Interventions for female drug-using offenders

Background This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both. Search methods We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Website resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity in female drug-using offenders. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Main results Nine trials with 1792 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. We rated the majority of studies as being at ‘unclear’ risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. We divided the studies into different categories for the purpose of meta-analyses: for any psychosocial treatments in comparison to treatment as usual we found low quality evidence that there were no significant differences in arrest rates (two studies; 489 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.52) of drug use (one study; 77 participants; RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.20-2.12), but we found moderate-quality evidence that there was a significant reduction in reincarceration (three studies; 630 participants; RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.34-0.64). Pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine in comparison with a placebo did not significantly reduce self-reported drug use (one study; 36 participants; RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.25-1.35). No cost or cost-effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies.