Prison based treatment programs for men with a history of ...

Prison based treatment programs for men with a history of ...

A systematic review of prison-based behavioural substance abuse treatment programs for men Authors: Michael Doyle, Anthony Shakeshaft, Jill Guthrie, Mieke Snijder and Tony Butler Scholarships & support: Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Background PhD Chapter one - Introduction and background Chapter two - Systematic Review Chapter three - Alcohol and other drug use among Aboriginal and nonAboriginal men entering prison in NSW Chapter four - Experiences of previous AoD treatment of men entering an intensive drug and alcohol treatment program in a correctional facility Chapter five - AoD treatment experiences of Aboriginal men in prison Chapter six - Discussion and conclusions Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men A systematic review of prison-based behavioural substance abuse treatment programs for men Originally intended to be Indigenous specific, but was broadened due to the lack of Indigenous specific papers. Focus on behavioural treatment excluding Pharmacotherapies (methadone) Co-morbidity (mental health) Previous reviews: Pearson F, Lipton DS. A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effectiveness of Corrections-Based Treatments for Drug Abuse. The Prison Journal 1999; 79(4): 384-410. (1968-1996) Mitchell O, Wilson DB, MacKenzie DL. The Effectiveness of Incarceration-Based Drug Treatment on Criminal Behaviour. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Collaboration; 2006. (1980-2004) Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men A systematic review of prison-based behavioural substance abuse treatment programs for men Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Prison-based substance abuse treatment Papers that related to previously published data Treatment participants are prison inmates Pharmacotherapy based substance abuse treatment Research participants are men only, or men and women prisoners

Mental health and substance abuse comorbidity treatments Published 1 January 1995 to 3 1 December 2015 Grey literature Available in English Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men A systematic review of prison-based behavioural substance abuse treatment programs for men Methodology: PRISMA - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Dictionary for Effective Public Health Practice Project and associated Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies Long and Godfreys (2004): An Evaluation Tool to Assess the Quality of Qualitative Research Studies Independently review Search strategy Word strings covering four domains were used: 1) Participant group or setting; 2) Substance abuse disorders; 3) Provision of treatment or care; and 4) Identifying as being research/evaluation: 5) Prison OR gaol OR jail OR detain* OR arrest* OR justice or (justice system) OR crim* OR (criminal justice) OR offend* OR parol* OR probation OR correction* or (correctional centre) or (correctional center) or (correctional facility) or (correctional institution) or (correctional service). Eligibility Screening Identification Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Searched data bases Informit (n=3,201); OVID & Cochrane Library (n=2,027); Campbell Library (n=21); Web of Science (n=1,950); CINAHL (n=2,412); Scopus (n=2,824); and the Project Cork database (n=612) 13,047 Retrieved 7,898 duplicates removed 5,149 Remaining 4,391 removed after screening key words and titles 758 Records after eligibility screening 513 removed at abstracts review 23 reviews Classification 20 AoD treatment provision 245 Prison based AoD research 85 treatment theory & development 29 screening & clinical Critical appraisal 88 AoD treatments 25 Papers suitable for inclusion 63 removed after full -text review: not original data post-prison or indistinguishable treatments Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men

Author Country Aim/approach Eligibility & exclusion criteria Treatment duration Arseneault (2015) Canada Psychoeducational program, with a harm reduction, motivational & CBT approach, incorporated academic. Minimum security & 42 days prior to release; moderate to severe alcohol/drug use, motivated to receive help; literate, able to function in group. Inmates with mental a disorder not controlled by medication were excluded from the program. 42 days; group size=14 Linhorst (2012) United States Psychoeducational program incorporating 12-step & recovery model of Alcoholics, Narcotics or Cocaine Anonymous. Entry by Court order if community option have failed or are not appropriate, participant must agree to placement. Court can order placement in cases of parole revocation. Exclusion criteria not specified. 90 days; group sizes, 30 in mens & 15 per womens group Pelissier (2001) United States CBT based group programs covering lifestyle choices & drug use, relapse prevention & anger management. Program entry and exclusion criteria to moderate (mod) & high intensity programs not specified. Mod 274 days; group size not stated - High 365 days ; group size not stated Raney (2005) United States CBT day attendance treatment program covering choices & drug use, relapse prevention Program entry and exclusion criteria not specified other than being minimum security for entry 274 days; group size 30 Staton (2000) United States Program based on AA 12-Step program and additional focus on linking cognition with behavior Program is for inmates with self-admitted AoD problems & offences related to AoD. None violent and other less criminal charges 182 days; group size not stated Turley (2004) United States Based on AA 12-Step. Later sessions in program focus on staying sober. Post-prison component Non-violent inmates with history of AoD use are eligible to volunteer for program. Exclusion criteria not stated.

