7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Digital Health Interventions for Mental Health, Substance Use, and Co-occurring Disorders in the Criminal Justice Population: A Scoping Review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Substance use disorder (SUD), mental health disorders (MHD), and co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders are common among criminal justice populations. Digital health interventions (DHI) represent an opportunity to expand co-occurring disorder treatment for justice involved populations, but efficacy data are lacking.

          Objectives

          The current scoping review aims to address this gap via following objectives: (1) Describe trends involving DHIs for MHD, SUD, or co-occurring disorders studied in criminal justice settings; and (2) review available evidence for the impact of DHIs on criminal justice-, substance-, and mental health-related outcomes.

          Methods

          PubMed was searched for relevant articles that met the follow inclusion criteria: (1) focus on criminal justice-involved individuals; (2) description of an intervention focused on SUD, MHD, or co-occurring disorders; and (3) use of DHI. Articles were assessed using standardized data abstraction and quality assessment tools.

          Results

          Four-hundred unique articles were identified on initial search, and 19 were included in the final review. The most common focus of the intervention was SUDs. The most common modalities were telehealth and computer assisted interventions, with most utilized as an adjunct to treatment as usual. No DHIs used wearable devices, and one included justice involved youth. Feasibility and acceptability were high, and the studies that measured substance and mental health-related outcomes reported equivocal or positive results. No studies focused on long-term justice-related outcomes.

          Conclusions

          Literature on DHIs for criminal justice involved populations diagnosed with SUD, MHD and co-occurring disorders is limited, and largely focuses on telehealth or eHealth, with less data on mHealth approaches. Future research should focus on the inclusion of diverse populations and include objective monitoring tools.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What is e-health?

            Introduction Everybody talks about e-health these days, but few people have come up with a clear definition of this comparatively new term. Barely in use before 1999, this term now seems to serve as a general "buzzword," used to characterize not only "Internet medicine", but also virtually everything related to computers and medicine. The term was apparently first used by industry leaders and marketing people rather than academics. They created and used this term in line with other "e-words" such as e-commerce, e-business, e-solutions, and so on, in an attempt to convey the promises, principles, excitement (and hype) around e-commerce (electronic commerce) to the health arena, and to give an account of the new possibilities the Internet is opening up to the area of health care. Intel, for example, referred to e-health as "a concerted effort undertaken by leaders in health care and hi-tech industries to fully harness the benefits available through convergence of the Internet and health care." Because the Internet created new opportunities and challenges to the traditional health care information technology industry, the use of a new term to address these issues seemed appropriate. These "new" challenges for the health care information technology industry were mainly (1) the capability of consumers to interact with their systems online (B2C = "business to consumer"); (2) improved possibilities for institution-to-institution transmissions of data (B2B = "business to business"); (3) new possibilities for peer-to-peer communication of consumers (C2C = "consumer to consumer"). So, how can we define e-health in the academic environment? One JMIR Editorial Board member feels that the term should remain in the realm of the business and marketing sector and should be avoided in scientific medical literature and discourse. However, the term has already entered the scientific literature (today, 76 Medline-indexed articles contain the term "e-health" in the title or abstract). What remains to be done is - in good scholarly tradition - to define as well as possible what we are talking about. However, as another member of the Editorial Board noted, "stamping a definition on something like e-health is somewhat like stamping a definition on 'the Internet': It is defined how it is used - the definition cannot be pinned down, as it is a dynamic environment, constantly moving." It seems quite clear that e-health encompasses more than a mere technological development. I would define the term and concept as follows: e-health is an emerging field in the intersection of medical informatics, public health and business, referring to health services and information delivered or enhanced through the Internet and related technologies. In a broader sense, the term characterizes not only a technical development, but also a state-of-mind, a way of thinking, an attitude, and a commitment for networked, global thinking, to improve health care locally, regionally, and worldwide by using information and communication technology. This definition hopefully is broad enough to apply to a dynamic environment such as the Internet and at the same time acknowledges that e-health encompasses more than just "Internet and Medicine". As such, the "e" in e-health does not only stand for "electronic," but implies a number of other "e's," which together perhaps best characterize what e-health is all about (or what it should be). Last, but not least, all of these have been (or will be) issues addressed in articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. The 10 e's in "e-health" Efficiency - one of the promises of e-health is to increase efficiency in health care, thereby decreasing costs. One possible way of decreasing costs would be by avoiding duplicative or unnecessary diagnostic or therapeutic interventions, through enhanced communication possibilities between health care establishments, and through patient involvement. Enhancing quality of care - increasing efficiency involves not only reducing costs, but at the same time improving quality. E-health may enhance the quality of health care for example by allowing comparisons between different providers, involving consumers as additional power for quality assurance, and directing patient streams to the best quality providers. Evidence based - e-health interventions should be evidence-based in a sense that their effectiveness and efficiency should not be assumed but proven by rigorous scientific evaluation. Much work still has to be done in this area. Empowerment of consumers and patients - by making the knowledge bases of medicine and personal electronic records accessible to consumers over the Internet, e-health opens new avenues for patient-centered medicine, and enables evidence-based patient choice. Encouragement of a new relationship between the patient and health professional, towards a true partnership, where decisions are made in a shared manner. Education of physicians through online sources (continuing medical education) and consumers (health education, tailored preventive information for consumers) Enabling information exchange and communication in a standardized way between health care establishments. Extending the scope of health care beyond its conventional boundaries. This is meant in both a geographical sense as well as in a conceptual sense. e-health enables consumers to easily obtain health services online from global providers. These services can range from simple advice to more complex interventions or products such a pharmaceuticals. Ethics - e-health involves new forms of patient-physician interaction and poses new challenges and threats to ethical issues such as online professional practice, informed consent, privacy and equity issues. Equity - to make health care more equitable is one of the promises of e-health, but at the same time there is a considerable threat that e-health may deepen the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots". People, who do not have the money, skills, and access to computers and networks, cannot use computers effectively. As a result, these patient populations (which would actually benefit the most from health information) are those who are the least likely to benefit from advances in information technology, unless political measures ensure equitable access for all. The digital divide currently runs between rural vs. urban populations, rich vs. poor, young vs. old, male vs. female people, and between neglected/rare vs. common diseases. In addition to these 10 essential e's, e-health should also be easy-to-use, entertaining (no-one will use something that is boring!) and exciting - and it should definitely exist! We invite other views on the definition of e-health and hope that over time the journal will be filled with articles which together elucidate the realm of e-health. Gunther Eysenbach Editor, Journal of Medical Internet Research
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Psychiatric disorders and repeat incarcerations: the revolving prison door.

