Insatser inom socialtjänsten för personer med kriminell livsstil

Sammanställning av systematiska översikter från SBU:s upplysningstjänst

Publikationstyp: SBU:s upplysningstjänst Rapport ut202504Publicerad: 13 april 2025

Fråga

Vilken effekt har insatser inom socialtjänsten för personer med kriminell livsstil?

Frågeställare: Socialsekreterare, Stockholm stad

Denna publikation innehåller:

En sammanställning av systematiska översikter som svarar på en specifik fråga från beslutsfattare inom hälso- och sjukvård eller socialtjänst

SBU använder en noggrann process för att säkerställa att vårt resultat är vetenskapligt väl underbyggt. För den här rapporten har vi gjort följande:

Tagit fram ett underlag i flera steg:

Gjort en strukturerad litteratursökning
Granskat om studierna vi hittat är relevanta
Granskat om det finns metodbrister i de systematiska översikterna som skulle kunna påverka resultaten och ge risk för snedvridning

I rapporten redovisar vi översiktsförfattarna slutsatser, men vi gör ingen egen sammanvägning av resultat.

Följande personer har granskat och bedömt rapporten:

Intern sakkunnig
Avdelningschef
Produktsamordnare

Sammanfattning

Kunskapsläget

Vi har inte identifierat någon systematisk översikt som utvärderat effekten av insatser inom socialtjänsten för personer med en kriminell livsstil som är tillräckligt välgjord för att vi ska redovisa resultaten.
Vi identifierade 13 systematiska översikter som var relevanta för frågan, men som bedömdes inte hålla tillräckligt hög metodologisk kvalitet. Vi presenterar därför inga resultat eller slutsatser från dessa systematiska översikter eftersom det finns en betydande risk för att resultaten är missvisande.

Vad betyder det här?

Att vi inte presenterar några resultat ska inte tolkas som att insatser inom socialtjänsten saknar effekt för personer med en kriminell livsstil. Det betyder att det behövs en välgjord systematisk översikt som sammanställer befintliga studier och identifierar behovet av ny forskning för att förbättra kunskapsläget.

Bakgrund

Personer som återkommande begår brott står för en relativt stor andel av den totala brottsligheten i samhället. Statistik från BRÅ visar att 25 procent av de personer som hade en så kallad ingångshändelse¹ under år 2017 återföll i brott inom ett år. Efter tre år hade 41 procent återfallit i brott. Ett effektivt återfallsförebyggande arbete kan därför ge stora vinster, för såväl den enskilda individen som för samhället [1].

Inom socialtjänsten kan olika insatser erbjudas till vuxna med kriminell livsstil med syftet att minska risken för återfall i brott och underlätta återanpassning till samhället.

^1. Ingångshändelse betyder att personen till exempel frigivits från anstalt, skrivits ut från sluten ungdomsvård eller fått andra påföljder genom lagakraftvunnen dom eller beslut av åklagare och är den lagföringen som följs upp för återfall.

Frågeställning

Upplysningstjänsten har tillsammans med frågeställaren formulerat frågan enligt följande PICO²:

Population: Vuxna som har en kriminell livsstil, lever i destruktiva kriminella miljöer eller blivit dömda för brott (ej sexualbrott, relationsbrott eller drogmissbruk).

Intervention: Insatser eller stöd som kan erbjudas inom socialtjänstens verksamheter, till exempel Kriminalitet som livsstil eller Moral Recognation Therapy.

Control: Ingen eller annan behandling

Outcome: Återfall i brott, kriminella värderingar

Vi inkluderar systematiska översikter publicerade i vetenskapliga tidskrifter samt systematiska översikter från myndigheter och HTA-organisationer, som har publicerats på engelska eller ett av de skandinaviska språken.

^2. PICO är en förkortning för patient/population/problem, intervention (insats, behandling)/, comparison/control (jämförelseintervention (insats, behandling)) och outcome (utfallsmått).

Resultat

Vi identifierade ingen systematisk översikt med låg eller måttlig risk för bias.

