Interventions to Prevent and Respond to Violence Against Justice-Involved Young Women: A Scoping Review.

Young women who have had contact with the criminal justice system (justice-involved young women) have an increased risk of being a victim of violence. However, no reviews have synthesized the evidence on interventions to prevent or respond to violence against justice-involved young women. We conducted a scoping review to identify interventions designed to prevent or respond to violence against justice-involved young women. We searched Medline, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed and gray literature published in English from January 1, 2000 until March 23, 2021. Consistent with the public health approach to violence, we included primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions. Excluding duplicates, our search returned 5,603 records, 14 of which met our inclusion criteria. We narratively synthesized the included studies, all of which were conducted in the United States. Most included studies examined a tertiary intervention (n = 10), and few examined a primary (n = 2) or secondary (n = 2) intervention. Across the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools, the percentage of items met ranged from 0% to 78%. There was some limited evidence that tertiary interventions that included cognitive behavioral therapy reduced the mental health impacts of violence victimization among justice-involved young women. There was little evidence on primary and secondary interventions. Effective and evidence-based interventions to prevent violence victimization and revictimization against justice-involved young women remains a critical gap in knowledge.

Health outcomes and service use patterns associated with co-located outpatient mental health care and alcohol and other drug specialist treatment: A systematic review.

ISSUES: Despite long-standing recommendations to integrate mental health care and alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment, no prior study has synthesised evidence on the impact of physically co-locating these specialist services on health outcomes. APPROACH: We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL for studies examining health outcomes associated with co-located outpatient mental health care and AOD specialist treatment for adults with a dual diagnosis of substance use disorder and mental illness. Due to diversity in study designs, patient populations and outcome measures among the included studies, we conducted a narrative synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed using the MASTER scale. KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria. We found provisional evidence that integrated care that includes co-located mental health care and AOD specialist treatment is associated with reductions in substance use and related harms and mental health symptom severity, improved quality of life, decreased emergency department presentations/hospital admissions and reduced health system expenditure. Many studies had a relatively high risk of bias and it was not possible to disaggregate the independent effect of physical co-location from other common aspects of integrated care models such as care coordination and the integration of service processes. IMPLICATIONS: There are few high-quality, peer-reviewed studies establishing the impact of co-located mental health care and AOD specialist treatment on health outcomes. Further research is required to inform policy, guide implementation and optimise practice. CONCLUSION: Integrated care that includes the co-location of mental health care and AOD specialist treatment may yield health and economic benefits.