Dataset Information

Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Repeat offending, also known as criminal recidivism, in people released from prison has remained high over many decades. To address this, psychological treatments have been increasingly used in criminal justice settings; however, there is little evidence about their effectiveness. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in prison to reduce recidivism after release.

Methods

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Global Health, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for articles published from database inception to Feb 17, 2021, without any language restrictions. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of psychological interventions, delivered to adolescents and adults during incarceration, on recidivism outcomes after release. We excluded studies of solely pharmacological interventions and of participants in secure psychiatric hospitals or special residential units, or attending therapies mainly delivered outside of the prison setting. We extracted summary estimates from eligible RCTs. Data were extracted and appraised according to a prespecified protocol, with effect sizes converted to odds ratios. We used a standardised form to extract the effects of interventions on recidivism and estimated risk of bias for each RCT. Planned sensitivity analyses were done by removing studies with fewer than 50 participants. Our primary outcome was recidivism. Data from individual RCTs were combined in a random-effects meta-analysis as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and we explored sources of heterogeneity by comparing effect sizes by study size, control group, and intervention type. The protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020167228.

Findings

Of 6345 articles retrieved, 29 RCTs (9443 participants, 1104 [11·7%] females, 8111 [85·9%] males, and 228 [2·4%] unknown) met the inclusion criteria for the primary outcome. Mean ages were 31·4 years (SD 4·9, range 24·5-41·5) for adult participants and 17·5 years (SD 1·9; range 14·6-20·2) for adolescent participants. Race or ethnicity data were not sufficiently reported to be aggregated. If including all 29 RCTs, psychological interventions were associated with reduced reoffending outcomes (OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·56-0·92). However, after excluding smaller studies (<50 participants in the intervention group), there was no significant reduction in recidivism (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0·68-1·11). Based on two studies, therapeutic communities were associated with decreased rates of recidivism (OR 0·64, 95% CI 0·46-0·91). These risk estimates did not significantly differ by type of control group and other study characteristics.

Interpretation

Widely implemented psychological interventions for people in prison to reduce offending after release need improvement. Publication bias and small-study effects appear to have overestimated the reported modest effects of such interventions, which were no longer present when only larger studies were included in analyses. Findings suggest that therapeutic communities and interventions that ensure continuity of care in community settings should be prioritised for future research. Developing new treatments should focus on addressing modifiable risk factors for reoffending.

Funding

Wellcome Trust, Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé.

SUBMITTER: Beaudry G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8376657 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is rising awareness that we need multidisciplinary approaches integrating psychological treatments for schizophrenia, but a comprehensive evidence based on their relative efficacy is lacking. We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to rank psychological treatments for schizophrenia according to their efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will include all RCTs comparing a psychological treatment aimed at positive symptoms of schizophrenia with another psychological intervention or with a no treatment condition (waiting-list and treatment as usual). We will include studies on adult patients with schizophrenia, excluding specific subpopulations (eg, first-episode patients or patients with psychiatric comorbidities). Primary outcome will be the change in positive symptoms on a published rating scale. Secondary outcomes will be acceptability (dropout), change in overall and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, response, relapse, adherence, depression, quality of life, functioning and adverse events. Published and unpublished studies will be sought through database searches, trial registries and websites. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will conduct random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidences for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. NMA will be conducted in Stata and R within a frequentist framework. The risk of bias in studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the credibility of the evidence will be evaluated using an adaptation of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to NMA, recommended by the Cochrane guidance. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017067795.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Torture and other forms of ill treatment have been reported in at least 141 countries, exposing a global crisis. Survivors face multiple physical, psychological, and social difficulties. Psychological consequences for survivors are varied, and evidence on treatment is mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the benefits and harms of psychological, social, and welfare interventions for torture survivors. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We updated a 2014 review with published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for adult survivors of torture comparing any psychological, social, or welfare intervention against treatment as usual or active control from 1 January 2014 through 22 June 2019. Primary outcome was post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms or caseness, and secondary outcomes were depression symptoms, functioning, quality of life, and adverse effects, after treatment and at follow-up of at least 3 months. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios were estimated using meta-analysis with random effects. The Cochrane tool was used to derive risk of bias. Fifteen RCTs were included, with data from 1,373 participants (589 females and 784 males) in 10 countries (7 trials in Europe, 5 in Asia, and 3 in Africa). No trials of social or welfare interventions were found. Compared to mostly inactive (waiting list) controls, psychological interventions reduced PTSD symptoms by the end of treatment (SMD -0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.52 to -0.09, p = 0.005), but PTSD symptoms at follow-up were not significantly reduced (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.06, p = 0.09). No significant improvement was found for PTSD caseness at the end of treatment, and there was possible worsening at follow-up from one study (n = 28). Interventions showed no benefits for depression symptoms at end of treatment (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.03, p = 0.09) or follow-up (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.24, p = 0.34). A significant improvement in functioning for psychological interventions compared to control was found at end of treatment (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.18, p = 0.0002) but not at follow-up from only one study. No significant improvement emerged for quality of life at end of treatment (SMD 0.38, 95% CI -0.28 to 1.05, p = 0.26) with no data available at follow-up. The main study limitations were the difficulty in this field of being certain of capturing all eligible studies, the lack of modelling of maintenance of treatment gains, and the low precision of most SMDs making findings liable to change with the addition of further studies as they are published. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings show evidence that psychological interventions improve PTSD symptoms and functioning at the end of treatment, but it is unknown whether this is maintained at follow-up, with a possible worsening of PTSD caseness at follow-up from one study. Further interventions in this population should address broader psychological needs beyond PTSD while taking into account the effect of multiple daily stressors. Additional studies, including social and welfare interventions, will improve precision of estimates of effect, particularly over the longer term.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether psychological interventions have any effect on glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies to assess their effectiveness in improving glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes.Data sourcesMedline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials searched to September 2004.Review methodsAll included studies were randomised controlled trials in children (including adolescents) or adults with type 1 diabetes that evaluated the effect of a psychological therapy (counselling, cognitive behaviour therapy, family systems therapy, and psychodynamic therapy) on control of diabetes. Data were extracted on sample size, age, duration of diabetes, type of psychological therapy, its mode of delivery, and type of intervention in control group.Main outcome measuresGlycaemic control measured by percentage of glycated haemoglobin and psychological distress. Pooled standardised effect sizes were calculated.Results29 trials were eligible for the systematic review and 21 trials for the meta-analysis. In the 10 studies of children and adolescents included in the meta-analysis, the mean percentage of glycated haemoglobin was significantly reduced in those who had received a psychological intervention compared with those in the control group (pooled standardised mean difference -0.35 (95% confidence interval -0.66 to -0.04), equivalent to a 0.48% (0.05% to 0.91%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. In the 11 studies in adults the pooled standardised mean difference was -0.17 (-0.45 to 0.10), equivalent to 0.22% (-0.13% to 0.56%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. Psychological distress was significantly lower in the intervention groups in children and adolescents (pooled standardised effect size -0.46, -0.83 to -0.10) but not in adults (-0.25, -0.51 to 0.01).ConclusionPsychological treatments can slightly improve glycaemic control in children and adolescents with diabetes but have no effect in adults.

Project description:IntroductionThe prevalence of postpartum depression (PPD) is 17%, and the incidence is 12% worldwide. Adverse consequences for mothers and babies have been associated with this disease. To assess the effectiveness of psychological, psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions in preventing PPD, a systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) will be conducted.Methods and analysisA SR/MA will be performed following the indications of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies will be identified through MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, OpenGrey, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and evidencebasedtherapy.org from inception until 31 January 2020. Bridging searches will be also conducted until the review is completed. The selection criteria will be as follows: (1) subjects will be pregnant females or females who have given birth in the last 12 months and who were non-depressive at baseline; (2) psychological, psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions; (3) comparator will be usual care, attention control, waiting list or no intervention; (4) outcomes will be specific results on PPD; and (5) the design of the studies will be randomised controlled trials. No restrictions regarding the year of publication, the setting of the intervention or the language of publication will be considered. Pooled standardised mean differences and 95% CIs will be calculated. The risk of bias of the studies will be assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity between the studies will be determined by the I2 and Cochran's Q statistics. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses will also be performed. Publication bias will be checked with funnel plots and Egger's test. Heterogeneity will be explored by random-effects meta-regression analysis.Ethics and disseminationThe ethical assessment was not required. The results will be presented at conferences and disseminated through publications.Prospero registration numberCRD42018109981.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. METHODS:Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS:A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible. CONCLUSIONS:At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions for adults with obesity delivered in primary care.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Eligibility criteria for selection of studiesRandomised controlled trials of behavioural weight management interventions for adults with a body mass index ≥25 delivered in primary care compared with no treatment, attention control, or minimal intervention and weight change at ≥12 months follow-up.Data sourcesTrials from a previous systematic review were extracted and the search completed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PubMed, and PsychINFO from 1 January 2018 to 19 August 2021.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted with random effects models, and a pooled mean difference for both weight (kg) and waist circumference (cm) were calculated.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was weight change from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcome was weight change from baseline to ≥24 months. Change in waist circumference was assessed at 12 months.Results34 trials were included: 14 were additional, from a previous review. 27 trials (n=8000) were included in the primary outcome of weight change at 12 month follow-up. The mean difference between the intervention and comparator groups at 12 months was -2.3 kg (95% confidence interval -3.0 to -1.6 kg, I2=88%, P<0.001), favouring the intervention group. At ≥24 months (13 trials, n=5011) the mean difference in weight change was -1.8 kg (-2.8 to -0.8 kg, I2=88%, P<0.001) favouring the intervention. The mean difference in waist circumference (18 trials, n=5288) was -2.5 cm (-3.2 to -1.8 cm, I2=69%, P<0.001) in favour of the intervention at 12 months.ConclusionsBehavioural weight management interventions for adults with obesity delivered in primary care are effective for weight loss and could be offered to members of the public.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021275529.