Vi identifierade dock 13 systematiska översikter som bedömdes vara relevanta för frågan, men där vi gjorde bedömningen att risken för bias var hög [2-14]. Eftersom det innebär en betydande risk för att resultaten är missvisande presenterar vi inga resultat eller slutsatser från översikterna.

Metod

Sökning

Upplysningstjänsten gör en systematisk sökning i minst två vetenskapliga databaser. Fullständig sökdokumentation finns i Bilaga 1.

Urval

Bedömning av vilka artiklar som är relevanta sker i två steg och utgår från frågeställningen.

Två utredare läser titel och sammanfattning av alla identifierade artiklar från sökningen, och gör en oberoende bedömning av artiklarnas relevans.
Artiklarna som valts ut i steg 1 läses i fulltext av två utredare, som gör en oberoende bedömning av artiklarnas relevans.

Skillnader i bedömningarna löses genom diskussion.

Flödesschema för urval av artiklar finns i Bilaga 2. Exkluderade artiklar finns i Bilaga 3.

Bedömning av risk för bias

Risk för bias i relevanta systematiska översikter bedöms av två utredare, oberoende av varandra. Skillnader i bedömningarna löses genom diskussion.

Vid bedömning används granskningsmallen SnabbSTAR. SnabbSTAR har fem steg, där översikter som uppfyller de krav som ställs i steg 1–4 bedöms ha måttlig risk för bias, och om 1-5 är uppfyllda bedöms risken för bias vara låg.

En översikt som har brister i stegen 1–4 bedöms ha hög risk för bias och redovisas inte eftersom resultaten kan vara missvisande.

SBU:s bedömning av risk för bias finns redovisad i Bilaga 4. Granskningsmallen SnabbSTAR finns i Bilaga 5.

Vetenskapliga kunskapsluckor

Om sammanställd forskning av god kvalitet saknas registreras det som en vetenskaplig kunskapslucka i SBU:s databas över vetenskapliga kunskapsluckor. Kunskapsluckan kan bestå i att forskning helt saknas, att primärstudier finns men att det inte finns någon systematisk översikt, eller att de existerande systematiska översikterna inte bedöms leva upp till kraven för låg eller måttlig risk för bias.

Databasen över vetenskapliga kunskapsluckor kan nås via: https://www.sbu.se/sv/kunskapsluckor-sok/

Projektgrupp

Detta svar är sammanställt av Sally Saad (utredare), Emma Wojda (utredare och produktsamordnare), Erik Eriksson (utredare), Sara Fundell (projektadministratör), Maral Jolstedt (intern sakkunnig) samt Pernilla Östlund (avdelningschef) vid SBU.

Referenser

Brå. Återfall i brottslighet. Slutlig statistik. Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet. [accessed Mar 24 2025]. Available from: https://bra.se/amnen/aterfall-i-brottslighet
Banse R, Koppehele-Gossel J, Kistemaker LM, Werner VA, Schmidt AF. Pro-criminal attitudes, intervention, and recidivism. Aggress Violent Behav. 2013;18(6):673-85. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.024
Brännström L, Kaunitz C, Andershed A-K, South S, Smedslund G. Aggression replacement training (ART) for reducing antisocial behavior in adolescents and adults: A systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2016;27:30-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.02.006
Dowden C, Antonowicz D, Andrews DA. The effectiveness of relapse prevention with offenders: a meta-analysis. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2003;47(5):516-28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X03253018
Gannon TA, Olver ME, Mallion JS, James M. Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clin Psychol Rev. 2019;73:101752. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101752
Henwood KS, Chou S, Browne KD. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of CBT informed anger management. Aggress Violent Behav. 2015;25:280-92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.011
Illescas SR, Sánchez-Meca J, Genovés VG. Treatment of offenders and recidivism: Assessment of the effectiveness of programmes applied in Europe. Psychology in Spain. 2001;5(1):47-62.
Lenkens M, van Lenthe FJ, Schenk L, Sentse M, Severiens S, Engbersen G, et al. Experiential peer support and desistance from crime: a systematic realist literature review. Psychol Crime Law. 2023;30(10):1421-51. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2023.2203925
Lipsey MW, Landenberger NA, Wilson SJ. Effects of Cognitive‐Behavioral Programs for Criminal Offenders. Campbell Syst Rev. 2007;3(1):1-27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2007.6
Mathlin G, Freestone M, Jones H. Factors associated with successful reintegration for male offenders: a systematic narrative review with implicit causal model. J Exp Criminol. 2022;20(2):1-40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-022-09547-5
Pearson FS, Lipton DS, Cleland CM, Yee DS. The Effects of Behavioral/Cognitive-Behavioral Programs on Recidivism. Crime Delinq. 2002;48(3):476-96. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/001112870204800306
Redondo S, Sanchez-meca J, Garrido V. The influence of treatment programmes on the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: An european meta-analytic review. Psychol Crime Law. 1999;5(3):251-78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908401769
Tong LSJ, Farrington DP. Effectiveness of «Reasoning and rehabilitation» in reducing reoffending. Psicothema. 2008;20(1):20-8.
Wilson DB, Bouffard LA, Mackenzie DL. A Quantitative Review of Structured, Group-Oriented, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders. Crim Justice Behav. 2005;32(2):172-204. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854804272889

Bilaga 1 Dokumentation av sökstrategier

Upplysningstjänsten har gjort sökningar i databaserna Medline (Ovid), Scopus och PsycInfo samt i INAHTA:s³ databas för HTA⁴-rapporter. Vi har även handsökt publikationer på webbsidor för regionala HTA-organisationer och myndigheter. En referens- och citeringssökning på inkluderade artiklar har utförts.

Sökningen har begränsats till systematiska översikter.

Nedan redovisas sökningen som gjorts i de vetenskapliga databaserna.

^3. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA)

^4. Utvärdering av hälso- och sjukvårdens (och i SBU:s fall socialtjänstens) metoder (engelska: Health Technology Assessment)

Medline via OvidSP 20 Dec 2024
Search terms		Items found
Intervention:
1.	moral reconation therapy.ab,bt,kw,ti.	15
2.	(program* or rehabilitation or treatment* or intervention* or therap* or prevent* or management or "behavioral change" or "behavior modification" or "behavioural change" or "behaviour modification" or desistance).ab,bt,kw,ti.	1 127 538
Outcome:
3.	Criminal Behavior/	477
4.	Criminals/	6692
5.	Criminal Psychology/	3055
6.	Recidivism/	726
7.	((crimin* or offender) adj4 (lifestyle or "way of life" or thinking or behavior or behaviour or mindset*)).ab,bt,kf,ti.	2610
8.	(recidivism or reoffen* or re-offen* or repeat* offen* or re-incarcerat* or reincarcerat* or re-arrest* or rearrest* or re-convict* or reconvict* or repeat* convict*).ab,bt,kf,ti.	6142
9.	((rehabilit* or relaps) adj4 (crime or crimin* or offen*)).ab,bt,kf,ti.	429
10.	or/6-12	16 850
Study types: systematic reviews and meta-analysis
11.	((Systematic Review/ or Meta-Analysis/ or Cochrane Database Syst Rev.ja. or ((systematic adj4 review) or "meta analys" or metaanalys).ti,bt,ab.) not (editorial/ or letter/ or case reports/))
Combined sets:
12.	2 and 10	7826
13.	1 or 12	7827
14.	11 and 13	445
Final result
15.		445
/ = Term from the MeSH controlled vocabulary;.ti,ab = Title or abstract; .tw = Title or abstract; .kf = Keywords; .kw = Keywords, exact; .bt = Book title. NLM Bookshelf; .pt = Publication type; .ja = Journal abbreviation; .af = All fields; adjn = Adjacent. Proximity operator retrieving adjacent words, adj3 retrieves records with search terms within two terms from each other; * or $ = Truncation; “ “ = Citation Marks; searches for an exact phrase

