Search

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is disproportionately prevalent among individuals who intersect or are involved with the criminal justice system (CJS). In the absence of appropriate care, TBI-related impairments, intersecting social determinants of health, and the lack of TBI awareness in CJS settings can lead to lengthened sentences, serious disciplinary charges, and recidivism. However, evidence suggests that most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) overlook equity and consequently, the needs of disadvantaged groups. As such, this review addressed the research question "To what extent are (1) intersections with the CJS considered in CPGs for TBI, (2) TBI considered in CPGs for CJS, and (3) equity considered in CPGs for CJS?". Methods and findings: CPGs were identified from electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), targeted websites, Google Search, and reference lists of identified CPGs on November 2021 and March 2023 (CPGs for TBI) and May 2022 and March 2023 (CPGs for CJS). Only CPGs for TBI or CPGs for CJS were included. We calculated the proportion of CPGs that included TBI- or CJS-specific content, conducted a qualitative content analysis to understand how evidence regarding TBI and the CJS was integrated in the CPGs, and utilised equity assessment tools to understand if and how equity was considered. Fifty-seven CPGs for TBI and 6 CPGs for CJS were included in this review. Fourteen CPGs for TBI included information relevant to the CJS, but only 1 made a concrete recommendation to consider legal implications during vocational evaluation in the forensic context. Two CPGs for CJS acknowledged the prevalence of TBI among individuals in prison and one specifically recommended considering TBI during health assessments. Both CPGs for TBI and CPGs for CJS provided evidence specific to a single facet of the CJS, predominantly in policing and corrections. The use of equity best practices and the involvement of disadvantaged groups in the development process were lacking among CPGs for CJS. We acknowledge limitations of the review, including that our searches were conducted in English language and thus, we may have missed other non-English language CPGs in this review. We further recognise that we are unable to comment on evidence that is not integrated in the CPGs, as we did not systematically search for research on individuals with TBI who intersect with the CJS, outside of CPGs. Conclusions: Findings from this review provide the foundation to consider CJS involvement in CPGs for TBI and to advance equity in CPGs for CJS. Conducting research, including investigating the process of screening for TBI with individuals who intersect with all facets of the CJS, and utilizing equity assessment tools in guideline development are critical steps to enhance equity in healthcare for this disadvantaged group. Zoe Colclough and co-authors examine how equity is considered in the development of clinical practice guidelines for traumatic brain injury for individuals within the criminal justice system. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is more common among individuals involved with the criminal justice system (CJS) than the general population, often resulting in longer prison sentences, serious disciplinary charges, and repeated future conflicts with the CJS. Although individuals with TBI who are involved with the CJS must receive care that meets their needs, studies show that most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)—designed to guide care—tend to overlook equity and disadvantaged groups, instead focussing on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of care. As a first step to improving equitable care, this study assessed existing CPGs for TBI and CPGs for CJS to see if and how (1) evidence regarding individuals who intersect with the CJS is included in CPGs for TBI and evidence regarding TBI is integrated in CPGs for CJS; and (2) equity is considered in CPGs for CJS. What did the researchers do and find?: We used available electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), targeted websites, Google search, and reference lists for CPGs for TBI and CPGs for CJS. We documented their characteristics, reviewed their content, and assessed whether equity was considered using checklists focused on equity and disadvantaged groups. We found that 14 out of 57 CPGs for TBI referenced individuals who are involved with the CJS and 2 out of 6 CPGs for CJS referenced TBI. Practices to ensure that equity is considered, such as the involvement of disadvantaged groups when developing CPGs were lacking in CPGs for CJS. What do these findings mean?: Findings from this review suggest that consideration of equity is lacking in the development of CPGs for TBI for those within the CJS and provide the foundation to consider CJS involvement in CPGs for TBI and to advance equity in CPGs for CJS. There is a critical need for further research into screening processes for TBI with individuals who intersect with all facets of the CJS, and into the benefits of equity assessment tools in guideline development to enhance equity in healthcare for this disadvantaged group Unfortunately, we cannot comment on how much of the existing evidence regarding TBI or individuals who are involved with the CJS remains unintegrated in existing CPGs, as our search did not include research papers on TBI and the CJS, outside of CPGs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health crisis affecting one in three women and one in ten men in their lifetimes. Rehabilitation professionals are highly likely to encounter survivors of IPV in their practice; yet, there exists no formal review assessing the relationship between IPV and rehabilitation. Our objective was to understand the types and contexts of rehabilitation care currently available for survivors of IPV, opportunities identified in the literature for rehabilitation care, and IPV awareness and education among rehabilitation providers. A search strategy related to IPV and four rehabilitation professionals of interest (occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech-language pathology/therapy, and physiatry) was developed across 10 databases and complemented by a gray literature search. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion. In all, 44 articles met inclusion criteria, ranging from primary research articles (48%) to clinical newsletters. Included articles predominantly focused on opportunities for rehabilitation care (68%) and occupational therapists as a profession (68%). A minority of studies examined specific interventions for IPV survivors (18%) or assessed for knowledge and attitudes about IPV (16%) among rehabilitation professionals. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review exploring the rehabilitation literature for IPV survivors. These findings show an awareness of IPV among rehabilitation professionals, the importance of identifying IPV in clients, and the ways in which rehabilitation professionals are uniquely situated to support survivors of IPV. There remains an opportunity to explore interventions designed specifically for IPV survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]