Article Figures & Data
Tables
1a Systematic review of random controlled trials (RCTs) 1b Individual RCT with narrow confidence interval 1c All or none 2a Systematic review of cohort studies 2b Individual cohort study (including low quality RCT; e.g., <80% follow-up)* 2c “Outcomes” research; ecological studies 3a Systematic review of case-control studies 3b Individual case-control study 4 Case-series (and poor-quality cohort and case-control studies†) 5 Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research, or first principles Adapted from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.32
* Quasi-experimental design (i.e. non-equivalent comparison group studies) match cohort studies and therefore meet level 2b evidence.33
† Poor-quality cohort study refers to cohort studies that did not clearly define comparison groups and/or did not measure exposures and outcomes in the same way in both exposed and nonexposed individuals, did not identify or appropriately control known confounders, and failed to carry out a sufficiently long and complete follow-up of patients.
Investigators No. of Groups, Diversion Type (Total Sample Size for All Groups) Research Design Follow-up Months Rearrest Prevalence Rearrest Incidence Jail Time for Index Offense Prebooking diversion Gratton et al.39 1 PBD (55); 1 TAU (116) QED 12 NR 0 NR Steadman et al.40 3 PBD (300) Retrospective Cohort 0 NR NR + Jail-based diversion Shafer et al.41; Lattimore et al.1 2 JBD (124); 2 TAU (78) QED 12 0 0 NR Court-based diversion Steadman et al.42 1 CBD (35); TAU (45) QED 2 0 NR + Hoff et al.37 1 CBD (314); 1 TAU (124) Retrospective Cohort 12 NR NR + Rowe et al.44 1 CBD +PS* (73); 1 CBD (41) RCT 12 NR 0 NR Frisman et al.45 7 CBD (113); 5 TAU (98) QED 12 0 NR + McNiel and Binder46 1 MHC (170); 1 TAU (8067) Retrospective cohort At least 6 + NR NR Trupin et al.47; Trupin and Richards48 2 MHC (96); 2 TAU (128) QED At least 9 − 0 0 Moore and Hiday49 1 MHC (82); 1 TAU (183) Retrospective cohort 12 0 + NR Moore50 Christy et al.51 1 MHC (116); 1 TAU (101) QED matched pairs 12 0 0 + Cosden et al.52–54 1 MHC+ACT† (137); 1 TAU (98) RCT 24 NR − 0 Neiswender55 1 MHC (114); 1 TAU (80) Retrospective cohort 24 NR NR + Cross-model and pooled comparisons Broner et al.56 1 JBD (77); 1 CBD (35); 1 TAU (119) QED 12 NR 0 + Broner et al.57; Lattimore et al.1 3 PBD; 3 JBD; 1 CBD; 1 MHC; 8 TAU (NR) QED 12 NR 0 + Steadman and Naples58 3 PBD+1 JBD+2 CBD+1 MHC+6 TAU = (1185) QED 12 NR 0 NR Aos et al.26 3 PBD+3 JBD+2 CBD+3 MHC = (1243) 11 TAU (NR) Meta-analysis 12–24 NR 0 NR +, Statistically significant difference in criminal justice outcome was reported in favor of a treatment intervention relative to control/comparison condition; 0, no statistically significant difference between treatment and comparison/control conditions; −, statistically significant difference in criminal justice outcome in favor of the control/comparison condition relative to the intervention condition; NR, not reported.
* PS, peer support program.
† ACT, assertive community treatment program.