Scopus via scopus.com 20 Dec 2024
Search terms		Items found
Intervention:
1.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ("Moral Reconation Therapy")	23
2.	TITLE-ABS-KEY (program* OR rehabilitation OR treatment* OR intervention* OR therap* OR prevent* OR management OR "behavioral change" OR "behavior modification" OR "behavioural change" OR "behaviour modification" OR desistance)	24 713 560
Outcome:
3.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( crimin* OR offender) W/3 ( lifestyle OR "way of life" OR thinking OR behavior OR behaviour OR mindset* ) )	17 824
4.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ( recidivism OR reoffen* OR "re offen" OR "repeat offen" OR "re incarcerat" OR reincarcerat* OR "re arrest" OR rearrest OR "re convict" OR reconvict OR "repeat* convict*" )	16 842
5.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( rehabilit* OR relaps* ) W/3 ( crime* OR crimin* OR offen* ) )	2097
6.	4 OR 5 OR 6	34 610
Study types: systematic reviews and meta-analysis
7.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( systematic W/2 review ) OR "meta analy" OR metaanaly ) AND (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “le”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ed”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ch”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “cp”))
Combined sets:
8.	2 AND 6	19 284
9.	1 OR 8	19 288
10.	7 AND 9	875
Final result
11.		875
TITLE-ABS-KEY = Title, abstract or keywords (including indexed keywords and author keywords); ALL = All fields; W/n = Within. Proximity operator retrieving terms within n words from each other; PRE/n = Precedes by. Proximity operator, the first term in the search must precede the second by n words; LIMIT-TO (X) = Includes only results of specified type, e.g., publication type or time range; DOCTYPE = Publication type; “re” = review; “le” = letter; “ed” = editorial; “ch” = book chapter; “cp” = conference proceedings; * = Truncation; “ “ = Citation Marks; searches for an exact phrase

PSYCINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts (co-search) via EBSCO 20 Dec 2024
Search terms		Items found
Intervention:
1.	TI "Moral Reconation Therapy" OR AB "Moral Reconation Therapy" OR SU "Moral Reconation Therapy"	41
2.	TI ( program* OR rehabilitation OR treatment* OR intervention* OR therap* OR prevent* OR management OR "behavioral change" OR "behavior modification" OR "behavioural change" OR "behaviour modification" OR desistance ) OR AB ( program* OR rehabilitation OR treatment* OR intervention* OR therap* OR prevent* OR management OR "behavioral change" OR "behavior modification" OR "behavioural change" OR "behaviour modification" OR desistance ) OR SU ( program* OR rehabilitation OR treatment* OR intervention* OR therap* OR prevent* OR management OR "behavioral change" OR "behavior modification" OR "behavioural change" OR "behaviour modification" OR desistance)	2 302 200
Outcome:
3.	TI ( ( ( crimin* OR offender) N3 ( lifestyle OR "way of life" OR thinking OR behavior OR behaviour OR mindset* ) ) ) OR AB ( ( ( crimin* OR offender) N3 ( lifestyle OR "way of life" OR thinking OR behavior OR behaviour OR mindset* ) ) ) OR SU ( ( ( crimin* OR offender) N3 ( lifestyle OR "way of life" OR thinking OR behavior OR behaviour OR mindset* ) ) )	23 249
4.	TI ( recidivism OR reoffen* OR "re offen" OR "repeat offen" OR "re incarcerat" OR reincarcerat* OR "re arrest" OR rearrest OR "re convict" OR reconvict OR "repeat* convict" ) OR AB ( recidivism OR reoffen OR "re offen" OR "repeat offen" OR "re incarcerat" OR reincarcerat* OR "re arrest" OR rearrest OR "re convict" OR reconvict OR "repeat* convict" ) OR SU (recidivism OR reoffen OR "re offen" OR "repeat offen" OR "re incarcerat" OR reincarcerat* OR "re arrest" OR rearrest OR "re convict" OR reconvict OR "repeat* convict*" )	22 491
5.	TI ( ( ( rehabilit* OR relaps* ) N3 ( crime* OR crimin* OR offen* ) ) ) OR AB ( ( ( rehabilit* OR relaps* ) N3 ( crime* OR crimin* OR offen* ) ) ) OR SU ( ( ( rehabilit* OR relaps* ) N3 ( crime* OR crimin* OR offen* ) ) )	7691
6.	3 OR 4 OR 5	48 216
Study types: systematic reviews and meta-analysis
7.	TI((systematic n3 review) OR "meta analys" OR metaanalys) OR AB((systematic n3 review) OR "meta analys" OR metaanalys) OR SU((systematic n3 review) OR "meta analys" OR metaanalys) OR (MR "Systematic Review" OR MR "meta analysis")
Combined sets:
8.	2 AND 6	28 489
9.	1 OR 8	28 496
10.	7 AND 9	962
Final result
11.		962
TI = Title; AB = Abstract; SU = Keyword, exact or part (including all other fields for indexed and author keywords); DE = Exact keyword; TX = All text; MR = Methodology; Nn = Near. Proximity operator retrieving terms within n words from each other; * = Truncation; “ “ = Citation Marks; searches for an exact phrase

