Cochrane · systematic review · CD010901
Interventions for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
Perry, AE, Martyn‐St James, M, Burns, L, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
22
current version
GRADE rated
22
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 27.3%Low 12 · 54.5%Moderate 4 · 18.2%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsTherapeutic community compared to treatment as usual for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Re‐arrests Therapeutic community vs treatment | RR 0.67 [0.53, 0.84] | 2 studies · 266 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Re‐incarceration Therapeutic community vs treatment | RR 0.4 [0.24, 0.67] | 2 studies · 266 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Therapeutic community and aftercare compared to cognitive behavioural skills for drug using women offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using women offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Self‐reported drug use Therapeutic community and aftercare vs cognitive behavioural skills | RR 0.78 [0.46, 1.32] | 1 study · 314 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Re‐arrest for any type of crime Therapeutic community and aftercare vs cognitive behavioural skills | RR 0.69 [0.44, 1.09] | 1 study · 314 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Criminal Activity Therapeutic community and aftercare vs cognitive behavioural skills | RR 0.74 [0.52, 1.05] | 1 study · 314 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Drug‐related crime Therapeutic community and aftercare vs cognitive behavioural skills | RR 0.87 [0.56, 1.36] | 1 study · 314 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Therapeutic community compared to waiting list control for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Return to prison (recidivism) post parole Therapeutic community vs waiting list control | RR 0.6 [0.46, 0.79] | 1 study · 478 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mental health treatment court with assertive case management model compared to treatment as usual for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Conviction for a new crime Mental health treatment court with assertive case management model vs treatment | RR 1.05 [0.9, 1.22] | 1 study · 235 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Re‐incarceration to jail Mental health treatment court with assertive case management model vs treatment | RR 0.79 [0.62, 1.01] | 1 study · 235 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Self‐reported drug use Mental health treatment court with assertive case management model vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 235 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills compared to relaxation training for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Self‐reported marijuana use continuous Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills vs relaxation training | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 181 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills compared to waiting list control for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Self‐reported drug use Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills vs waiting list control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Abstinence from drug use Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills vs waiting list control | RR 2.89 [0.73, 11.43] | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills compared to treatment as usual for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Self‐reported frequency of marijuana use Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low |
Arrest frequency post release Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low |
Time to first arrest or offence Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low |
Positive drug screen or refusal to provide a urine sample Motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 84 participants | Very low |
Multi‐systemic therapy involving family and juveniles compared to treatment as usual for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Drug dependence Multi‐systemic therapy involving family and juveniles vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 156 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Arrested assessed by corroborating with police data Multi‐systemic therapy involving family and juveniles vs treatment | RR 0.97 [0.7, 1.36] | 1 study · 158 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Multi‐systemic therapy involving family compared to group substance abuse therapy for drug‐using adolescents with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using adolescents with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Arrests Multi‐systemic therapy involving family vs group substance abuse therapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 112 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Interpersonal psychotherapy compared to a psychoeducational intervention for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Substance abuse relapse post release Interpersonal psychotherapy vs a psychoeducational intervention | RR 0.67 [0.3, 1.5] | 1 study · 38 participants | Very low |
Legal defence service and wrap‐around social work services compared to legal defence service only for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental illness
Population: drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Committing new offences Legal defence service and wrap‐around social work services vs legal defence service only | RR 0.64 [0.07, 6.01] | 1 study · 29 participants | Very low |