OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to answer the question: Can the Andrews principles of risk, needs, and responsivity, originally developed for programs that treat offenders, be extended to programs that treat drug abusers? METHODS: Drawing from a dataset that included 243 independent comparisons, we conducted random-effects meta-regression and ANOVA-analog meta-analyses to test the Andrews principles by averaging crime and drug use outcomes over a diverse set of programs for drug abuse problems. RESULTS: For crime outcomes, in the meta-regressions the point estimates for each of the principles were substantial, consistent with previous studies of the Andrews principles. There was also a substantial point estimate for programs exhibiting a greater number of the principles. However, almost all of the 95% confidence intervals included the zero point. For drug use outcomes, in the meta-regressions the point estimates for each of the principles was approximately zero; however, the point estimate for programs exhibiting a greater number of the principles was somewhat positive. All of the estimates for the drug use principles had confidence intervals that included the zero point. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports previous findings from primary research studies targeting the Andrews principles that those principles are effective in reducing crime outcomes, here in meta-analytic research focused on drug treatment programs. By contrast, programs that follow the principles appear to have very little effect on drug use outcomes. Primary research studies that experimentally test the Andrews principles in drug treatment programs are recommended.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to answer the question: Can the Andrews principles of risk, needs, and responsivity, originally developed for programs that treat offenders, be extended to programs that treat drug abusers? METHODS: Drawing from a dataset that included 243 independent comparisons, we conducted random-effects meta-regression and ANOVA-analog meta-analyses to test the Andrews principles by averaging crime and drug use outcomes over a diverse set of programs for drug abuse problems. RESULTS: For crime outcomes, in the meta-regressions the point estimates for each of the principles were substantial, consistent with previous studies of the Andrews principles. There was also a substantial point estimate for programs exhibiting a greater number of the principles. However, almost all of the 95% confidence intervals included the zero point. For drug use outcomes, in the meta-regressions the point estimates for each of the principles was approximately zero; however, the point estimate for programs exhibiting a greater number of the principles was somewhat positive. All of the estimates for the drug use principles had confidence intervals that included the zero point. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports previous findings from primary research studies targeting the Andrews principles that those principles are effective in reducing crime outcomes, here in meta-analytic research focused on drug treatment programs. By contrast, programs that follow the principles appear to have very little effect on drug use outcomes. Primary research studies that experimentally test the Andrews principles in drug treatment programs are recommended.
Entities:
Keywords:
Crime outcomes; Drug treatment programs; Drug use outcomes; Meta-analysis; Need principle; Responsivity principle; Risk principle
Authors: Frank S Pearson; Michael L Prendergast; Deborah Podus; Peter Vazan; Lisa Greenwell; Zachary Hamilton Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2011-11-25
Authors: Faye S Taxman; Scott T Walters; Lincoln B Sloas; Jennifer Lerch; Mayra Rodriguez Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Christine Timko; Brenda M Booth; Xiaotong Han; Nicole R Schultz; Daniel M Blonigen; Jessie J Wong; Michael A Cucciare Journal: Rural Ment Health Date: 2017-04
Authors: Sanne L Hillege; Eddy F J M Brand; Eva A Mulder; Robert R J M Vermeiren; Lieke van Domburgh Journal: Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 3.033