Search

Youth justice settings should provide safe, therapeutic environments, tailored to young people's needs. Current custodial models rarely meet these aims, mainly because a focus on security tends to outweigh an emphasis on care, diminishing rather than encouraging young people's positive development. This article reports on a three-year evaluation of youth justice reforms in the Netherlands, including small-scale, community-embedded facilities with an emphasis on relational security. We outline key operational elements and conditions for implementation of these facilities to provide guidance for youth justice professionals, and for managers and policymakers seeking to promote political and financial investments in effective youth justice strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This review aimed to examine (1) stigmatising attitudes of probation, parole and custodial officers (hereafter referred to as correctional staff) towards people with mental health issues, (2) the potential impacts of these attitudes on client treatment and (3) what is currently known about anti‐stigma interventions in correctional settings. Method: Academic databases were searched for peer‐reviewed and dissertation literature published between 1 January 2000 and 10 February 2022. Eligible studies included observational and intervention studies investigating stigmatising attitudes of correctional staff towards people with mental health issues. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of studies. A meta‐analysis of anti‐stigma intervention studies was performed. Results: A total of 35 studies were included for data extraction, including eight interventions, one longitudinal, 18 cross‐sectional and eight qualitative studies. Some studies indicated neutral or positive attitudes, but the majority showed a range of stigmatising attitudes towards people with mental health issues. The findings indicate these stigmatising attitudes can lead to negative treatment of justice‐involved clients, such as more coercive, restrictive and punitive approaches. The meta‐analysis of six intervention studies focussed on education found a small positive effect on stigmatising attitudes (d =.31, 95% CI: 0.16–0.45). Conclusion: The various stigmatising attitudes of correctional staff towards people with mental health issues can have detrimental impacts on the well‐being and treatment outcomes of clients presenting with mental health issues. Anti‐stigma interventions may be effective in mitigating these impacts; however, more rigorous evidence is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The basic concepts underlying compulsive, impulsive and addictive behaviours overlap, which may help explain why laymen use these expressions interchangeably. Although there has been a large research effort to better characterize and disentangle these behaviours, clinicians and scientists are still unable to clearly differentiate them. Accordingly, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), impulse control disorders (ICD) and substance-related disorders (SUD) overlap on different levels, including phenomenology, co- morbidity, neurocircuitry, neurocognition, neurochemistry and family history. In this review we summarize these issues with particular emphasis on the role ofthe opioid system in the pathophysiology and treatment of OCD, ICD and SUD. We postulate that with progression and chronicity of OCD. the proportion ofthe OCD-related behaviours (e.g. checking, washing, ordering and hoarding, among others) that are driven by impulsive 'rash' processes increase as involvement of more ventral striatal circuits becomes prominent. In contrast, as SUD and ICD progress, the proportion ofthe SUD- and ICD- related behaviours that are driven by compulsive 'habitual' processes increase as involvement of more dorsal striatal circuits become prominent. We are not arguing that, with time, ICD becomes OCD or vice versa. Instead, we are proposing that these disorders may acquire qualities ofthe other with time. In other words, while patients with ICD/SUD may develop 'compulsive impulsions', patients with OCD may exhibit 'impulsive compulsions'. There are many potential implications of our model. Theoretically. OCD patients exhibiting impulsive or addictive features could be managed with drugs that address the quality of the underlying drives and the involvement of neural systems. For example, agents for the reduction or prevention of relapse of addiction (e.g. heavy drinking), which modulate the cortico-mesolimbic dopamine system through the opioid (e.g. buprenorphine and naltrexone). glutamate (e.g. topiramate), serotonin (e.g. ondansetron) or y-aminobutyric acid (e.g. baclofen and topiramate) systems, may prove to show some benefit in certain forms of OCD. Based on the available evidence, we suggest that the treatment of patients with these disorders must account for alterations in the underlying motivations and neurobiology of the condition. We provide an initial guide to the specific treatments that future clinical trials might consider in patients with OCD. For example, it might be wise to test naltrexone in patients with co-morbid SUD and ICD, topiramate in patients with co- morbid ICD and eating disorders, and baclofen in patients with co-morbid Tourette's syndrome. These trials could also include scales aimed at assessing underlying impulsivity (e.g. Barratt Impulsiveness Scale) to check whether this construct might predict response to drugs acting on the reward system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]