Treatment or Else

Zhang, Sheldon X.; Roberts, Robert E.; Lansing, Amy E.

doi:10.1177/0306624x12440253

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of our study suggest that substance abuse and dependency are not new impediments for probationers/parolees. Indeed, our trend results indicate that SUDs, particularly alcohol abuse and dependence, have and continue to pose significant difficulty for individuals on probation/parole – a finding that is bolstered by the results of other recent reports (Bahr et al, 2010; Blasko et al, 2015; Vaughn et al, 2012; Zhang et al, 2013). Rare, however, is the probation/parole contract that does not require abstinence from most, if not all, substances under examination in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Trends and correlates of substance use disorders among probationers and parolees in the United States 2002–2014

Fearn

Vaughn

Nelson

et al. 2016

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Substance use and crime/recidivism are irrevocably linked. We explore the nuances of this association by highlighting the prevalence, trends, and correlates of substance use dsorders in a large group of probationers/parolees. Methods We examined SUDs among probationers and parolees in the United States using data from the National Study on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Logistic regression models were computed to examine eight distinct outcomes: alcohol abuse, illicit drug abuse, marijuana/hashish abuse, comorbid alcohol and illicit drug abuse, alcohol dependence, illicit drug dependence, marijuana/hashish dependence, and comorbid alcohol and illicit drug dependence. Results Probationers/parolees have high prevalence rates across all SUDs categories and these trends have been relatively constant. Prevalence rates for alcohol abuse and dependence are two to six times higher than for marijuana and other illicit drug abuse and dependence. Key correlates of substance abuse for probationers/parolees include: age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, risk propensity, crime/violence measures, and comorbid substance abuse. Similar correlates were found for substance dependence, in addition to employment and mental health treatment. Conclusions This study indicates that SUDs are higher among probationer/parolees as compared to their non-supervised counterparts – between four and nine times higher – and these levels have changed little in recent years. Effectively responding to SUDs in this population may enhance adherence to supervision requirements, prevent recidivism, and improve public safety. We may be better served using limited funds for further development of evidence-based policies and programs, such as drug courts, which demonstrate reductions in both drug use and recidivism.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Trends and correlates of substance use disorders among probationers and parolees in the United States 2002–2014

Fearn

Vaughn

Nelson

et al. 2016

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many instances, offenders are mandated to attend referrals to substance abuse treatment and/or participate in treatment as a condition of community supervision. While the available research suggests that offenders in mandated substance abuse treatment achieve similar, if not better, programmatic and recidivism outcomes than voluntary participants (Farabee et al, 1999; Zhang, Roberts, & Lansing, 2013), very little information is available on the outcomes of those who voluntarily self-select into treatment services. Offenders who voluntarily choose to pursue community services above and beyond traditional referral and mandate processes of community supervision may be more motivated to maintain recovery gains.…”

Section: Substance Abuse Treatment For Offendersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to Recovery and Recidivism Among Former Prison Inmates

Ray

Grommon

Buchanan

et al. 2015

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to Recovery (ATR) is a SAMHSA-funded initiative that offers a mix of clinical and supportive services for substance abuse. ATR clients choose which services will help to overcome barriers in their road to recovery, and a recovery consultant provides vouchers and helps link the client to these community resources. One of ATR's goals was to provide services to those involved in the criminal justice system in the hopes that addressing substance abuse issues could reduce subsequent criminal behaviors. This study examines this goal by looking at recidivism among a sample of clients in one state's ATR program who returned to the community after incarceration. Results suggest there were few differential effects of service selections on subsequent recidivism. However, there are significant differences in recidivism rates among the agencies that provided ATR services. Agencies with more resources and a focus on prisoner reentry had better recidivism outcomes than those that focus only on substance abuse services.

