Cochrane · systematic review · CD010910
Interventions for female drug‐using offenders
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
43
current version
GRADE rated
43
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 26 · 60.5%Low 10 · 23.3%Moderate 7 · 16.3%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
Current version onlyCollaborative case management compared to treatment as usual
Population: female offenders
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Use of primary drug during 9 month Collaborative case management vs treatment | RR 0.65 [0.2, 2.12] | 1 study · 77 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Reincarceration at 9 months Collaborative case management vs treatment | RR 0.71 [0.32, 1.57] | 1 study · 77 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of arrests Collaborative case management vs treatment | RR 1.11 [0.83, 1.49] | 1 study · 113 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Community‐based buprenorphine compared to placebo
Population: females offenders
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
End of treatment drug use Community‐based buprenorphine vs placebo | RR 0.57 [0.27, 1.2] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Drug use at 3 months Community‐based buprenorphine vs placebo | RR 0.58 [0.25, 1.35] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Interpersonal psychotherapy compared to psychoeducational control
Population: summary findings of female review
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Relapse to drug use at 3 months Interpersonal psychotherapy vs psychoeducational control | RR 0.67 [0.3, 1.5] | 1 study · 38 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) compared to waiting list control
Population: summary findings of female review
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Abstinence from drug use at 6 months Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs waiting list control | RR 2.89 [0.73, 11.43] | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
ASI drug score at 6 months Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs waiting list control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Cognitive behavioural therapy and other therapies compared to prison therapeutic community
Population: summary findings of female review
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Reincarcerated at 12 months after parole Cognitive behavioural therapy and other therapies vs prison therapeutic community | RR 0.7 [0.43, 1.12] | 1 study · 115 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Arrested for any crime at 6 months Cognitive behavioural therapy and other therapies vs prison therapeutic community | RR 0.73 [0.52, 1.03] | 1 study · 314 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Criminal activity at 6 months Cognitive behavioural therapy and other therapies vs prison therapeutic community | RR 0.8 [0.63, 1.03] | 1 study · 314 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Drug‐related crime at 6 months Cognitive behavioural therapy and other therapies vs prison therapeutic community | RR 0.95 [0.68, 1.32] | 1 study · 314 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Arrested (not parole violation) at 6 months Cognitive behavioural therapy and other therapies vs prison therapeutic community | RR 0.43 [0.25, 0.77] | 1 study · 314 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Self‐reported drug use at 6 months Cognitive behavioural therapy and other therapies vs prison therapeutic community | RR 0.86 [0.58, 1.27] | 1 study · 314 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cognitive behavioural therapy and standard therapy compared to treatment as usual
Population: summary findings of female review
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incarceration at 3 months Cognitive behavioural therapy and standard therapy vs treatment | RR 0.46 [0.04, 4.68] | 1 study · 44 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Incarceration at 6 months Cognitive behavioural therapy and standard therapy vs treatment | RR 0.51 [0.2, 1.27] | 1 study · 44 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
ASI drug score at 3 months Cognitive behavioural therapy and standard therapy vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 44 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
ASI drug score at 6 months Cognitive behavioural therapy and standard therapy vs treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 44 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Single computerised session compared to single session of case management
Population: summary findings of female review
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of days not using drugs (in the past 30 days) at 3 months Single computerised session vs single session of case management | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 171 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Dialectic behaviour therapy with case management compared to a health promotion scheme
Population: summary findings of female review
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Positive drug test using urine sample at 6 months Dialectic behaviour therapy with case management vs a health promotion scheme | RR 0.67 [0.43, 1.03] | 1 study · 116 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number not using marijuana at 6 months Dialectic behaviour therapy with case management vs a health promotion scheme | RR 1.23 [0.95, 1.59] | 1 study · 116 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number not using crack at 6 months Dialectic behaviour therapy with case management vs a health promotion scheme | RR 1 [0.87, 1.14] | 1 study · 116 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number not using cocaine at 6 months Dialectic behaviour therapy with case management vs a health promotion scheme | RR 1.02 [0.93, 1.12] | 1 study · 116 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number not using heroin at 6 months Dialectic behaviour therapy with case management vs a health promotion scheme | RR 1.05 [0.98, 1.13] | 1 study · 116 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number not using methamphetamine at 6 months Dialectic behaviour therapy with case management vs a health promotion scheme | RR 1.02 [0.87, 1.2] | 1 study · 116 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Self‐report of no drug use at 6 months Dialectic behaviour therapy with case management vs a health promotion scheme | RR 1.2 [0.92, 1.56] | 1 study · 116 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Therapeutic community compared to work release
Population: summary findings of female review
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incarcerated for drug offences at 18 months Therapeutic community vs work release | RR 1.45 [0.87, 2.42] | 1 study · 112 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Marijuana use at 6 months Therapeutic community vs work release | RR 1.03 [0.19, 5.65] | 1 study · 51 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Marijuana use at 18 months Therapeutic community vs work release | RR 1 [0.07, 14.45] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Heroin use at 6 months Therapeutic community vs work release | RR 1.59 [0.49, 5.14] | 1 study · 68 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Heroin use at 18 months Therapeutic community vs work release | RR 1.92 [0.24, 15.37] | 1 study · 37 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Crack use at 6 months Therapeutic community vs work release | RR 2.07 [0.41, 10.41] | 1 study · 55 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Crack use at 18 months Therapeutic community vs work release | RR 1.64 [0.19, 14.06] | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Cocaine use at 6 months Therapeutic community vs work release | RR 1.09 [0.79, 1.5] | 1 study · 211 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Cocaine use at 18 months Therapeutic community vs work release | RR 0.93 [0.64, 1.35] | 1 study · 139 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Intensive discharge planning and case management compared to prison only
Population: summary findings of female review
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Marijuana use Intensive discharge planning and case management vs prison only | RR 0.79 [0.53, 1.16] | 1 study · 511 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hard drug use Intensive discharge planning and case management vs prison only | RR 1.12 [0.88, 1.43] | 1 study · 511 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Positive hair test for crack cocaine Intensive discharge planning and case management vs prison only | OR 1.08 [0.75, 1.54] | 1 study · 511 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Positive hair test for marijuana use Intensive discharge planning and case management vs prison only | RR 0.75 [0.55, 1.03] | 1 study · 511 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Arrested Intensive discharge planning and case management vs prison only | RR 0.19 [0.04, 0.87] | 1 study · 511 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Drug charge Intensive discharge planning and case management vs prison only | RR 1.07 [0.75, 1.53] | 1 study · 511 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Incarceration Intensive discharge planning and case management vs prison only | RR 1.09 [0.86, 1.39] | 1 study · 511 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pre‐ versus post‐release buprenorphine use
Population: 211 adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Heroin use and positive urine screen testing Pre‐ vs post‐release buprenorphine use | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 211 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Any psychosocial intervention compared to treatment as usual: Drug use for female drug‐using offenders
Population: Patients with female drug‐using offenders
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Self reported drug use dichotomous Any psychosocial intervention vs treatment | RR 0.65 [0.2, 2.12] | 1 study · 77 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Any psychosocial intervention compared to treatment as usual for female drug‐using offenders
Population: Female drug‐using offenders
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Arrests Self report/ official records Any psychosocial intervention vs treatment | RR 0.82 [0.45, 1.52] | 2 studies · 489 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Re‐incarceration (plus arrested and charged data) Self reported Any psychosocial intervention vs treatment | RR 0.46 [0.34, 0.64] | 3 studies · 630 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |