L Ashman1, L Duggan. 1. Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Barton Hall, Barton Road, Kettering, Northants, UK NN15 6SG. Lorraine.ashman@nht.northants.nhs.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of sex offenders is a major public concern. Behavioural and pharmacological interventions have been used for many years and more recently cognitive behavioural based interventions have become popular around the world. Programmes designed for the general population have been modified for those sex offenders with learning disability, to address their cognitive deficits. The efficacy of these modified programmes is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of interventions with learning disabled sex offenders. SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewers searched the Cochrane Library 2006 (Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to Sept 2006), Embase (1980 to September 2006), CINAHL (1982 to September 2006), PsycINFO (1872 to September 2006), Biological Abstracts (1980 to September 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention for learning disabled sex offenders to any other, or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled trial was identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using the methods described the reviewers found no randomised controlled trial evidence to guide the use of interventions for learning disabled sex offenders. Until the urgent need for randomised controlled trials is met, clinical practice will continue to be guided by either extrapolation of evidence from randomised controlled trials involving sex offenders without learning disability or non-randomised trial evidence of interventions for the learning disabled sex offender.
BACKGROUND: The management of sex offenders is a major public concern. Behavioural and pharmacological interventions have been used for many years and more recently cognitive behavioural based interventions have become popular around the world. Programmes designed for the general population have been modified for those sex offenders with learning disability, to address their cognitive deficits. The efficacy of these modified programmes is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of interventions with learning disabled sex offenders. SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewers searched the Cochrane Library 2006 (Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to Sept 2006), Embase (1980 to September 2006), CINAHL (1982 to September 2006), PsycINFO (1872 to September 2006), Biological Abstracts (1980 to September 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention for learning disabled sex offenders to any other, or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled trial was identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using the methods described the reviewers found no randomised controlled trial evidence to guide the use of interventions for learning disabled sex offenders. Until the urgent need for randomised controlled trials is met, clinical practice will continue to be guided by either extrapolation of evidence from randomised controlled trials involving sex offenders without learning disability or non-randomised trial evidence of interventions for the learning disabled sex offender.