Comparing outcomes of 'voluntary' and 'quasi-compulsory' treatment of substance dependence in Europe

European Addiction Research

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 53-60

  Schaub, Michael ^a   Stevens, Alex ^b   Berto, Daniele ^c   Hunt, Neil ^b   Kerschl, Viktoria ^d   McSweeney, Tim ^e   Oeuvray, Kerrie ^f   Puppo, Irene ^g   Santa Maria, Alberto ^h   Trinkl, Barbara ⁱ   Werdenich, Wolfgang ⁱ   Uchtenhagen, Ambros ^a  

^a Institut fur Sucht und Gesundheitsforschung Zurich   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

^c Servizio Tossicodipendenze   (Italy)

^d SPI Forschung   (Germany)

^e KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG   (Switzerland)

^g Servizio Tossicodipendenze   (Italy)

^h Servizio Tossicodipendenze   (Italy)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

ASI crime module; European Addiction Severity Index; Last observation carried forward method; Quasi compulsory drug treatment; Readiness to Change Questionnaire; Substance dependent offenders

Indexed keywords

ADDICTION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIME; DISEASE SEVERITY; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRISON; QUASI COMPULSORY TREATMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF CONCEPT; STRESS; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; VOLUNTARY PROGRAM;

ADULT; AUSTRIA; CRIME; EUROPE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GERMANY; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; ITALY; MALE; MANDATORY PROGRAMS; SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTERS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; SWITZERLAND; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 72049117953     PISSN: 10226877     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000265938     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Stevens A, Berto D, Heckmann W, Kerschl V, Oeuvray K, van Ooyen M, Steffan E, Uchtenhagen A: Quasi-compulsory treatment of drug-dependent offenders: an international literature review. Subst Use Misuse 2005; 40: 269-283.
2. Anglin MD, Hser YI: Criminal justice and the drag-abusing offender: policy issues of coerced treatment. Behav Sci Law 1991; 9: 243-267.
3. Carney T: New configurations of justice and services for the vulnerable: panacea or panegyric? Aust NZ J Criminol 2000; 33: 318-340.
4. Elzo J: Study on Alternatives to Prison: Summary of the Final Report. Deusto-Bilbao, Clairenity, 1998.
5. Kothari G, Marsden J, Strang J: Opportunities and obstacles for effective treatment of drug misusers in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Br J Criminol 2002; 42: 412-432.
6. Nolan JL: The Therapeutic State: Justifying Government at Century's End. New York, New York University Press, 1998.
7. Anglin MD, Speckart G: Narcotics use and crime: a multisample, multiperiod analysis. Criminology 1988; 26: 197-233.
8. Goldstein P: The drugs-violence nexus; a tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 1985; 14: 493-506.
9. McBride DC, McCoy CB: The drugs-crime relationship: an analytical framework. Prison J 1993; 73: 257-278.
10. Sinha R, Easton C: Substance abuse and criminality. J Am Acad Psychiatry 1999; 27: 513-526.
11. Tonry M, Wilson JQ (eds): Drugs and Crime. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1990.
12. Bean P: Drugs and Crime. Cullompton, Willan, 2002.
13. Deitch D, Koutsenok I, Ruiz A: The relationship between crime and drugs: what we have learned in recent decades. J Psychoactive Drugs 2000; 32: 391-397.
14. Seddon T: Explaining the drug-crime link: theoretical, policy and research issues. J Soc Policy 2000; 29: 95-107.
15. Hall W: The role of legal coercion in the treatment of offenders with alcohol and heroin problems. Aust NZ J Criminol 1997; 30: 103-120.
16. Wild TC, Roberts AB, Cooper EL: Compulsory substance abuse treatment: an overview of recent findings and issues. Eur Addict Res 2002; 8: 84-93.
17. Lurigio AJ: Drug treatment availability and effectiveness - studies of the general and criminal justice populations. Crim Justice Behav 2000; 27: 495-528.
18. Gostin LO: Compulsory treatment for drugdependent persons: justifications for a public health approach to drug dependency. Milbank Q 1991; 69: 561-593.
19. Farabee D, Prendergast M, Anglin MD: The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drugabusing offenders. Fed Probat 1998; 62: 3-10.
20. Leukefeld CG, Tims FM: Compulsory treatment for drug abuse. Int J Addict 1990; 25: 621-640.
21. Hiller ML, Knight K, Broome KM, Simpson DD: Legal pressure and treatment retention in a national sample of long-term residential programs. Crim Justice Behav 1998; 25: 463-481.
22. Lang M, Belenko S: Predicting retention in a residential drug treatment alternative to prison program. J Subst Abuse Treat 2000; 19: 145-160.
23. Simpson DD, Joe GW, Brown BS: Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the drug abuse treatment outcome study (Datos). Psychol Addict Behav 1997; 11: 294-307.
