzi 2011
Mitchell 2006
  • Mitchell O, Wilson D, MacKenzie D. The effectiveness of incarceration-based drug treatment on criminal behaviour. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2006, issue 11. [DOI: 10.4073/csr.2006.11]
Mitchell, 2012a
  • Mitchell O, Mackenzie LD, Wilson D. The effectiveness of incarcerated based drug treatment on criminal behaviour: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2012; Vol. 18. [DOI: 10.4073/csr.2012.18]
Mitchell, 2012b
  • Mitchell O, Wilson D. Eggers A, Mackenzie LD. Drug Courts effects on criminal offending for juveniles and adults: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2012; Vol. 4. [DOI: 10.4073/csr.2012.4]
Moller 2007
  • Moller L, Gathere A, Juergens R, Stover H, Nikogosian H. Health in Prisons. A WHO Guide to the Essentials in Prison Health. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2007.
NICE 2007a
  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE technology appraisal guidance 114 Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence. www.nice.org.uk/TA114. Accessed 20July 2013 2007. [: ISBN 1-84629-338-3]
NICE 2007b
  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE technology appraisal guidance 115 Naltrexone for the management of opioid dependence. www.nice.org.uk/TA115. Accessed 20July 2013 2007.
Perry 2006
Perry 2013a
  • Perry AE, Nielson M, Martyn-St James M, Hewitt C, Glanville J, McCool R, et al. Non-pharmacologic interventions for drug-using offenders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Perry 2013b
  • Perry AE, Nielson M, Martyn-St James M, Hewitt C, Glanville J, McCool R, et al. Interventions for drug using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013.
Perry 2013c
  • Perry AE, Nielson M, Martyn-St James M, Hewitt C, GlanvilleJ, McCool R, et al. Interventions for female drug using offenders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013.
Reynaud-Maurupt 2005
  • Reynaud-Maurupt C, Caer Y, Escaffre N, Gagneau M, Galinier A, Marzo NJ, et al. High-dose buprenorphine substitution during incarceration. Presse Med 2005;34:487-90.
Stallwitz 2007