Cited by 260Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis

The effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment: A systematic review

Open access
Werb, D., Kamarulzaman, A., Meacham, M.C., Rafful, C., Fischer, B., Strathdee, S.A., Wood, E.·2016·International Journal of Drug Policy

Abstract

Background Despite widespread implementation of compulsory treatment modalities for drug dependence, there has been no systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of compulsory drug treatment.Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the outcomes of compulsory treatment. We conducted a search in duplicate of all relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature evaluating compulsory treatment modalities. The following academic databases were searched: PubMed, PAIS International, Proquest, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Soc Abstracts, JSTOR, EBSCO/Academic Search Complete, REDALYC, SciELO Brazil. We also searched the Internet, and article reference lists, from database inception to July 15th, 2015. Eligibility criteria are as follows: peer-reviewed scientific studies presenting original data. Primary outcome of interest was post-treatment drug use. Secondary outcome of interest was post-treatment criminal recidivism.Results Of an initial 430 potential studies identified, nine quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated compulsory treatment options including drug detention facilities, short (i.e., 21-day) and long-term (i.e., 6 months) inpatient treatment, community-based treatment, group-based outpatient treatment, and prison-based treatment. Three studies (33%) reported no significant impacts of compulsory treatment compared with control interventions. Two studies (22%) found equivocal results but did not compare against a control condition. Two studies (22%) observed negative impacts of compulsory treatment on criminal recidivism. Two studies (22%) observed positive impacts of compulsory inpatient treatment on criminal recidivism and drug use.Conclusion There is limited scientific literature evaluating compulsory drug treatment. Evidence does not, on the whole, suggest improved outcomes related to compulsory treatment approaches, with some studies suggesting potential harms. Given the potential for human rights abuses within compulsory treatment settings, non-compulsory treatment modalities should be prioritized by policymakers seeking to reduce drug-related harms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.12.005

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Werb, D., Kamarulzaman, A., Meacham, M. C., Rafful, C., Fischer, B., Strathdee, S. A., & Wood, E.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • University of Malaya (MY)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Werb, D.
Venue
International Journal of Drug Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
28
Pages
1-9
ISSN
0955-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2211276749
Cited by
260
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Drug Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health (1dp2da040256-01)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research ((OP 79297)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DP2-DA040256, DP2 DA040256-01, R37DA019829, T32DA023356)
  • Fogarty International Center (D43TW008633)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Keywords
drug addiction, recidivism, inpatient care, community-based treatment, prison-based treatment, human rights violations, harm reduction, treatment effectiveness
MeSH terms
Humans, Program Evaluation, Treatment Outcome, Substance-Related Disorders, Mandatory Programs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review