Interventions for female drug-using offenders

Abstract

This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders. To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases (between 2004 and 21st March 2013) and five additional web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information. We include randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse in female drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost effectiveness of interventions. We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We identified 76 trials across the four reviews. Following a process of prescreening, we judged that 11 trials met the inclusion criteria of the specified review; four of the 11 trials are awaiting classification in the review. The remaining seven trials cover 1236 participants. The interventions included in this review report on therapeutic communities (TCs), gender-responsive treatment (GRT), use of case management and cognitive skills, and a pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. The majority of studies were rated as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. Overall the interventions showed statistically significant reductions in self-reported drug use, (four studies, 734 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.80) and re-incarceration, (four studies, 745 participants, RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.72). We found a statistically non-significant result for re-arrest (three studies, 803 participants, RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.19). Individual treatment results found that TCs and a GRT programme showed a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration (one study, 509 participants, RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.60) but not for re-arrest, (one study, 314 participants, RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03) and self-reported drug use (two studies, 825 participants, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.53). Case management and cognitive skills programmes did not significantly reduce re-arrests, (one study, 183 participants RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.41) or self-reported drug use, (one study, 77 participants, RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but did show a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration, (three studies, 236 participants, RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81). Buprenorphine did not significantly reduce self-reported drug use (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35), but this result came from a single study with only 36 participants. Due to the small number of studies we were unable to analyse the impact of treatment setting on outcome. No cost and cost effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies. The seven trials show some positive results for the use of treatments to reduce self-reported drug use and subsequent re-incarceration. However, the studies overall showed a high degree of statistical variation, requiring a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.