Carlene King

Prospective cohort study of mental health during imprisonment

BACKGROUND Mental illness is common among prisoners, but little evidence exists regarding changes in symptoms in custody over time. AIMS To investigate the prevalence and predictors of psychiatric symptoms among prisoners during early custody. METHOD In a prospective cohort study, 3079 prisoners were screened for mental illness within 3 days of reception. To establish baseline diagnoses and symptoms, 980 prisoners were interviewed; all remaining in custody were followed up 1 month and 2 months later. RESULTS Symptom prevalence was highest during the first week of custody. Prevalence showed a linear decline among men and convicted prisoners, but not women or remand prisoners. It decreased among prisoners with depression, but not among prisoners with other mental illnesses. CONCLUSIONS Overall, imprisonment did not exacerbate psychiatric symptoms, although differences in group responses were observed. Continued discussion regarding non-custodial alternatives for vulnerable groups and increased support for all during early custody are recommended.

Continuity of care for recently released prisoners with mental illness: a pilot randomised controlled trial testing the feasibility of a Critical Time Intervention

AIMS Prisoners with mental illness on release from prison often face complex challenges with little support, leading to poor clinical and social outcomes. This feasibility study aimed to see whether a Critical Time Intervention (CTI) in the first weeks post-release effectively connects mentally ill prisoners with social, clinical, housing, and welfare services on leaving prison. The study took place in 2007 and involved local prisons in London and Manchester. METHODS A pilot randomised controlled trial in which CTI was compared to Treatment as Usual (TAU). RESULTS Sixty prisoners were randomised in the trial, with outcome measures completed on 23. A higher proportion of prisoners in CTI group were in contact with services at follow-up than those receiving TAU. CTI prisoners were significantly more likely to be receiving medication, and be registered with a General Practitioner (GP) than those in the TAU group. CONCLUSIONS Continuity of care for prisoners with severe mental illness can be improved by working with them to identify their needs prior to release, and by assisting them to engage effectively to the necessary agencies in the community.

The management of released prisoners with severe and enduring mental illness

Prisoners have higher rates of mental disorder than the general population. Imprisonment provides an opportunity to engage with mental health services. Release from prison is associated with a range of negative outcomes including increased mortality and suicide. This prospective, longitudinal cohort design study established the proportion of prisoners with severe and enduring mental illness in contact with prison mental health in-reach services who make contact with Community Mental Health Teams (CMHT) on discharge from prison. A total of 137 participants were recruited from prison mental health in-reach team caseloads and assessed as having severe and enduring mental illness. At a six-month follow-up, 53 (39%) had been released, but only four were in contact with the CMHT. There is a need for robust discharge planning and proactive through care for prisoners with mental health problems.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare programmes for offenders using class A drugs: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND The societal costs of problematic class A drug use in England and Wales exceed £15B; drug-related crime accounts for almost 90% of costs. Diversion plus treatment and/or aftercare programmes may reduce drug-related crime and costs. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare for class A drug-using offenders, compared with no diversion. POPULATION Adult class A drug-using offenders diverted to treatment or an aftercare programme for their drug use. INTERVENTIONS Programmes to identify and divert problematic drug users to treatment (voluntary, court mandated or monitored services) at any point within the criminal justice system (CJS). Aftercare follows diversion and treatment, excluding care following prison or non-diversionary drug treatment. DATA SOURCES Thirty-three electronic databases and government online resources were searched for studies published between January 1985 and January 2012, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO and ISI Web of Science. Bibliographies of identified studies were screened. The UK Drug Data Warehouse, the UK Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study and published statistics and reports provided data for the economic evaluation. METHODS Included studies evaluated diversion in adult class A drug-using offenders, in contact with the CJS. The main outcomes were drug use and offending behaviour, and these were pooled using meta-analysis. The economic review included full economic evaluations for adult opiate and/or crack, or powder, cocaine users. An economic decision analytic model, estimated incremental costs per unit of outcome gained by diversion and aftercare, over a 12-month time horizon. The perspectives included the CJS, NHS, social care providers and offenders. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analysis explored variance in parameter estimates, longer time horizons and structural uncertainty. RESULTS Sixteen studies met the effectiveness review inclusion criteria, characterised by poor methodological quality, with modest sample sizes, high attrition rates, retrospective data collection, limited follow-up, no random allocation and publication bias. Most study samples comprised US methamphetamine users. Limited meta-analysis was possible, indicating a potential small impact of diversion interventions on reducing drug use [odds ratio (OR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.53 for reduced primary drug use, and OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.98 for reduced use of other drugs]. The cost-effectiveness review did not identify any relevant studies. The economic evaluation indicated high uncertainty because of variance in data estimates and limitations in the model design. The primary analysis was unclear whether or not diversion was cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses indicated some scenarios where diversion may be cost-effective. LIMITATIONS Nearly all participants (99.6%) in the effectiveness review were American (Californian) methamphetamine users, limiting transfer of conclusions to the UK. Data and methodological limitations mean it is unclear whether or not diversion is effective or cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS High-quality evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion schemes is sparse and does not relate to the UK. Importantly this research identified a range of methodological limitations in existing evidence. These highlight the need for research to conceptualise, define and develop models of diversion programmes and identify a core outcome set. A programme of feasibility, pilot and definitive trials, combined with process evaluation and qualitative research is recommended to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversionary interventions in class A drug-using offenders. FUNDING DETAILS The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The effectiveness of diversion programmes for offenders using Class A drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Aims: To review existing evidence on effectiveness of community-based diversion programmes for Class A drug-using offenders. Methods: 31 databases were searched for studies published 1985–2012 (update search 2012–2016) involving community-based Criminal Justice System diversion of Class A drug users via voluntary or court-mandated treatment. Findings: 16 studies were initially included (US, 10; UK, 4; Canada, 1; Australia, 1). There was evidence for a small impact of diversion to treatment on drug use reduction (primary Class A drug use: OR 1.68, CI 1.12–2.53; other drug use: OR 2.60, 1.70–3.98). Class A drug users were less likely to complete treatment (OR 0.90, 0.87–0.94) than users of other drugs. There was uncertainty surrounding results for offending, which were not pooled due to lack of outcome measure comparability and heterogeneity. Individual studies pointed to a minor effect of diversion on offending. Findings remained unchanged following an update review (evidence up to March 2016: US, 3; Australia, 1). Conclusions: Treatment accessed via community-based diversion is effective at reducing drug use in Class A drug-using offenders. Evidence of a reduction in offending amongst this group as a result of diversion is uncertain. Poor methodological quality and data largely limited to US methamphetamine users limits available evidence.