Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,071 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,030 | 0,043 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».