24. Zarkin GA, Dunlap LJ, Bray JW, Wechsberg WM: The effect of treatment completion and length of stay on employment and crime in outpatient drug-free treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat 2002; 23: 261-271.
25. McNulty J, Kouimtsidis C: Outcomes of treatment interventions in drug abuse. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2001; 14: 201-205.
26. Prendergast ML, Podus D, Chang E, Urada D: The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: a meta-analysis of comparison group studies. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002; 67: 53-72.
27. Wild TC: Compulsory substance-user treatment and harm reduction: a critical analysis. Subst Use Misuse 1999; 34: 83-102.
28. Klag S, O'Callaghan F, Creed P: The use of legal coercion in the treatment of substance abusers: an overview and critical analysis of thirty years of research. Subst Use Misuse 2005; 40: 1777-1795.
29. Condelli WS: External pressure and retention in a therapeutic community. Int J Ther Communities 1989; 10: 21-33.
30. Joe GW, Simpson DD, Broome KM: Effects of readiness for drug abuse treatment on client retention and assessment of process. Addiction 1998; 93: 1177-1190.
31. Wild TC, Newton-Taylor B, Alleto R: Perceived coercion among clients entering substance abuse treatment: structural and psychological determinants. Addict Behav 1998; 23: 81-95.
32. Hiller ML, Knight K, Leukefeld C, Simpson DD: Motivation as a predictor of therapeutic engagement in mandated residential substance abuse treatment. Crim Justice Behav 2002; 29: 56-75.
33. Maxwell SR: Sanction threats in court-ordered programs: examining their effects on offenders mandated into drug treatment. Crime Delinq 2000; 46: 542-563.
34. Marlowe DB, Merikle EP, Kirby KC, Festinger DS, MacLellan AT: Multidimensional assessment of perceived treatment-entry pressures among substance abusers. Psychol Addict Behav 2001; 15: 97-108.
35. Young D: Impacts of perceived legal pressure on retention in drug treatment. Crim Justice Behav 2002; 29: 27-55.
36. Young D, Belenko S: Program retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment. J Drug Issues 2002; 32: 297-328.
37. Spooner C, Hall W, Mattick RP: An overview of diversion strategies for Australian drugrelated offenders. Drug Alcohol Rev 2001; 20: 281-294.
38. Edwards A, Benyon J: Networking and crime control at the local level; in Ryan M, Savage SP, Wall DS (eds): Policy Networks in Criminal Justice. Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2001, pp 151-180.
39. Wenzel SL, Longshore D, Turner S, Ridgely MS: Drug courts - a bridge between criminal justice and health services. J Crim Just 2001; 29: 241-253.
40. Wild TC, Newton-Taylor B, Ogborne AC, Mann R, Erickson P, Macdonald S: Attitudes toward compulsory substance abuse treatment: a comparison of the public, counsellors, probationers and judges' views. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 2001; 8: 33-45. (Pubitemid 33682325)
41. Werdenich W, Waidner G: Final Report on QCT-System Descriptions. Canterbury, University of Kent, 2003.
42. Meijer R, Grapendaal M, van Ooyen M, Wartna B, Brouwers M, Essers A: Geregistreerde Drugscriminaliteit in Cijfers. Achtergrondstudie Bij Het Justitieonderdeel Van De Nationale Drug Monitor, Jaarbericht. Den Haag, WODC/KLPD, 2003.
43. Kokkevi A, Hartgers C: Europe ASI: European adaptation of a multidimensional assessment instrument for drug and alcohol dependence. Eur Addict Res 1995; 1: 208-210.
44. Oeberg D, Sallmen B, Kaplan C, McMurphy S, Ackerson T, Krantz L, Martens P, Schlyter F, Turner T: The Addiction Severity Index - Crime Module. Hoeoer, Karlsvik Rehabilitation Center, 1998.
45. Greenglass E, Schwarzer R, Taubert S: The Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI): a multidimensional research instrument. Toronto, York University, 1999.
46. Rollnick S, Heather N, Gold R, Hall W: Development of a short 'readiness to change' questionnaire for use in brief, opportunistic interventions among excessive drinkers. Br J Addict 1992; 87: 743-754.
47. Gossop M, Marsden J, Stewart D, Kidd T: The National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS): 4-5 year follow-up results. Addiction 2003; 98: 291-303.
48. West R: Time for a change: putting the Transtheoretical (Stages of Change) Model to rest. Addiction 2005; 100: 1036-1039.
49. Stevens A, Berto D, Frick U, Hunt N, Kerschl V, McSweeney T, Oeuvray K, Puppo I, Santa Maria A, Schaaf S, Trinkl B, Uchtenhagen A, Werdenich W: The relationship between legal status, perceived pressure and motivation in treatment for drug dependence: results from a European study of Quasi-Compulsory Treatment. Eur Addict Res 2006; 12: 197-209.
50. De Leon G, Jainchill N: Circumstance, motivation, readiness, and suitability as correlates of treatment tenure. J Psychoactive Drugs 1986; 18: 203-208.