Citation Search

Scopus via Elsevier (citation search) 18 March 2025
Search terms		Cited by
Cited articles
1.	DOI 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00170-X	88
2.	DOI 10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.024	38
3.	DOI 10.1016/j.avb.2016.02.006	50
4.	DOI 10.1016/j.avb.2024.101950	0
5.	DOI 10.1177/0306624X03253018	112
6.	DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101752	176
7.	DOI 10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.011	99
8.	DOI 10.1007/s11292-022-09547-5	4
9.	DOI 10.1177/0011128702048003006	213
10.	DOI 10.1080/10683169908401769	112
11.	EID 2-s2.0-38549170020	58
12.	DOI ( 10.1177/0093854804272889 )	331
13.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( systematic W/2 review ) OR "meta analy" OR metaanaly ) AND (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “le”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ed”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ch”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “cp”))
Combined sets
14.	1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9 OR 10 OR 11 OR 12	1062
15.	13 AND 14	130
Citing articles
16.	#1-11 View cited by	130
LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, "j" = Limit to source type journal; LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, "ar" = Limit to document type article; LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, "re" = Limit to document type review LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, X = Limit to publication year

Bilaga 2 Flödesschema för urval av artiklar

Flödesschema med boxar och siffror som anger urval av artiklar

Bilaga 3 Exkluderade artiklar

Artiklar som exkluderats efter fulltextläsning på grund av att de inte är relevanta för den här rapportens frågeställning.
Excluded articles	Reason for exclusion
Systematic reviews
Andrews DA, Dowden C. Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta‐analytic review of programme integrity. Legal Criminol Psychol. 2010;10(2):173-87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1348/135532505x36723	Not a systematic review
Beaudry G, Yu R, Perry AE, Fazel S. Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(9):759-73. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00170-X	Relevant results not analysed separately
Berardi A, Galeoto G, Simeon R, Bandiera R, Sellitto G, Seco Calvo JA, et al. The role and effectiveness of occupational therapy in prison rehabilitation programs: systematic review. Int J Prison Health (2024). 2024;20(2):226-39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPH-07-2023-0038	Wrong intervention
Berghuis M. Reentry Programs for Adult Male Offender Recidivism and Reintegration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2018;62(14):4655-76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18778448	Relevant results not analysed separately
Bouchard J, Wong JS. Seeing the forest and the trees: Examining the impact of aggregate measures of recidivism on meta-analytic conclusions of intervention effects. Criminol Crim Justice. 2022;24(1):226-48. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958221090577	Wrong outcome
Brazão N, da Motta C, Rijo D. From multimodal programs to a new cognitive–interpersonal approach in the rehabilitation of offenders. Aggress Violent Behav. 2013;18(6):636-43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.018	Not a systematic review
Calaboiça C, Moreira D, Araújo E, Grangeia H, Oliveira C, Barros S, et al. A systematic review on psychological interventions for individuals with a history of offending behavior delivered by digital means. Aggress Violent Behav. 2023;72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2023.101855	Relevant results not analysed separately
Connell C, Furtado V, McKay EA, Singh SP. How effective are interventions to improve social outcomes among offenders with personality disorder: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):368. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1536-3	Wrong population
Cunha O, Pereira B, Sousa M, Rodrigues AC. Cognitive behavioural “third wave” therapies in the treatment of justice-involved individuals: A systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2024;76:101923. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101923	Relevant results not analysed separately
Debidin M, Dryden W. A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Use of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy in Criminal Justice Work to Reduce Re-offending. J Ration Emot Cogn Behav Ther. 2010;29(2):120-43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-010-0110-4	Not a systematic review
de Ribera OS, Chitgian Urzúa V, Pienaar G. How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” (R&R) program in changing cognitive and behavioral skills? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggress Violent Behav. 2024;76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101950	Relevant results not analysed separately
Ferguson LM, Wormith JS. A meta-analysis of moral reconation therapy. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2013;57(9):1076-106. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12447771	Relevant results not analysed separately
Fulham L, Blais J, Rugge T, Schultheis EA. The effectiveness of restorative justice programs: A meta-analysis of recidivism and other relevant outcomes. Criminol Crim Justice. 2023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958231215228	Relevant results not analysed separately