Project description:BackgroundThe "real" effect size of a medical therapy is constant over time. In contrast, the effect size reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may change over time because the sum of all kinds of bias influencing the reported effectiveness is not necessarily constant. As this would affect the validity of meta-analyses, we tested the hypothesis that the reported effect size decreases over time. Furthermore, we tested three hypotheses that would explain a possible change.MethodsBecause of well established outcome measures, the lipid-lowering drugs Pravastatin and Atorvastatin (serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C) and the anti-glaucoma drugs Timolol and Latanoprost (intraocular pressure, IOP) were chosen for this investigation. Studies were identified by a standardized MEDLINE search. RCTs investigating the above identified medications administered as monotherapy, and in defined dosages, were included. Publication year, baseline (= pre-treatment value in the treatment group of interest) and post intervention means, number of patients and the assignment to experimental or control group were extracted for each study.ResultsA total of 625 citations were screened; 206 met the inclusion criteria. The reported effect size of Pravastatin (change of reported effect size in five years: -3.22% LDL-C, P < .0001), Timolol (-0.56 mmHg, P < .0001) and Latanoprost (-1.78 mmHg, P = .0074) decreased over time, while there was no significant change for Atorvastatin (+0.31% LDL-C, P = .8618). Multiple regression analysis showed that baseline values were the most important influencing factor; study size or treatment group did not play a significant role.ConclusionThe effectiveness of medical therapies reported in RCTs decreases over time in three of the four investigated pharmaceuticals, caused mainly by baseline differences. We call this phenomenon "fading of reported effectiveness". Under this condition the validity of a meta-analysis may be impaired. Therefore we propose to observe this phenomenon in future meta-analyses in order to guarantee a maximum of transparency.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions that provide pregnant women with opportunities to access and participate in physical activity have been shown to be beneficial to their health. Much of this evidence however has been based on self-reported physical activity data, which may be prone to inflated effects due to recall bias and social desirability bias. No previous synthesis of randomised controlled trials has assessed the effectiveness of these interventions using only device measured data, to assess their health benefits more accurately in pregnant women. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address this evidence gap.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, SportDiscus, APA PsycINFO, Embase and Web of Science databases were queried from inception up to December 2, 2021. An updated search of PubMed was conducted on May 16, 2022.Study eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials that recruited pregnant women, participating in any physical activity intervention (excluding interventions aimed entirely at body conditioning), compared with standard antenatal care (comparators), using device-measured total physical activity as an outcome were eligible for inclusion.Methods3144 titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility, and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Data were analysed using random effect models, (standardised mean difference and mean difference), using data from baseline to last available follow-up (primary end point), and until between 24 to 30 weeks gestation. Gestational weight gain was also assessed at these timepoints in the included trials.ResultsNo significant differences between the groups were found for total physical activity at last available follow-up or 24 to 30 weeks gestation (95% CI 0.03 to 0.27, p = 0.10: 95% CI -0.05 to 0.33, p = 0.15) respectively. On average, pregnant women randomised to a physical activity intervention completed 435 and 449 more steps per day than comparators at last available follow-up and at 24 to 30 weeks gestation (95% CI -0.5-870.6, p = 0.05: 95% CI 5.5-892.7, p = 0.05) respectively. Intervention participants also gained 0.69 kg less (95% CI -1.30 to -0.08, p = 0.03) weight than comparators.ConclusionBased on device-measured data, interventions to promote physical activity during pregnancy have small but important effects on increasing physical activity and managing excessive gestational weight gain.