Moderators of Sexual Recidivism as Indicator of Treatment Effectiveness in Persons With Sexual Offense Histories: An Updated Meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-16 DOI:10.1177/10790632231159071
Lisa Holper, Andreas Mokros, Elmar Habermeyer
{"title":"Moderators of Sexual Recidivism as Indicator of Treatment Effectiveness in Persons With Sexual Offense Histories: An Updated Meta-analysis.","authors":"Lisa Holper, Andreas Mokros, Elmar Habermeyer","doi":"10.1177/10790632231159071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present meta-analysis is an update of the meta-analysis by Schmucker and Lösel [Campbell Syst. Rev. 2017; 13: 1-75], which synthesized evidence on sexual recidivism as an indicator of treatment effectiveness in persons with sexual offense histories. The updated meta-analysis includes 37 samples comprising a total of 30,394 individuals with sexual offense histories, which is nearly three times the sample size reported by Schmucker and Lösel (2017: 28 samples, <i>N</i> = 9781). In line with Schmucker and Lösel (2017), the mean treatment effect was small with an odds ratio of 1.54 [95% CI 1.22, 1.95] (<i>p</i> < .001). A moderator analysis suggested three predictors of importance, i.e., risk level, treatment specialization, and author confounding. Greater treatment effectiveness was suggested in high- and medium-compared to low-risk individuals and in specialized compared to non-specialized treatments. Authors affiliated with treatment programs reported larger effectiveness than independent authors. These findings were overall in line with Schmucker and Lösel (2017), though the effects of risk level and treatment specialization were stronger in the current meta-analysis. The findings of the updated meta-analysis reinforce the evidence for the first and second principle of the Risk-Need-Responsivity model. The results may support researchers and decision-makers in interpreting the current evidence on sexual recidivism as an indicator of treatment effectiveness, and, based on that, implement and carry out informative, methodologically sound evaluations of ongoing treatment programs in persons with sexual offense histories.</p>","PeriodicalId":21828,"journal":{"name":"Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10880427/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632231159071","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present meta-analysis is an update of the meta-analysis by Schmucker and Lösel [Campbell Syst. Rev. 2017; 13: 1-75], which synthesized evidence on sexual recidivism as an indicator of treatment effectiveness in persons with sexual offense histories. The updated meta-analysis includes 37 samples comprising a total of 30,394 individuals with sexual offense histories, which is nearly three times the sample size reported by Schmucker and Lösel (2017: 28 samples, N = 9781). In line with Schmucker and Lösel (2017), the mean treatment effect was small with an odds ratio of 1.54 [95% CI 1.22, 1.95] (p < .001). A moderator analysis suggested three predictors of importance, i.e., risk level, treatment specialization, and author confounding. Greater treatment effectiveness was suggested in high- and medium-compared to low-risk individuals and in specialized compared to non-specialized treatments. Authors affiliated with treatment programs reported larger effectiveness than independent authors. These findings were overall in line with Schmucker and Lösel (2017), though the effects of risk level and treatment specialization were stronger in the current meta-analysis. The findings of the updated meta-analysis reinforce the evidence for the first and second principle of the Risk-Need-Responsivity model. The results may support researchers and decision-makers in interpreting the current evidence on sexual recidivism as an indicator of treatment effectiveness, and, based on that, implement and carry out informative, methodologically sound evaluations of ongoing treatment programs in persons with sexual offense histories.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将性累犯作为有性犯罪史者治疗效果指标的调节因素:最新的元分析。
本荟萃分析是对Schmucker和Lösel的荟萃分析[Campbell Syst. Rev. 2017; 13: 1-75]的更新,该荟萃分析综合了将性累犯作为有性犯罪史者治疗效果指标的证据。更新后的荟萃分析包括37个样本,共包括30394名有性犯罪史的人,这几乎是Schmucker和Lösel所报告样本量的三倍(2017年:28个样本,N = 9781)。与 Schmucker 和 Lösel(2017 年)的研究结果一致,平均治疗效果很小,几率比为 1.54 [95% CI 1.22, 1.95] (p < .001)。调节因素分析表明了三个重要的预测因素,即风险水平、治疗专业化和作者混淆。高风险和中风险个体的治疗效果优于低风险个体,专业治疗优于非专业治疗。与独立作者相比,与治疗项目有关联的作者报告的疗效更高。这些发现总体上与 Schmucker 和 Lösel(2017 年)的研究结果一致,但在当前的荟萃分析中,风险水平和治疗专业化的影响更大。更新后的荟萃分析结果加强了风险-需求-反应性模型第一和第二原则的证据。这些结果可以帮助研究人员和决策者解读目前将性累犯作为治疗效果指标的证据,并在此基础上对有性犯罪史者的持续治疗方案实施和开展内容丰富、方法合理的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
17.40%
发文量
33
期刊最新文献
Differentiating Between Sexual Offending and Violent Non-sexual Offending in Men With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders Using Machine Learning. Interactions Between Offender and Crime Characteristics Leading to a Lethal Outcome in Cases of Sexually-Motivated Abductions. Inadequate Coping Strategies of Men who Have Committed Sexual Aggression Against Women: A Study of Their Developmental Antecedents. Static-99R Norms and Cross-Cultural Validity for Australian Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Men Convicted of Sexual Offences. Validation of the Revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI-2) in Portugal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1