60 to 90 days; group size not stated Vaughn (2003) Taiwan Psychoeducational program with education classes, taught in lecture format with limited interaction. If assessed as requiring AoD treatment inmates are mandated to complete program. Assessment inclusion, exclusion criteria not specified. 90 days; group size not stated & group size; 10 days; group size not stated Staff can place inmates in program if the reason for imprisonment is drug abuse or if drug abuse may impede social adjustment. No exclusion criteria specified. Book 32 days; group size 30 - day attendance 90 days; group size 10; drug treatment prison Vukadin (2004) Croatia AoD treatment prison with 2 x programs described as modified TCs with 12-Step program incorporated. Additional psychoeducational component covering alcohol education. Postprison AA & NA encouraged. Court ordered or if sentence is 182 days phycologists can order placement. No entry or exclusion criteria specified. Days not stated; group size not stated Inciardi (1997) United States 3 stage TC program (incarceration, work release, parole): Eligibility & exclusion criteria for program were not specified approach to treating the whole person not just the drug use, with aim to enhance prosocial behaviours & to change behaviour, negative thinking and feelings that pre-dispose to drug use. Postprison component Key & WCI village 365 days, Crest duration not stated; grp sizes not stated Joe (2010) United States 3 treatment program modalities: 2 x TC using Matrix Model. Methamphetamine TC graduates involved in peer teaching. 1 x psychoeducational group program All inmates screened on entry to prison & those in need of AoD treatment offered placement in a program. No other detail provided on entry or exclusion criteria TCs 182 to 274 days, Group program not clear 98 days; group sizes not stated Knight (1997) United States Inmates screened for drug use history on prison entry. When inmates have 270 to 300 days left to serve the Treatment Referral Committee make recommendations to Parole Board . Inmates excluded if offences are violence or sexual related TC & CTC 274 days, TC group size 25 to 50, CTC grp size not stated Lee (2014) South Korea TC program, adapted form United States but specific model not

described Voluntary program participation for men sentenced to 182 to 365 days with convictions of criminal activities related to substance abuse. No program exclusion criteria specified TCs 182 days, group size not stated Stohr (2002) United States 2 x TC programs with social learning theory applied using a CBT model. AA & NA 12-step components included Verified AoD abuse (definition not specified) with program 1 being parole violators & 2 regular termers. No program exclusion criteria specified. 274 to 365 days; group size not stated Welsh (2007) United States TC program, addressing criminal thinking and AoD use behaviour and develop skills for relapse prevention Triage approach but entry and exclusion criteria not specified 274 to 504 days; group size not stated TC Welsh (2010) United States TC program, addressing criminal thinking and AoD use behaviour and develop skills for relapse prevention 540 to 1020 days to serve, documented history of AoD (minimum score 3 on TCU Drug Screen 2), medium to low security, no serious mental health problems 365 days; group size not stated Wexler (1999) United States TC program. Addressing criminal thinking and AoD use behaviour and develop skills for relapse prevention. Post-prison care component Voluntary entry for inmates with drug problem (no case definition), minimum 270 to 420 days to serve. Inmates convicted of arson or sexual crimes are excluded 182 to 274 days; group size not stated Bowes (2012) Wales CBT approach study covering problem solving, coping with high risk situations & managing anger & stress History of alcohol related violence during 2 years prior to prison, medium to high risk of re-offending. Excludes acute mental illness/impairment, interment life sentence, inmates convicted of sexual offences. 30 days; group size = 8 to 10; Chaple (2014) United States Interactive computerised AoD education program Diagnosed moderate to low level substance use disorder, not currently receiving treatment, parole review or release 120 to 180 days. No exclusion criteria stated 90 days; group size not stated Crundall

(1997) Australia Psychoeducational program using social learning model with specific adaptations for Aboriginal Australians No program entry or exclusion criteria specially stated. Duration not stated; group size not stated Davis (2014) Canada Programs using social-cognitive theory and incorporates relapse prevention therapy and CBT. High intensity includes managing dependency & countering addictive beliefs Offenders were eligible for program and study, if AoD were implicated in their offense & if they had moderate to severe substance use problems. No exclusion criteria stated for program 42 (mod) & 140 days (high); group size not stated Gossage (2003) United States Study into the use of traditional Native American healing methods involving song and prayer in a sweat lodge setting to enhance or re-establish belief systems and practises that increase resilience. Alcohol education incorporated Voluntary participation in study, with the exception of maximum security being excluded Duration not stated; group size Lee (2011) Taiwan Study using mindfulness meditation classes incorporating stress reduction, CBT & relapse prevention Study inmates must have 1 year sentence due to drug possession or sale. Have past illicit drug use & had been abstinent in the past 182 days. Illiterate inmates & those with acute mental illness were excluded 70 days; group size not stated Slaski (2006) Poland Program is an adapted from AA 12-Step. Enhancement in selfawareness, acceptance of inability to control psychoactive substance use Admitted to program if alcoholic or alcohol dependent (no case definition provided), no exclusion criteria specified. 90 days; group size not stated TC program addressing AoD relapse, reasons for drug use, preparation for release, work release component & post-prison care component. Group treatment Study located in an AoD treatment facility with all inmates eligible to volunteer for control or treatment groups. CBT approach program using day attendance model & classes with self-learning workbook based on MATRIX program. Therapeutic Communities Vipassana mindfulness meditation study, teaching mindfulness & detachment from emotional situations Japan Drug treatment priso

United States Matsumoto (2014) Residential Bowen (2006) Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Table 1: Substance abuse treatment characteristics (n=25) Author Country Aim/approach Eligibility & exclusion criteria Treatment duration & group size; CBT based group programs covering lifestyle choices & drug use, relapse prevention & anger management. Program entry and exclusion criteria to moderate (mod) & high intensity programs not specified. Mod 274 days; group size not stated - High 365 days ; group size not stated Inciardi (1997) United States 3 stage TC program (incarceration, work release, parole): approach to treating the whole person not just the drug use, with aim to enhance prosocial behaviours & to change behaviour, negative thinking and feelings that pre-dispose to drug use. Post-prison component Eligibility & exclusion criteria for program Key & WCI village were not specified 365 days, Crest duration not stated; grp sizes not stated Knight (1997) United States TC program addressing AoD relapse, reasons for drug use, preparation for release, work release component & post-prison care component. Inmates screened for drug use history on prison entry. When inmates have 270 to 300 days left to serve the Treatment Referral Committee make recommendations to Parole Board . Inmates excluded if offences are violence or sexual related TC & CTC 274 days, TC group size 25 to 50, CTC grp size not stated Welsh (2007) United States TC program, addressing criminal

thinking and AoD use behaviour and develop skills for relapse prevention Triage approach but entry and exclusion criteria not specified 274 to 504 days; group size not stated TC Therapeutic Communities United States Residential Pelissier (2001) Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Treatment characteristics (n=25) USA (n=15), Canada (n=2), Taiwan (n=2), Australia (n=1), Croatia (n=1), Japan (n=1), Poland (n=1), United Kingdom (n=1), South Korea (n=1) Treatment settings Therapeutic community (n=8) [post-prison care x 3] Group treatment (n=7) [post-prison x 0] Residential treatment (n=7) [post-prison care x 1] Therapeutic prison facility (n=3) [post-prison care x 1] Treatment approaches described Cognitive behavioural therapy (n=8) 12-Step program e.g. Alcoholics Anonymous (n=6) Psychoeducational (n=6) Therapeutic community (n=9) MATRIX model (n=2) Meditation/mindfulness (n=2) Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Confou Author Sample Selection bias Study Design Men Moderate Moderate N=150 Intervention: n=80 Controls: n=70 Clinical-referral Controlled clinical trial Randomisation: No Linhorst (2012)