Galway R, Swales MA, Wane J. The efficacy of offence-specific interventions in reducing risk and recidivism in women: a systematic review. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2022;33(3):291-322. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2022.2053185	Wrong population
Gibbon S, Khalifa NR, Cheung NH, Vollm BA, McCarthy L. Psychological interventions for antisocial personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;9(9):CD007668. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007668.pub3	Wrong population
Gibbs D, Stockings E, Larney S, Bromberg DJ, Shakeshaft A, Farnbach S. The impact of supported accommodation on health and criminal justice outcomes of people released from prison: a systematic literature review. Harm Reduct J. 2023;20(1):91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00832-8	Wrong intervention
Gies SV, Nichols LM, Mojekwu F, Guerette RT, Tanner-Smith EE. Applying an empirically derived effect size distribution to benchmark the practical magnitude of interventions to reduce recidivism in the USA. J Exp Criminol. 2023;20(3):817-41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09561-1	Wrong intervention
Giesbrecht CJ. A meta-analysis of the effect of violence intervention programs on general and violent recidivism. J Community Saf Well Being. 2023;8(2):99-106. Available from: https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.308	Not a systematic review
Gobeil R, Blanchette K, Stewart L. A Meta-Analytic Review of Correctional Interventions for Women Offenders. Crim Justice Behav. 2016;43(3):301-22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815621100	Relevant results not analysed separately
Guan X, Lo TW. Restrictive Deterrence in Drug Offenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis of Mixed Studies. Front Psychol. 2021;12:727142. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.727142	Wrong outcome
Heynen E, Hoogsteder L, van Vugt E, Schalkwijk F, Stams GJ, Assink M. Effectiveness of Moral Developmental Interventions for Youth Engaged in Delinquent Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2025;69(5):537-58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X231172648	Relevant results not analysed separately
Hollin CR, Palmer EJ. Cognitive skills programmes for offenders. Psychol Crime Law. 2009;15(2-3):147-64. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802190871	Not a systematic review
Illescas RS, Frerich N. Crime and Justice Reinvestment in Europe: Possibilities and Challenges. Vict Offender. 2014;9(1):13-49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.864525	Wrong intervention
Ireland JL, Ireland CA, Hynes SE. The Effectiveness of Violence Reduction Therapy in Detained Adult Male Populations: Insights from a Systematic Review and Treatment Evaluation Capturing Individual Level Changes. J Forensic Psychol Res Pract. 2023;25(1):81-109. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2023.2281425	Wrong population
James C, Stams GJ, Asscher JJ, De Roo AK, der Laan PH. Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among juvenile and young adult offenders: a meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(2):263-74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.10.013	Relevant results not analysed separately
Jolliffe D, Farrington D. Systematic Review of Interventions with Violent Offenders. Conference Papers - American Society of Criminology. 2008:1.	Not a systematic review
Koehler J, Lösel F. A meta-evaluative synthesis of the effects of custodial and community-based offender rehabilitation. Eur J Criminol. 2024;22(1):3-29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708241256501	Not a systematic review
Koehler JA, Lösel F, Akoensi TD, Humphreys DK. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe. J Exp Criminol. 2012;9(1):19-43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9159-7	Relevant results not analysed separately
Landenberger NA, Lipsey MW. The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. J Exp Criminol. 2005;1(4):451-76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-3541-7	Relevant results not analysed separately
Latimer J, Dowden C, Muise D. The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis. Prison J. 2005;85(2):127-44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969	Relevant results not analysed separately
Lipsey MW, Chapman GL, Landenberger NA. Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2001;578(1):144-57. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620157800109	Relevant results not analysed separately
MacKenzie DL, Farrington DP. Preventing future offending of delinquents and offenders: what have we learned from experiments and meta-analyses? J Exp Criminol. 2015;11(4):565-95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9244-9	Not a systematic review
Mallion JS, Wood JL, Mallion A. Systematic review of ‘Good Lives’ assumptions and interventions. Aggress Violent Behav. 2020;55. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101510	Relevant results not analysed separately
Meekums B, Daniel J. Arts with offenders: A literature synthesis. Arts Psychother. 2011;38(4):229-38. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2011.06.003	Not a systematic review
Netto NR, Carter JM, Bonell C. A Systematic Review of Interventions That Adopt the “Good Lives” Approach to Offender Rehabilitation. J Offender Rehabil. 2014;53(6):403-32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.931746	Wrong population
