The effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSION: There 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.

Suicidality, ethnicity and immigration in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the USA. Suicide rates vary across ethnic groups. Whether suicide behavior differs by ethnic groups in the USA in the same way as observed for suicide death is a matter of current discussion. The aim of this report was to compare the lifetime prevalence of suicide ideation and attempt among four main ethnic groups (Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites) in the USA. METHOD: Suicide ideation and attempts were assessed using the World Mental Health version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI). Discrete time survival analysis was used to examine risk for lifetime suicidality by ethnicity and immigration among 15 180 participants in the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiological Surveys (CPES), a group of cross-sectional surveys. RESULTS: Suicide ideation was most common among Non-Hispanic Whites (16.10%), least common among Asians (9.02%) and intermediate among Hispanics (11.35%) and Non-Hispanic Blacks (11.82%). Suicide attempts were equally common among Non-Hispanic Whites (4.69%), Hispanics (5.11%) and Non-Hispanic Blacks (4.15%) and less common among Asians (2.55%). These differences in the crude prevalence rates of suicide ideation decreased but persisted after control for psychiatric disorders, but disappeared for suicide attempt. Within ethnic groups, risk for suicidality was low among immigrants prior to migration compared to the US born, but equalized over time after migration. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic differences in suicidal behaviors are explained partly by differences in psychiatric disorders and low risk prior to arrival in the USA. These differences are likely to decrease as the US-born proportion of Hispanics and Asians increases.