Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32528329›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2020

Novel Psychoactive Substances in Custodial Settings: A Mixed Method Investigation on the Experiences of People in Prison and Professionals Working With Them.

Ornella Corazza, Sara Coloccini, Shanna Marrinan, Mike Vigar, Caryl Watkins, Cosimo Zene, Attilio Negri, Andreas Aresti, Sacha Darke, Raffaella Rinaldi and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Ornella CorazzaCentre for Clinical & Health Research Services, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Sara ColocciniCentre for Clinical & Health Research Services, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Shanna MarrinanCentre for Clinical & Health Research Services, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Mike VigarG4S Care and Justice Services, Swansea, United Kingdom.
Caryl WatkinsG4S Care and Justice Services, Swansea, United Kingdom.
Cosimo ZeneSchool of History, Religions and Philosophies, University of London (SOAS), London, United Kingdom.
Attilio NegriCentre for Clinical & Health Research Services, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Andreas ArestiHistory, Sociology and Criminology, University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom.
Sacha DarkeHistory, Sociology and Criminology, University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom.
Raffaella RinaldiDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopedic Sciences Departmental Section of Legal Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Antonio MetastasioCentre for Clinical & Health Research Services, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Giuseppe BersaniDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Hertfordshire · GBMinistry of Justice · GBUniversity of Westminster · GBCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust · GBSOAS University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNovel Psychoactive Substances (NPS), especially Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists (SCRAs), pose a substantial challenge to health and the security of the prison environment. This study analyses the phenomenon from the perspective of people in prison and that of professionals working with them.

methodsA phenomenological qualitative approach was used to analyze self-reported experiences with 'Spice' (NPS) among users in prison. A semi-structured questionnaire was also disseminated among professionals working in these settings to better understand (a) the impact of NPS on their work; (b) perceived issues on safety in their working environment; (c) approaches used to tackle the phenomenon and best practices.

resultsPsychotic events resulting from the collected Spice accounts (5) were marked by hallucinations, depression, self-harm, and suicidal ideations. Other emerging elements included fear, paranoia, inability to be with others, mistrust, breakdown and other risky behaviors. Overall, 186 responses from prison staff were collected across the country. 67% claimed NPS to have had a deep impact on their work as they commonly witnessed espisodes involving outbursts of anger, slurred speech, hallucinations, psychosis, and significant mental deterioration among those in prison. Some 91% have witnessed aggression at least once, with 53% experiencing direct harm. Suggested interventions included enhanced training and education (84%), improved detection (92%) and treatment and support services (93%).

conclusionsFindings highlight the urgent need for joint multi-disciplinary efforts to tackle the exponential escalation of NPS in prisons as well as to facilitate the recovery and societal reintegration of those affected. Phenomenology can be recommended as a valuable methods to study drug induced experiences.

Indexed as

novel psychoactive substancesprison systemspice drugsSynthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists (SCRAs)violence

Identifiers

PMID32528329
PMCPMC7264108
OpenAlexW3032535537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.