Patrick Chariot1, Aude Lepresle2, Thomas Lefèvre2, Cyril Boraud2, Agnès Barthès2, Menouar Tedlaouti3. 1. Department of Forensic Medicine, Hôpital Jean-Verdier (AP-HP), F-93140 Bondy, France; Department of Addiction Medicine, Hôpital Jean-Verdier (AP-HP), F-93140 Bondy, France; Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les Enjeux Sociaux (IRIS), UMR 8156-997, UFR SMBH, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris 13, France. Electronic address: patrick.chariot@jvr.aphp.fr. 2. Department of Forensic Medicine, Hôpital Jean-Verdier (AP-HP), F-93140 Bondy, France. 3. Department of Forensic Medicine, Hôpital Jean-Verdier (AP-HP), F-93140 Bondy, France; Department of Addiction Medicine, Hôpital Jean-Verdier (AP-HP), F-93140 Bondy, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening and brief intervention programs related to addictive disorders have proven effective in a variety of environments. Both the feasibility and outcome of brief interventions performed in police custody by forensic physicians are unknown. Our objectives were to characterize addictive behaviors in detainees and to evaluate the feasibility of a brief intervention at the time of the medical examination in police custody. METHODS: This prospective study included 1000 detainees in police custody who were examined by a physician for the assessment of fitness for detention. We used a standardized questionnaire and collected data concerning individual characteristics, addictive disorders, and reported assaults or observed injuries. RESULTS: 944 men and 56 women (94-6%) were studied. We found an addictive disorder in 708 of 1000 cases (71%), with the use of tobacco (62%), alcohol (36%), cannabis (35%), opiates (5%), and cocaine (4%) being the most common. A brief intervention was performed in 544 of these 708 cases (77%). A total of 139 of the 708 individuals (20%) expressed a willingness to change and 14 of 708 (2%) requested some information on treatment options. The main reasons why brief interventions were not performed were aggressive behaviors, drowsiness, or fanciful statements by the detainee. CONCLUSION: Brief interventions and screening for addictive behaviors in police custody are feasible in the majority of cases. The frequent link between addictive behaviors and the suspected crimes highlights the value of such interventions, which could be incorporated into the public health mission of the physician in police custody.
BACKGROUND: Screening and brief intervention programs related to addictive disorders have proven effective in a variety of environments. Both the feasibility and outcome of brief interventions performed in police custody by forensic physicians are unknown. Our objectives were to characterize addictive behaviors in detainees and to evaluate the feasibility of a brief intervention at the time of the medical examination in police custody. METHODS: This prospective study included 1000 detainees in police custody who were examined by a physician for the assessment of fitness for detention. We used a standardized questionnaire and collected data concerning individual characteristics, addictive disorders, and reported assaults or observed injuries. RESULTS: 944 men and 56 women (94-6%) were studied. We found an addictive disorder in 708 of 1000 cases (71%), with the use of tobacco (62%), alcohol (36%), cannabis (35%), opiates (5%), and cocaine (4%) being the most common. A brief intervention was performed in 544 of these 708 cases (77%). A total of 139 of the 708 individuals (20%) expressed a willingness to change and 14 of 708 (2%) requested some information on treatment options. The main reasons why brief interventions were not performed were aggressive behaviors, drowsiness, or fanciful statements by the detainee. CONCLUSION: Brief interventions and screening for addictive behaviors in police custody are feasible in the majority of cases. The frequent link between addictive behaviors and the suspected crimes highlights the value of such interventions, which could be incorporated into the public health mission of the physician in police custody.