Spotlight on Juvenile Justice: Intersecting the Child Welfare System.

The authors disclose that this is a fictional case created by the authors. Julian, a 16-year-old adolescent who entered the juvenile justice system facing armed robbery charges, was 8 years old when he entered the child welfare system. He and his younger sister, Jessica, were placed in protective custody after school staff discovered that they were physically abused and witnessed domestic violence. Jessica further disclosed sexual abuse by the mother's boyfriend who was subsequently incarcerated. The siblings were placed together in several foster homes until a biological aunt assumed custody for 2 years. Both children struggled with behavioral problems in school and at home and responded to mental health treatment. The mother participated in substance use treatment, and the children reunified with her by the time Julian was 11 years old.

Psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use.   Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I2 = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I2 = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.

A review of state regulations for child care: Preventing, recognizing and reporting child maltreatment.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 60% of children under 5 years of age were cared for in out-of-home child care arrangements in the United States. Thus, child care provides an opportunity to identify and address potential child maltreatment. However, during the pandemic, rates of reporting child maltreatment decreased-likely because children spent less time in the presence of mandated reporters. As children return to child care, states must have regulations in place to help child care providers prevent, recognize and report child maltreatment. However, little is known about the extent to which state regulations address child maltreatment. Therefore, the purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess state regulations related to child maltreatment and compare them to national standards. METHOD: We reviewed state regulations for all 50 states and the District of Columbia for child care centres ('centres') and family child care homes ('homes') through 31 July 2021 and compared these regulations to eight national health and safety standards on child maltreatment. We coded regulations as either not meeting, partially meeting or fully meeting each standard. RESULTS: Three states (Colorado, Utah and Washington) had regulations for centres, and one state (Washington) had regulations for homes that at least partially met all eight national standards. Nearly all states had regulations consistent with the standards requiring that caregivers and teachers are mandated reporters of child maltreatment and requiring that they be trained in preventing, recognizing and reporting child maltreatment. One state (Hawaii) did not have regulations consistent with any of the national standards for either centres or homes. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, states lacked regulations related to the prevention, recognition and reporting of child maltreatment for both centres and homes. Encouraging states to adopt regulations that meet national standards and further exploring their impact on child welfare are important next steps.

Spotlight on Juvenile Justice: How Did We Get Here?

Structural racism and inequity permeate the juvenile justice system. The earliest delinquency programs were developed at a time when slavery was still legal in the United States and Indigenous Americans were considered "savages," representing dehumanizing systems and beliefs that left lasting structural racism.1 Nearly 200 years later, racism continues to shape and structure our juvenile justice system both directly and indirectly. This article will underscore the historical legacy of structural racism in the juvenile justice system, an understanding necessary to address systemic change.