Examining the Effectiveness of Two Substance Use Interventions Within the Criminal Justice System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives: Addressing substance misuse is an important factor when providing interventions and rehabilitation for justice-involved individuals. Breaking Free Online (BFO) is a computer-assisted therapy, developed and implemented in the United Kingdom, which is used to treat substance misuse in clients who have been deemed a lower risk of reoffending. Pillars of Recovery (PoR) is a more intensive group therapy, based on the same principles as BFO but is appropriate for clients at a higher risk of reoffending. The aim of the current study was to compare outcomes for justice-involved individuals in the United Kingdom who were triaged into either BFO or PoR, based on their risk of reoffending. Method: Four hundred sixty-six males residing in 1 of 10 prisons in North-West England participated in either treatment intervention and completed pre and postmeasures of overall quality of life, substance dependence severity, and biopsychosocial impairment. Results: Results demonstrated significantly reduced substance use in both groups, and though both had improved quality of life and biopsychosocial functioning, the PoR group demonstrated greater degrees of improvement in these outcomes. Conclusion: These findings indicate that these interventions for substance-involved clients within the criminal justice system are effective at reducing substance dependence, improving quality of life, and lowering biopsychosocial impairment. Objectifs: La lutte contre l’abus de substances est un facteur important lors de la prestation d’interventions et de réadaptation pour les personnes aux prises avec le système judiciaire. Breaking Free Online (BFO) est une thérapie assistée par ordinateur, développée et mise en œuvre au Royaume-Uni, qui est utilisée pour traiter l’abus de substances chez les clients jugés à faible risque de récidive. Pillars of Recovery (PoR) est une thérapie de groupe plus intensive, basée sur les mêmes principes que le BFO, mais qui convient aux clients présentant un risque plus élevé de récidive. Le but de la présente étude était de comparer les résultats pour les personnes impliquées dans le système judiciaire au Royaume-Uni qui ont été triées en BFO ou PoR, en fonction de leur risque de récidive. Méthode: 466 hommes résidant dans l’une des 10 prisons du nord-ouest de l’Angleterre ont participé à l’une ou l’autre des interventions thérapeutiques et ont effectué des mesures pré et postérieures de la qualité de vie globale, de la gravité de la dépendance aux substances et de la déficience biopsychosociale. Résultats: Les résultats ont démontré une réduction significative de la consommation de substances dans les deux groupes, et bien que les deux aient amélioré la qualité de vie et le fonctionnement biopsychosocial, le groupe PoR a démontré de plus hauts degrés d’amélioration de ces résultats. Conclusion: Ces résultats indiquent que ces interventions auprès des clients toxicomanes au sein du système de justice pénale sont efficaces pour réduire la dépendance aux substances, améliorer la qualité de vie et réduire les troubles biopsychosociaux.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".