              A number of legal, social, and political factors over the past 40 years have led to the current epidemic of psychiatric disorders in the U.S. prison system. Although numerous investigations have reported substantially elevated rates of psychiatric disorders among prison inmates compared with the general population, it is unclear whether mental illness is a risk factor for multiple episodes of incarceration. The authors examined this association in a retrospective cohort study of the nation's largest state prison system. The study population included 79,211 inmates who began serving a sentence between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007. Data on psychiatric disorders, demographic characteristics, and history of incarceration for the preceding 6-year period were obtained from statewide medical information systems and analyzed. Inmates with major psychiatric disorders (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, and nonschizophrenic psychotic disorders) had substantially increased risks of multiple incarcerations over the 6-year study period. The greatest increase in risk was observed among inmates with bipolar disorders, who were 3.3 times more likely to have had four or more previous incarcerations compared with inmates who had no major psychiatric disorder. Prison inmates with major psychiatric disorders are more likely than those without to have had previous incarcerations. The authors recommend expanding interventions to reduce recidivism among mentally ill inmates. They discuss the potential benefits of continuity of care reentry programs to help mentally ill inmates connect with community-based mental health programs at the time of their release, as well as a greater role for mental health courts and other diversion strategies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychiatry
                Front Psychiatry
                Front. Psychiatry
                Frontiers in Psychiatry
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-0640
                20 January 2022
                2021
                : 12
                : 794785
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Division of Medical Toxicology, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School , Worcester, MA, United States
                [2] 2Department of Addiction Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School , Worcester, MA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: J. Steven Lamberti, University of Rochester, United States

                Reviewed by: Anette Søgaard Nielsen, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark; Siddharth Sarkar, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India

                *Correspondence: Stephanie Carreiro stephanie.carreiro@ 123456umassmed.edu

                This article was submitted to Forensic Psychiatry, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyt.2021.794785
                8811209
                35126204
                7a4df19e-f285-4263-88f3-02b9085c46fd
                Copyright © 2022 Leach, Carreiro, Shaffer, Gaba and Smelson.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 14 October 2021
                : 07 December 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 43, Pages: 12, Words: 7238
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, doi 10.13039/100000002;
                Categories
                Psychiatry
                Systematic Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                digital health,mhealth,telehealth,substance use disorder,mental health,co-occurring disorder,criminal justice

                Comments

                Comment on this article