Men & women Moderate Moderate N=1,151 Clinical-referral or mandated Cohort analytic Randomisation: No Pelissier (2001) Men & women Moderate Moderate N=1,569 Intervention: n=760 Controls: n=809 Clinical-referral Cohort analytic Randomisation: No Raney (2005) Men & women Moderate Weak N=87 Clinical-referral Cohort Randomisation: No [ Times series analysis Randomisation: No Vaughn (2003) Men & women Moderate Moderate N=698 Intervention: n=304 controls: n=394 Clinical-referral/ mandated Cohort analytical Randomisation: No Bowen (2006) Men & women Weak Moderate N=173 Intervention: n=57 Controls: n=116 Self-referral Cohort analytic Randomisation: No

Matsumoto (2014) Men Moderate Weak N=251 Clinical-referral Cohort Randomisation: No Vukadin (2004) Men Moderate Weak N=108 Intervention: A n= 63 Intervention B n=46 Clinical-referral & mandated Cohort Randomisation: No Inciardi (1997) Men & women Moderate Moderate N=448 Clinical-referral Cohort analytical Randomisation: No Joe (2010) Men Moderate Moderate N=2,026 Clinical-referral Cohort analytical Randomisation: No Knight (1997) Men Moderate Moderate N=414 Intervention: n=293 Controls: n=121 Clinical-referral Cohort analytical Randomisation: No Lee H (2014) Men Weak

Strong N=48 Intervention: n=24 Controls: n=24 Self-referral Controlled Clinical trial Randomisation: Yes, not described Stohr (2002) Men Moderate Weak N=82 Clinical-referral or mandated Cohort Randomisation: No Welsh (2007) Men Moderate Moderate N=708 Intervention: n=217 controls: n=491 Clinical-referral Cohort analytical Randomisation: No Welsh (2010) Men Moderate Weak N=347 Clinical-referral Cohort Randomisation: No Wexler (1999) Men & women Moderate Strong N=715 Intervention: n=42 Controls: n=290 Clinical-referral, Controlled clinical trial Randomisation: Yes. Not described Bowes (2012) Men Strong Strong

N=115 Intervention: n=56 Clinical-referral Randomised control trial Randomisation: Yes, & described Controls: n=59 Chaple (2014) Men & women Moderate Strong N=494 Intervention: n=249 Controls n=245 Clinical-referral Controlled clinical trial Randomisation: Yes, not described Crundall (1997) Men Moderate Moderate N=58 Intervention: n=45 Clinical & Selfreferral Cohort analytic (Randomisation: No) Strong 96% of intervention group completed treatment. Treatment had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Strong Weak Only graduates included in analysis. Treatment had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Weak Modera Weak Routine data: Yes te Moderate Only graduates included in analysis. 75% men and 59% of women in intervention group completed treatment. Treatments had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Moderat e Strong Weak Treatment attendance not reported. Treatment had curriculum. No other treatment attended. Weak Moderate Only graduates included in analysis. Treatment

had curriculum. No other treatment attended. Weak Moderate Intervention group completed treatment. Treatment had curriculum. No other treatment attended. Weak Modera Strong Routine data: Yes te Weak Only graduates included in analysis. Treatment had curriculum. Intervention group able to attend other AoD treatments (no data recorded). Weak Weak Strong Intervention group completed treatment. Treatment had curriculum. No other treatment attended. Weak Not applicable Treatment attendance not reported. Treatment has curriculum. No other treatment attended. Weak Strong Treatment attendance not reported. Treatments had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Moderat e Moderate Only graduates included in analysis. Treatments had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Moderat e Strong Only graduates included in analysis. Treatment had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Strong Strong Intervention group completed treatment. Treatment had curriculum. Contamination present with 75% of controls also received one to one counselling. Moderat e Weak Treatment attendance not reported. Treatment had curriculum. No other treatment attended. Weak Moderate Intervention group completed treatment. 5 different TC interventions, authors state high consistence between treatments. Treatment

has curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Strong Modera Strong te Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes, (32, 33) Moderate All participants completed treatment. Treatment has curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Moderat e Strong Strong Intervention group completed treatment. Treatment has curriculum. No other treatment attended. Strong Modera Strong Routine data: No te Strong 68% of intervention group completed treatment. Treatment had curriculum. 64% of intervention & 34% of controls attended individual drug counselling. Strong Strong Strong 50% of intervention group completed treatment (recorded at only one site). Computerised curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Moderat e Weak Treatment attendance not reported. Treatment had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Weak Strong Strong Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes (1-13) Weak Weak Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Weak Routine data: No Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Weak Weak Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes

Validated tools: No Weak Weak Routine data: No Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Self-reported data: Yes Validated tools: Yes (14-19) Strong Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes (20, 21) Weak Weak Routine data: No Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Strong Weak Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Strong Strong Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes (22-26) Strong Strong Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes (27-33) Strong Strong Routine data: No Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes (34) Strong Weak Routine data: No Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Strong Strong Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes (35, 36) Strong Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes, (30, 37-42) Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes (43-47) Weak Routine data: No Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Weak Weak Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes & 3rd party Group Treatment Moderate Clinical-referral

Global rating Therapeutic Communities Moderate N=411 Intervention integrity Therapeutic Communities Men Withdrawa l& drop-out Drug treatment prison Turley (2004) Data collection methods Residential treatment Arseneault (2015) nders controll ed Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Table 2: Appraisal of quantitative papers (n = 24) Author Sample Selection bias Study Design [ Confounders controlled Data collection methods Withdrawa l& drop-out Intervention integrity Global rating Only graduates included in analysis. 75% men and 59% of women in intervention group completed treatment. Treatments had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Moderate Moderate Strong Cohort analytical Randomisation: No Weak Strong Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Treatment attendance not reported. Treatments had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported.

Moderate Moderate Clinicalreferral Moderate Strong Cohort analytical Randomisation: No Strong Strong Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes (27-33) Only graduates included in analysis. Treatment had curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Strong Moderate Clinicalreferral Moderate Strong Cohort analytical Randomisation: No Strong Moderate Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: Yes (35, 36) Intervention group completed Strong treatment. 5 different TC interventions, authors state high consistence between treatments. Treatment has curriculum. Attendance to other treatments not reported. Moderate Cohort analytic Randomisation: No Inciardi (1997) Men & women N=448 Moderate Clinicalreferral Knight (1997) Men N=414 Intervention: n=293 Controls: n=121 Welsh (2007) Men N=708 Intervention: n=217 controls: n=491 Moderate Therapeutic Communities Moderate Clinicalreferral