show abstract

“…15 Regardless, it is undeniably used worldwide to differing degrees. 14,16,17 Nevertheless, the decision to apply such measures for SUD remains controversial, 14,16,17 although multiple major scientific associations have declared addiction a mental illness. The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the American Society of Addiction Medicine defined addiction as a "brain disease."…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, one narrative review of involuntary treatment for psychiatric illness described how patients often resent involuntary care in the short term but view it favourably in the long term once they regain their capacity and even express gratitude 15 . Regardless, it is undeniably used worldwide to differing degrees 14,16,17 . Nevertheless, the decision to apply such measures for SUD remains controversial, 14,16,17 although multiple major scientific associations have declared addiction a mental illness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regardless, it is undeniably used worldwide to differing degrees 14,16,17 . Nevertheless, the decision to apply such measures for SUD remains controversial, 14,16,17 although multiple major scientific associations have declared addiction a mental illness. The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the American Society of Addiction Medicine defined addiction as a “brain disease.” 18 In addition, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has defined diagnostic criteria for addiction, termed SUDs, which are considered psychiatric disorders per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Disease (ICD) 19…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of Involuntary Treatment for Individuals With Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review

Bahji,

Leger,

Nidumolu

et al. 2023

Canadian Journal of Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine La Societe medicale canadienne sur l’addiction Policy Committee created a task force to conduct a systematic review examining the effectiveness of involuntary treatment for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). Methods: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and searched 2 databases for peer-reviewed articles assessing the effectiveness of involuntary treatment modalities for substance use disorders from inception to July 2021. Effectiveness was defined as any SUD-related outcome, including treatment retention, post-treatment substance use frequency, overdose mortality, improvement in functioning, or other patient-centred outcomes. Involuntary treatment was defined as any modality not fully motivated by the individual’s volition to seek treatment. Results: Forty-two studies met the review criteria, with 354,420 participants. Most studies were from the United States, Canada, and China: most measured substance use changes, criminal recidivism, and retention in treatment. Only 7 studies comparing involuntary to voluntary intervention reported improved outcomes in the involuntary group, with most for retention in treatment and only one showing a reduction in substance use. Six out of 7 studies comparing different involuntary interventions occurred in the context of prison or probation. No studies compared the involuntary treatment to no treatment. Only 11 described evidence-based treatment for SUDs, while 5 diagnosed and co-treated psychiatric comorbidity and 11 discussed the motivation for treatment. Conclusions: There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support or refute involuntary treatment for SUD. More research is needed to inform health policy. Contexte: Le comité d’orientation de la Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine La Societe medicale canadienne sur l’addiction a créé un groupe de travail chargé d’effectuer une étude systématique sur l’efficacité du traitement non volontaire des personnes souffrant de troubles liés à l’utilisation de substances (TLUS). Méthodes: Nous avons suivi les directives PRISMA et cherché dans deux bases de données des articles évalués par des pairs sur l’efficacité des modalités de traitement non volontaire des troubles liés à l’utilisation de substances, depuis sa création jusqu'à juillet 2021. L’efficacité a été définie comme tout résultat lié aux troubles liés à l’utilisation de substances, y compris la rétention du traitement, la fréquence de l’utilisation de substances après le traitement, la mortalité par overdose, l’amélioration du fonctionnement ou d’autres résultats centrés sur le patient. Le traitement non volontaire est défini comme toute modalité qui n’est pas entièrement motivée par la volonté de l’individu de se faire soigner. Résultats: 42 études ont répondu aux critères d’examen, avec 354 420 participants. La plupart des études provenaient des États-Unis, du Canada et de la Chine: la plupart mesuraient les changements dans la consommation de substances, la récidive criminelle et la rétention en traitement. Seules sept études comparant l’intervention non volontaire à l’intervention volontaire ont fait état de meilleurs résultats dans le groupe non volontaire, la plupart concernant la rétention en traitement et une seule montrant une réduction de la consommation de substances. Six des sept études comparant différentes interventions non volontaires ont eu lieu dans le contexte de la prison ou de la probation. Aucune étude n’a comparé le traitement non volontaire à l’absence de traitement. Seules 11 études décrivaient un traitement basé sur des preuves pour les TLUS, tandis que cinq études diagnostiquaient et traitaient la comorbidité psychiatrique et 11 études discutaient de la motivation pour le traitement. Conclusions: Il y a un manque de preuves de haute qualité pour soutenir ou réfuter le traitement non volontaire des TLUS. Des recherches supplémentaires sont nécessaires pour éclairer la politique de santé.

show abstract

Treatment or Else

Cited by 12 publications

References 58 publications

Trends and correlates of substance use disorders among probationers and parolees in the United States 2002–2014

Trends and correlates of substance use disorders among probationers and parolees in the United States 2002–2014

Access to Recovery and Recidivism Among Former Prison Inmates

Effectiveness of Involuntary Treatment for Individuals With Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About