Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26790691›Full record

SynthesisThe International journal on drug policy2016

The effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment: A systematic review.

D Werb, A Kamarulzaman, M C Meacham, C Rafful, B Fischer, S A Strathdee, E Wood

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The International journal on drug policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A call for upstream solutions to the unregulated drug crisis in British Columbia, Canada: Locked up or locked out.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2025
    Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

D WerbInternational Centre for Science in Drug Policy, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5B 1W8; Division of Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0507, USA. Electronic address: dwerb@ucsd.edu.
A KamarulzamanFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
M C MeachamDivision of Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0507, USA.
C RaffulDivision of Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0507, USA.
B FischerSocial & Epidemiological Research Unit, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health (CAMH), 33 Russell Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3B1.
S A StrathdeeDivision of Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0507, USA.
E WoodInternational Centre for Science in Drug Policy, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5B 1W8; Division of Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0507, USA; Urban Health Research Initiative, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, 608-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 1Y6.

Funding

Training Program in Substance Use, HIV and Related InfectionsT32DA023356 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Natasha Martin, Steffanie A Strathdee · 2007 to 2026
$7.8M
Impact of Drug Policy Reform on the HIV Risk Environment among IDUs in TijuanaR37DA019829 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI STRATHDEE, STEFFANIE A. · 2010 to 2019
$6.7M
Preventing HIV by modifying the context for injecting initiationDP2DA040256 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI WERB, DANIEL M · 2015 to 2015
$2.3M
AIDS International Training Program in the US Mexico Border RegionD43TW008633 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI STRATHDEE, STEFFANIE A. · 2010 to 2014
$1.5M
CIHR (OP 79297FIC NIH HHS D43 TW008633NIDA NIH HHS DP2 DA040256NIDA NIH HHS DP2 DA040256-01NIDA NIH HHS R37 DA019829NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA023356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite widespread implementation of compulsory treatment modalities for drug dependence, there has been no systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the outcomes of compulsory treatment. We conducted a search in duplicate of all relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature evaluating compulsory treatment modalities. The following academic databases were searched: PubMed, PAIS International, Proquest, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Soc Abstracts, JSTOR, EBSCO/Academic Search Complete, REDALYC, SciELO Brazil. We also searched the Internet, and article reference lists, from database inception to July 15th, 2015. Eligibility criteria are as follows: peer-reviewed scientific studies presenting original data. Primary outcome of interest was post-treatment drug use. Secondary outcome of interest was post-treatment criminal recidivism.

resultsOf an initial 430 potential studies identified, nine quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated compulsory treatment options including drug detention facilities, short (i.e., 21-day) and long-term (i.e., 6 months) inpatient treatment, community-based treatment, group-based outpatient treatment, and prison-based treatment. Three studies (33%) reported no significant impacts of compulsory treatment compared with control interventions. Two studies (22%) found equivocal results but did not compare against a control condition. Two studies (22%) observed negative impacts of compulsory treatment on criminal recidivism. Two studies (22%) observed positive impacts of compulsory inpatient treatment on criminal recidivism and drug use.

conclusionThere is limited scientific literature evaluating compulsory drug treatment. Evidence does not, on the whole, suggest improved outcomes related to compulsory treatment approaches, with some studies suggesting potential harms. Given the potential for human rights abuses within compulsory treatment settings, non-compulsory treatment modalities should be prioritized by policymakers seeking to reduce drug-related harms.

Indexed as

Mandatory ProgramsProgram EvaluationHumansSubstance-Related DisordersTreatment OutcomeAddictionCompulsory treatmentGlobalPolicySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26790691
PMCPMC4752879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.