Papalia N, Spivak B, Daffern M, Ogloff JRP. A meta‐analytic review of the efficacy of psychological treatments for violent offenders in correctional and forensic mental health settings. Clin Psychol (New York). 2019;26(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12282	Wrong population
Papalia N, Spivak B, Daffern M, Ogloff JRP. Are Psychological Treatments for Adults With Histories of Violent Offending Associated With Change in Dynamic Risk Factors? A Meta-Analysis of Intermediate Treatment Outcomes. Crim Justice Behav. 2020;47(12):1585-608. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820956377	Wrong outcome
Per M, Spinelli C, Sadowski I, Schmelefske E, Anand L, Khoury B. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Incarcerated Populations: A Meta-Analysis. Crim Justice Behav. 2019;47(3):310-30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819891457	Wrong outcome
Polaschek DLL, Collie RM. Rehabilitating Serious Violent Adult Offenders: An Empirical and Theoretical Stocktake. Psychol Crime Law. 2004;10(3):321-34. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0683160410001662807	Not a systematic review
Schell‐Busey N, Simpson SS, Rorie M, Alper M. What Works? Criminol Public Policy. 2016;15(2):387-416. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12195	Wrong intervention
Shaffer DK, Pratt TC. Meta-Analysis, Moderators, and Treatment Effectiveness: The Importance of Digging Deeper for Evidence of Program Integrity. J Offender Rehabil. 2009;48(2):101-19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802640891	Not a systematic review
Sherman LW, Strang H, Mayo-Wilson E, Woods DJ, Ariel B. Are Restorative Justice Conferences Effective in Reducing Repeat Offending? Findings from a Campbell Systematic Review. J Quant Criminol. 2014;31(1):1-24. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9222-9	Relevant results not analysed separately
Smith A, Roberts A, Krzemieniewska-Nandwani K, Eggins L, Cook W, Fox C, et al. Revisiting the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy for reducing reoffending in the criminal justice system: A systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev. 2024;20(3):e1425. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1425	Not a systematic review
Sousa M, Gouveia C, Cunha O, de Castro Rodrigues A. The Effectiveness of Schema Therapy in Individuals Who Committed Crimes: A Systematic Review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2024;25(5):3631-42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241254082	Relevant results not analysed separately
Taylor LR, Bhati A, Taxman FS. Preliminary Examination of the Impact of Program Factors on Summary Effect Sizes. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2021;65(15):1629-52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20964064	Not a systematic review
Tomlinson MF. A Theoretical and Empirical Review of Dialectical Behavior Therapy Within Forensic Psychiatric and Correctional Settings Worldwide. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2018;17(1):72-95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2017.1416003	Wrong population
Tong LSJ, Farrington DP. How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programme in reducing reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries. Psychol Crime Law. 2006;12(1):3-24. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160512331316253	Relevant results not analysed separately
Tripodi SJ, Bledsoe SE, Kim JS, Bender K. Effects of Correctional-Based Programs for Female Inmates: A Systematic Review. Res Soc Work Pract. 2009;21(1):15-31. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509352337	Wrong control
Usher AM, Stewart LA. Effectiveness of correctional programs with ethnically diverse offenders: a meta-analytic study. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2014;58(2):209-30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12469507	Not a systematic review
Van Stam MA, van der Schuur WA, Tserkezis S, van Vugt ES, Asscher JJ, Gibbs JC, et al. The effectiveness of EQUIP on sociomoral development and recidivism reduction: A meta-analytic study. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2014;38:44-51. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.002	Wrong population
Visdomine-Lozano JC. Contextualist Perspectives in the Treatment of Antisocial Behaviors and Offending: A Comparative Review of FAP, ACT, DBT, and MDT. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2022;23(1):241-54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020939509	Not a systematic review
Walton JS, Elliott IA. A review of general cognitive-behavioral programs in English and Welsh prisons and probation services: Three decades of quasi-experimental evaluations. Am Psychol. 2024;21:21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001405	Not a systematic review
Wong JS, Bouchard J, Gushue K, Lee C. Halfway Out: An Examination of the Effects of Halfway Houses on Criminal Recidivism. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019;63(7):1018-37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18811964	Retracted article
Wormith JS, Althouse R, Simpson M, Reitzel LR, Fagan TJ, Morgan RD. The Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Offenders. Crim Justice Behav. 2007;34(7):879-92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807301552	Not a systematic review
Zeccola J, Kelty SF, Boer D. Does the good lives model work? A systematic review of the recidivism evidence. The Journal of Forensic Practice. 2021;23(3):285-300. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/jfp-03-2021-0010	Wrong population

Bilaga 4 Risk för bias hos relevanta systematiska översikter

	Risk of bias
Study	D1	D2	D3	D4	D5	Overall
Banse 2013
Brännström 2016
Dowden 2003
Gannon 2019
Henwood 2015
Illescas 2001
Lenkens 2024
Lipsey 2007
Mathlin 2024
Pearson 2002
Redondo 1999
Tong 2008
Wilson 2005
D1 = Step 1; D2= Step 2; D3 = Step 3; D4 = Step 4; D5 = Step 5 = Critical; = High; = Moderate = Low; = Not assessed

The risk of bias in included systematic reviews is appraised using an assessment tool based on AMSTAR revised by SBU. The assessment tool is comprised of five steps based on the items in AMSTAR. To be assessed as low risk of bias, a systematic review has to fulfil all requirements for step 1 to 5. A systematic review is of moderate risk of bias if it fulfils all the requirements up to step 4. Systematic reviews that do not meet the requirements in one of the steps 1-4 are not assessed further than that step and has a high risk of bias.

Bilaga 5 SNABBSTAR Granskningsmall

Bilaga 5 SNABBSTAR Granskningsmall (PDF)

SBU:s upplysningstjänst

Sökord

Fråga

Sammanfattning

Kunskapsläget

Vad betyder det här?