Empathy Gaps Between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation

Help-seekers and potential helpers often experience an “empathy gap” – an inability to understand each other’s unique perspectives. Both parties are concerned about their reputation, self-esteem, and relationships, but these concerns differ in ways that lead to misinterpretation of the other party’s actions, and, in turn, missed opportunities for cooperation. In this article, we review research that describes the role-specific concerns of helpers and help-seekers. We then review studies of emotional perspective-taking, which can help explain why help-seekers and helpers often experience empathy gaps. We go on to discuss recent work that illustrates the consequences of empathy gaps between helpers and help-seekers—social prediction errors that prevent helping and misguided intentions that can lead to unhelpful help. Finally, we discuss some promising directions for future research

The “Psychosomatic Family” Reconsidered Ii: Recalling A Defective Model And Looking Ahead

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/91342/1/j.1752-0606.1989.tb00793.x.pd

Girls' disruptive behavior and its relationship to family functioning: A review

Although a number of reviews of gender differences in disruptive behavior and parental socialization exist, we extend this literature by addressing the question of differential development among girls and by placing both disruptive behavior and parenting behavior in a developmental framework. Clarifying the heterogeneity of development in girls is important for developing and optimizing gender-specific prevention and treatment programs. In the current review, we describe the unique aspects of the development of disruptive behavior in girls and explore how the gender-specific development of disruptive behavior can be explained by family linked risk and protective processes. Based on this review, we formulate a gender-specific reciprocal model of the influence of social factors on the development of disruptive behavior in girls in order to steer further research and better inform prevention and treatment programs

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

Background This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug‐using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co‐occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. This review addresses the following questions. • Does any treatment for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems reduce drug use? • Does any treatment for drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity? • Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)? • Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)? Search methods We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug‐using offenders with co‐occurring mental health problems. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane . Main results We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias. Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate‐certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive‐behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re‐arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug‐related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low‐certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate‐certainty evidence. One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow‐up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self‐report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI ‐0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re‐incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low‐certainty evidence. Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three‐month follow‐up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate‐certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use based on the ASI (MD ‐0.04, 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low‐certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD ‐1.05, 95% CI ‐2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI ‐0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re‐arrest (MD ‐0.66, 95% CI ‐1.31 to ‐0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low‐certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD ‐0.7, 95% CI ‐3.5 to 2.1), providing very low‐certainty evidence. Two studies reported on the use of multi‐systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD ‐0.22, 95% CI ‐2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low‐certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re‐arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low‐certainty evidence. One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self‐reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low‐certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap‐around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low‐certainty evidence. Authors' conclusions Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi‐systemic therapy, legal defence wrap‐around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

Key results: We identified nine trials of female drug-using offenders. Three studies included evaluations of therapeutic communities in comparison to: i) an alternative sentencing option; ii) a substance misuse educational cognitive skills programme; and iii) gender-responsive substance abuse treatment for women in prison in comparison to standard therapeutic communities. Two studies evaluated community-based management; one compared to standard probation and the other compared to standard parole supervision. Two studies evaluated a cognitive behavioural programme versus treatment as usual and combined cognitive behavioural treatment and acceptance and commitment therapy versus waiting list control. One study of a pharmacological intervention in comparison to a placebo or treatment as usual. One study compared interpersonal psychotherapy to an attention matched control psychoeducational control. Overall, the findings suggest that any psychosocial treatment in comparison to treatment as usual had an impact on reducing subsequent reincarceration, but not rearrest or drug misuse. We found individual treatment interventions had differing effects. We identified too few studies to evaluate whether the treatment setting (for example, court or community) had an impact on the success of such programmes. Promising results highlight the use of psychosocial treatments in the reduction of reincarceration. No information is provided on the cost and cost-effectiveness of these studies. In conclusion, high quality research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of different treatment options for female drug-using offenders. Further information on the processes involved in the engagement of women mandated to substance abuse programmes, together with evaluations of cost-effectiveness research, will enable policy makers to make informed choices about commissioning the use of adapted programmes specifically targeted at female offenders

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders.

BACKGROUND: The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both, for illicit drug-using offenders. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological intervention a component of which is designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity, or both, in drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials with 2647 participants met the inclusion criteria. The interventions included in this review report on agonistic pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) compared to no intervention, other non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Studies could not be combined all together because the comparisons were too different. Only subgroup analysis for type of pharmacological treatment were done. When compared to non-pharmacological, we found low quality evidence that agonist treatments are not effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity, objective results (biological) (two studies, 237 participants (RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.00); subjective (self-report), (three studies, 317 participants (RR 0.61 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); self-report drug use (three studies, 510 participants (SMD: -0.62 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.39). We found low quality of evidence that antagonist treatment was not effective in reducing drug use (one study, 63 participants (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.70) but we found moderate quality of evidence that they significantly reduced criminal activity (two studies, 114 participants, (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74).Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity showed mixed results. In the comparison of methadone to buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone, no significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (two studies, 370 participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.55), continuous measures of drug use (one study, 81 participants, (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% CI -5.33 to 6.73); or criminal activity (one study, 116 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similar results were found for comparisons with diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.51) or naltrexone for dichotomous measures of reincarceration (one study, 44 participants, (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.26), and continuous outcome measure of crime, (MD -0.50, 95% CI -8.04 to 7.04) or self report drug use (MD 4.60, 95% CI -3.54 to 12.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to non-pharmacological treatment, agonist treatments did not seem effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity. Antagonist treatments were not effective in reducing drug use but significantly reduced criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another we found no significant differences between the drug comparisons (methadone versus buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone) on any of the outcome measures. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias