Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41032149›Full record

SynthesisHealth & justice2025

Understanding the health and well-being impacts and implementation barriers and facilitators of legally-mandated non-custodial drug and alcohol treatment for justice-involved adults: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Emma Fiona France, Louise Hoyle, Pauline Campbell, Hilda Bissozo Hernandez, Julie Cowie, Candida Fenton, Hannah Carver, Catriona Connell, Joshua Dumbrell, Rosie Hill and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health & justice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

13 authors.

Emma Fiona FranceUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, UK. emma.france@stir.ac.uk.
Louise HoyleUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Pauline CampbellNational Institute for Health and Care Research Evidence Synthesis Scotland Initiative (NESSIE), Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Hilda Bissozo HernandezUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Julie CowieNational Institute for Health and Care Research Evidence Synthesis Scotland Initiative (NESSIE), Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Candida FentonNational Institute for Health and Care Research Evidence Synthesis Scotland Initiative (NESSIE), Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Hannah CarverUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Catriona ConnellUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Joshua DumbrellUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Rosie HillNational Institute for Health and Care Research Evidence Synthesis Scotland Initiative (NESSIE), Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Fiona BlacklawUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Nihr Evidence Synthesis Scotland Initiative NessieNational Institute for Health and Care Research Evidence Synthesis Scotland Initiative (NESSIE), Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Bridget DavisNational Institute for Health and Care Research Evidence Synthesis Scotland Initiative (NESSIE), Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. bridget.davis@gcu.ac.uk.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme NIHR153425
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-custodial judicial treatment orders aim to reduce recidivism for justice-involved people with drug and/or alcohol use problems, but health and well-being impacts are not understood. We conducted the first qualitative evidence synthesis to explore the perceived impacts on health and well-being of treatment orders and the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation from the perspectives of justice-involved adults, their family members/significant others, and staff delivering/ mandating the treatment.

designWe searched 14 bibliographic databases (31/10/2023-07/11/2023) and conducted supplementary searches to identify qualitative evidence. Two reviewers appraised methodological limitations using CASP and assessed confidence in review findings using GRADE-CERQual. We used framework synthesis to synthesise evidence. We integrated synthesised findings with results of a complementary quantitative review investigating health and well-being effects of treatment orders.

resultsWe synthesised 25 studies (29 reports); 22/29 reports had moderate or high methodological limitations. Most studies (n = 20) focused on USA drug courts; none focused on alcohol interventions. Only three studies had health and well-being as their main focus. No studies involved family members. Only one study reported a theory of how treatment orders might impact health. GRADE-CERQual assessments of 13 findings were high (n = 7/13), moderate (n = 4/13), or low (n = 2/13) confidence. Justice-involved adults perceived treatment orders to reduce mortality/morbidity risk, improve sense of self and coping with emotions, to result in feeling healthier, but also to exacerbate trauma and increase stress. Coerced treatment was perceived to interfere with "therapeutic change," nonetheless it was often perceived to reduce, cease and/or stabilise illicit drug use. Justice-involved adults' challenging life circumstances were an important barrier to reducing/ ceasing substance use. Abstinence-based approaches were common but abstinence may be unrealistic. Intervention effectiveness trials rarely measured relational outcomes of importance to justice-involved adults e.g., impacts on their children, or health outcomes.

conclusionsHigh-quality qualitative studies are urgently needed on the health impacts of diverse treatments orders. Treatment orders should emphasise harm-reduction treatment approaches and address participants' healthcare and social needs. Theories of how treatment orders work are needed. Unintended negative health consequences of treatment orders must be researched. Future trials should measure and report health and relational outcomes. Study protocol registration: [CRD42023484923]. The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (Grant: NIHR153425, project number NIHR162046) funded this study.

Indexed as

Drug treatment courtFramework synthesisHealth outcomesJustice-involved adultsNon-custodial sentencesOffendersQualitative evidence synthesisSubstance useSystematic reviewTreatment orders

Identifiers

PMID41032149
PMCPMC12487214

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.