Opioid‐specific medication‐assisted therapy and its impact on criminal justice and overdose outcomes. Issue 1 (7th January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Strange, C. Clare; Manchak, Sarah M.; Hyatt, Jordan M.; Petrich, Damon M.; Desai, Alisha; Haberman, Cory P.
• Is Part Of: Campbell systematic reviews. Volume 18:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-01-07
• Subjects: Criminology -- Periodicals; Education -- Periodicals; Public welfare -- Periodicals; Criminology; Education; Public welfare; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 362
• DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1215
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1891-1803

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The overlap between justice system involvement and drug use is well‐documented. Justice‐involved people who misuse opioids are at high risk for relapse and criminal recidivism. Criminal justice policymakers consider opioid‐specific medication‐assisted therapies (MATs) one approach for improving outcomes for this population. More research is needed that explores the impacts of opioid‐specific MATs for justice‐involved people. Objectives: This study sought to assess the effects of opioid‐specific MAT for reducing the frequency and likelihood of criminal justice and overdose outcomes for current or formerly justice‐involved individuals. Search Methods: Records were searched between May 7, 2021 and June 23, 2021. We searched a total of sixteen proprietary and open access databases that included access to gray literature and conference proceedings. The bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they: (a) assessed the effects of opioid‐specific MATs on individual‐level criminal justice or overdose outcomes; included (b) a current or formerly justice‐involved sample; and (c) a randomized or strong quasi‐experimental design; and c) were published in English between January 1, 1960 and October 31, 2020. Data Collection and Analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures as expected by The Campbell Collaboration. Main Results: Twenty studies were included, representing 30, 119 participants. The overall risk of bias for the experimental studies ranged from "some" to "high" and for quasi‐experimental studies ranged from "moderate" to "serious." As such, findings must be interpreted against the backdrop of less‐than‐ideal methodological contexts. Of the 20 included studies, 16 included outcomes that were meta‐analyzed using mean log odds ratios (which were reported as mean odds ratios). Mean effects were nonsignificant for reincarceration (odds ratio [OR] = 0.93 [0.68, 1.26], SE = .16), rearrest (OR = 1.47 [0.70, 3.07], SE = 0.38), and fatal overdose (OR = 0.82 [0.56, 1.21], SE = 0.20). For nonfatal overdose, the average effect was significant (OR = 0.41 [0.18, 0.91], SE = 0.41, p < 0.05), suggesting that those receiving MAT had nearly 60% reduced odds of a nonfatal overdose. Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research: The current review supports some utility for adopting MAT for the treatment of justice‐involved people with opioid addiction, however, more studies that employ rigorous methodologies are needed. Researchers should work with agencies to improve adherence to medication regimens, study design, and collect more detailed information on participants, their criminal and substance use histories, onset, and severity. This would help clarify whether treatment and control groups are indeed comparable and provide better insight into the potential reasons for participant dropout, treatment failure, and the occurrence of recidivism or overdose. Outcomes should be assessed in multiple ways, if possible (e.g., self‐report and official record), as reliance on official data alone may undercount participants' degree of criminal involvement.