Residential Weak Moderate Routine data: Yes Self-report: Yes Validated tools: No Pelissier Men & (2001) women N=1,569 Intervention: n=760 Controls: n=809 Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Appraisal of quantitative papers (n = 24) Global rating: Strong (n=5): Arseneault (2015) , Bowes (2012) , Knight (1997) , Welsh (2007) , Wexler (1999) Moderate (n=6): Chaple (2014), Inciardi (1997) , Joe (2010) , Lee H (2014) , Lee K-H (2011), Pelissier (2001) Weak (n=13): Welsh (2010), Bowen (2006), Crundall (1997), Davis (2014), Gossage (2003), Linhorst (2012), Matsumoto (2014), Raney (2005), Slaski (2006), Stohr (2002), Turley (2004), Vaughn (2003), Vukadin (2004) Study design Strong: Randomised control trial (n=1), clinical control trial (n=5) Moderate: Cohort analytical (n=11), Weak: Cohort (n= 6), time series (n=1) Selection bias: Strong [no bias] (n=1) Moderate (n=17) Weak (n=6) Data collection: Strong: validated survey tools (n=12) 53 survey tools catalogued Moderate: survey based on a validated survey tool (n=1) Weak: none validated survey tools (n=11) Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Appraisal of quantitative papers (n = 24) Exposure level to the AoD treatment program: Directly reported in 4 papers. Though, participants were reported as graduates or to have completed program in 13 papers. Unintended exposure to similar program: It is likely that the residential and therapeutic community treatment setting would preclude exposure to similar programs. However, only three papers reported directly on unintended exposure. Integrity or consistency of the program: reported directly in two, though all professionally facilitated programs had a curriculum. Dropout/withdrawal: Strong (n=9) [reported and accounted for] Moderate (n=7) [not clearly reported, not accounted for] Weak (n=7) [missing participants!] Not applicable (n=1) Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Qualitative paper (Staton et al. 2000) The paper was of poor quality, it was a general summary of a residential treatment program and had inmates and staff participants. The methodological framework was vague, with no description of the participant groups and no detail about the context of the interviews, for example if data were collected via audio recording or by written notes. Key findings were not stated concisely. It was not always clear if the reported results were from the inmate or staff participants. The authors reported the program as successful in changing behaviour so that participants were less likely to abuse substances upon release but all data was collected in prison. Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Table 3: Aims and outcome of evaluations (n = 25) Aim of evaluation

Evaluate outcomes of new TC, with post-prison care compared to control group. Analysis Data from treatment and control groups 60 days before treatment completion/release; 182 and 365 days after release. 30% of follow-up group agreed to drug testing. Focused on re-imprisonment not drug use. Measures: Drug use, arrests, re-imprisonment, Statistical tests: Chi-square Intention to treat analysis: No Outcome Significant difference with TC graduates less likely to use drugs and re-imprisonment, the effect was larger for participants who entered the post-prison care treatment. Post-release follow-up. Welsh (2007) Compare outcomes from participants with and without post-prison care after TC treatment. Data from participants with and without mandatory post-prison care at TC completion; post-release at 90 and 365 days. Measures: AoD use (urinalysis for drug use), arrest, re-imprisonment Statistical tests: ANOVA, chi-square, logistic regression Intention to treat analysis: No No significant difference between groups for AoD use. Post-prison care group less likely to be re-imprisoned, particularly if employed or older. Post-release follow-up. Inciardi (1997) Compare outcome from TC only, TC + post-prison care, no TC but with post-prison care, and control Data from prior to leaving prison, 180 and 540 days post-release. Measures: AoD use, arrest, re-imprisonment Statistical tests: Descriptive, logistic and least squares regression Intention to treat analysis: Yes Significant results with lower AoD use at 180 & 540 days for TC + post-prison (best results), & the post-prison care only groups Pelissier (2001) Compare arrest and AoD use outcomes among moderate and high intensity federal prison treatment program and controls File data used, with result from treatment groups combined together. High and moderate treatment groups interviewed 42 days after commencement and within 14 days of treatment completion, 2/3 of these groups placed in prison based half-house with others receiving in prison transitional care. Participant file data including for controls reviewed 182 days post-release. Measures: AoD use, arrest, re-imprisonment Statistical tests: Survival analysis, correlation, logistic regression, multivariate Intention to treat analysis: No Data for treatment groups reported together. Significant difference with decreased AoD use and lower rearrests among treatment groups. Strong

