SynthesisBMC public health2026
Economic evaluation of diversion programs for people with drug-related legal involvement: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementing community-based diversion programs (DPs) as an alternative to incarcerating people who use drugs has yielded potentially beneficial, yet conflicting evidence regarding cost-effectiveness. This study systematically reviewed the economic evaluations (EEs) of DPs by synthesizing findings on cost-effectiveness and recidivism, while strengthening the appraisal of causal validity, risk of bias, and reporting quality to inform future research and policy development.
methodsA systematic literature review of EEs in the DPs was conducted using seven databases. We extracted characteristics including country, EE type, perspective, cost-effectiveness, recidivism, and limitations. We assessed causal validity and evaluated risk of bias using ROBINS-I, reporting quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and strength of evidence on recidivism using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS).
resultsOf the 2,246 records, 16 studies covering 12 DPs were included. Most originated in the US (n = 9), with five from Australia and two from the UK. Over half adopted a societal perspective, followed by a taxpayer perspective, and most were funded by nonprofit organizations. The study types included cost-utility (n = 3), cost-effectiveness (n = 4), cost-minimization (n = 4), and cost-benefit analyses (n = 5), predominantly incorporating criminal justice and healthcare costs. ROBINS-I indicated a moderate to serious risk of bias in most studies, driven primarily by confounding and selection issues, and three-quarters cited data-related limitations. The QHES and CHEERS scores showed a wide variability in reporting quality. Evidence from the three SMS-assessed studies among prison releasers suggested that DPs may lower recidivism and be cost-effective; however, confidence in these findings was limited by a moderate-to-serious risk of bias, mainly due to confounding, selection, and author-reported data limitations (75%), including heterogeneity and inconsistency in cost components and measurement.
conclusionsDPs demonstrate heterogeneous cost-effectiveness due to inconsistent analytical approaches, high methodological bias, and pervasive author-reported data limitations. These issues, particularly confounding and selection bias, undermine confidence in causal and economic conclusions. Standardized, bias-minimized cost-utility analyses with rigorous designs are urgently required to inform policy decisions. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number: CRD420251186011
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.