An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of a Trauma- Specific Intervention for Incarcerated Men

Abstract

Prisons are saturated with trauma survivors; yet trauma has not been the focal point of corrections-based treatment. This is the first randomized controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of a Peer-facilitated trauma-specific intervention among men incarcerated for violent offenses (Exploring Trauma: A 6-Session Brief Intervention for Men). The sample consisted of 221 participants (131 treatment / 90 waitlisted control group). Independent t tests determined change over 6-8 weeks on anxiety, depression, mental health, current traumatic distress, and anger. Hypotheses were predominantly supported. Significant improvement was found for the intervention group compared with the waitlisted control group on 11 of the 13 trauma-related outcomes. The greatest effect sizes ranged from .46 for mental health functioning, .42 for trait anger composite, and .40 for anxiety. Support for the effectiveness of this brief intervention and capability of a Peer-facilitated model of delivery was demonstrated. Future research should replicate the methodology and incorporate records data and post-release outcomes.

The efficacy of psychological interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in incarcerated forensic populations: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

“…Gender did not significantly predict effect sizes ( g = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.63, 0.66], p = .953). Similarly, effect sizes did not significantly differ for studies with active (Barrett et al, 2015; Daniels, 2008; Ford et al, 2013; Mahoney et al, 2020; Tripodi et al, 2019; Zlotnick et al, 2009) versus inactive (Ahrens & Rexford, 2002; Bradley & Follingstad, 2003; Messina, 2023; Nidich et al, 2017; Valentine & Smith, 2001; Wolff et al, 2015) control groups ( g = 0.39, 95% CI [−0.17, 0.96], p = .156).…”

“…Thus, a total of 12 articles were initially selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis (see Table 1). The additional searches yielded one more eligible trial (Messina, 2023), bringing the total to 13 trials. Of these 13 trials, one (Nidich et al, 2016) was later considered an outlier and excluded from the statistical analysis (see below).…”

“…To explore possible sources of the heterogeneity in effect sizes, we investigated their associations with gender and type of control group. Gender did not significantly predict effect sizes (g = 0.02, Ahrens and Rexford (2002) High risk Some concern High risk High risk Some concern Some concern Barrett et al (2015) High risk Some concern High risk High risk Some concern Some concern Bradley and Follingstad (2003) High risk Some concern High risk Low risk Some concern Some concern Daniels (2008) High risk Some concern High risk High risk Some concern Some concern Ford et al (2013) Some concern Low risk Some concern Low risk Some concern Some concern Mahoney et al (2020) High risk Some concern Low risk High risk Some concern Some concern Messina (2023) High risk High risk Some concern Some concern Some concern Some concern Nidich et al (2017) High risk Some concern High risk Some concern Some concern Some concern Tripodi et al (2019) High risk High risk High risk Some concern Low risk Some concern Valentine and Smith (2001) High risk High risk Low risk Low risk Some concern Some concern Wolff et al (2015) High risk Some concern High risk Low risk Some concern Some concern Zlotnick et al (2009) Some concern Some concern Low risk Some concern Some concern Some concern 95% CI [−0.63, 0.66], p = .953). Similarly, effect sizes did not significantly differ for studies with active (Barrett et al, 2015;Daniels, 2008;Ford et al, 2013;Mahoney et al, 2020;Tripodi et al, 2019;Zlotnick et al, 2009) versus inactive (Ahrens & Rexford, 2002;Bradley & Follingstad, 2003;Messina, 2023;Nidich et al, 2017;Valentine & Smith, 2001;Wolff et al, 2015) control groups (g = 0.39, 95% CI [−0.17, 0.96], p = .156).…”