Author Knight (1997) Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Aims, outcome and measures Aims were to evaluate the AoD treatment program (n=25); process (n=3), impact (n=7), outcome (n=11), impact and outcome (n=2), impact and process (n=2). Comparison between: Treatment and control (n=10) Different treatments (n=5) Multiple treatment groups and a control (n=1) Times series comparison of treatment groups (n=1) Measures: Substance use (n=12), Substance use self-efficacy (n=8), drug use harm reduction knowledge (n=6), satisfaction with program (n=4), social functioning (n=4), psychological functioning (n=4), problem solving skills (n=3) and arrest or re-imprisonment (n=10) Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Results summary and discussion Global rating: Strong: (n=5) Arseneault (2015), Bowes (2012), Knight (1997), Welsh (2007), Wexler (1999) Moderate: (n=7) Chaple (2014), Inciardi (1997), Joe (2010), Lee H (2014), Lee K-H (2011), Pelissier (2001), Welsh (2010) Weak: (n=12) Welsh (2010), Bowen (2006), Crundall (1997), Davis (2014), Gossage (2003), Linhorst (2012), Matsumoto (2014), Raney (2005), Slaski (2006), Stohr (2002), Turley (2004), Vaughn (2003), Vukadin (2004) Of the 12 program ranked as being methodologically strong or moderate Four measured alcohol and other drug use post prison Three reported statistically significant reduction in alcohol and other drug use One of the three conducted an intention to treat analysis Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Conclusions Both previous reviews, Pearson et al (1999) Mitchell et al (2006), reported that prison based therapeutic community treatment is the most effective in reducing AoD use post-prison. However, neither of these reviews assessed methodological quality. A Systematic Review of Prison-based Behavioural Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for Men Quality of papers is improving overtime. But we cannot conclude from four methodologically sound papers over 21 years that prison based AoD treatment is effective. Particularly as only one of the four conducted an intention to treat analysis. However; of the treatment models reviewed it appears that therapeutic community treatment offer the best results. Prison-based alcohol and other drug use treatment for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men Thank you Any questions? Michael Doyle Phone 02 9385 9259 Email: [email protected] Michael Doyle Phone: 0403 129 210 Email: [email protected]

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • The Creative Brief - University of Florida

    The Creative Brief - University of Florida

    The Creative Brief Definition A short document that provides the creative team with a succinct overview of the most important issues to consider in the development of an advertisement or campaign Purpose To inspire copywriters and art directors by channeling...
  • CCL  Referenti 8 Marzo 2006 1 Personale  A.

    CCL Referenti 8 Marzo 2006 1 Personale A.

    CCL - Referenti 8 Marzo 2006 Personale A. Bassi (Tempo parziale: 1/3) D. Bortolotti F. Brasolin P. Calligola (Tempo parziale ½) F. Martelli A. Monducci A. Paolucci G. Peco O. Pinazza F. Semeria ===== G. Artusi R. Giacomelli Personale (attivita')...
  • Taiwan - Wilson Creek School District 167-202

    Taiwan - Wilson Creek School District 167-202

    Taiwan By: Colton M. Facts about Taiwan People People are poor in Taiwan they don't go to the market like we do. They grow food by their selves or they have animals like chickens. People in Taiwan usually are farmers,...
  • Diversité des organismes vivants 4.1 - Introduction

    Diversité des organismes vivants 4.1 - Introduction

    Pendant la conjugaison, les cellules bactériennes s'attachent les unes aux autres par des structures appelées "pili". ... Les bactéries Slide 2 Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9 Slide 10 Slide 11 Slide...
  • Partnering with Microsoft to Deliver Student E-mail

    Partnering with Microsoft to Deliver Student E-mail

    All employees login through AD accounts. All employees have Exchange mailboxes. Growing use of Blackboard. ... Use existing Exchange system or a webmail system. Hosted "Free" vs. pay-per-account systems. Concerns on privacy of data, advertising.
  • Parts Management System Initiative

    Parts Management System Initiative

    Parts Management System Initiative October 29, 2008 Northrop Grumman Heritage CCMS Activities Corporate Directive Common Process Common Part Numbers Sector Plans Corporate Plans Benchmark Industry Best Practices Corporate Directive Develop Directive: In the spirit of MIL-STD 3018.
  • mOS Networking Stack - KAIST

    mOS Networking Stack - KAIST

    mOS is multi-core aware and can scale at 10+ Gbps networks. mOS provides an intuitive programming interface. Similar to BSD interface. Bro provides an interface through a scripting language. Bro plugin structure is available, but.
  • NP Completeness - Florida State University

    NP Completeness - Florida State University

    Primal - Dual picture 0 Z* Dual Solutions Primal Solutions Strong Optimality Primal = Dual at opt Duality A variable in the dual is paired with a constraint in the primal Objective function of the dual is determined by the...