Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34978645›Full record

ArticleHealth & justice2022

A systematic review of post-release programs for women exiting prison with substance-use disorders: assessing current programs and weighing the evidence.

Layla Edwards, Sacha Kendall Jamieson, Julia Bowman, Sungwon Chang, Josie Newton, Elizabeth Sullivan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & justice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Relational Therapy in Post-Incarceration Reentry: A Scoping Review.Journal of marital and family therapy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Layla EdwardsSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Sacha Kendall JamiesonSydney School of Education and Social Work, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Julia BowmanResearch Operations Manager, Research Unit, Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network, Malabar, NSW, 2036, Australia.
Sungwon ChangCentre for Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Josie NewtonCollege of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Elizabeth SullivanFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. E.Sullivan@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8718-2753

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rising rates of women in prison is a serious public health issue. Unlike men, women in prison are characterised by significant histories of trauma, poor mental health, and high rates of substance use disorders (SUDs). Recidivism rates of women have also increased exponentially in the last decade, with substance related offences being the most imprisoned offence worldwide. There is a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of post-release programs for women. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise and evaluate the evidence on post-release programs for women exiting prison with SUDs.

methodsWe searched eight scientific databases for empirical original research published in English with no date limitation. Studies with an objective to reduce recidivism for adult women (⩾18 years) with a SUD were included. Study quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools.

resultsOf the 1493 articles, twelve (n = 3799 women) met the inclusion criteria. Recidivism was significantly reduced in five (42%) programs and substance-use was significantly reduced in one (8.3%) program. Common attributes among programs that reduced recidivism were: transitional, gender-responsive programs; provision of individualised support; providing substance-related therapy, mental health and trauma treatment services. Methodological and reporting biases were common, which impacted our ability to synthesize results further. Recidivism was inconsistently measured across studies further impacting the ability to compare results across studies.

conclusionsRecidivism is a problematic measure of program efficacy because it is inconsistently measured and deficit-focused, unrecognising of women's gains in the post-release period despite lack of tailored programs and significant health and social disadvantages. The current evidence suggests that women benefit from continuity of care from prison to the community, which incorporated gender-responsive programming and individualised case management that targeted co-morbid mental health and SUDs. Future program design should incorporate these attributes of successful programs identified in this review to better address the unique challenges that women with SUDs face when they transition back into the community.

Indexed as

InterventionPost-releasePrisonersProgram evaluationRecidivismRe-entry programSubstance-related disordersSystematic reviewTransitionalWomen

Identifiers

PMID34978645
PMCPMC8725487

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.