Psychiatric Quarterly

, Volume 75, Issue 3, pp 279–294 | Cite as

A Culture of Enquiry: Research Evidence and the Therapeutic Community

  • Jan Lees
  • Nick Manning
  • Barbara Rawlings
Article

Abstract

This paper presents data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 published studies of therapeutic community effectiveness using controls, including 8 randomised control trials. Meta-regressions suggest that the two types of therapeutic community, democratic and concept-based, and the age of the study, are the key sources of heterogeneity in the collection of studies analysed. Otherwise, heterogeneity is low and the meta-analysis confirms the effectiveness of therapeutic community treatment with overall summary log odds ratio for the 29 studies of −0.512 (95% ci −0.598 to −0.426).

systematic review meta-analysis therapeutic communities effectiveness evidence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Jones M: Social Psychiatry. London, Tavistock, 1952.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bion WR: Experiences in Groups. London, Tavistock, 1960.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foulkes SR: Introduction to Group Analytic Psychotherapy. London, Heinemann, 1948.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Main T: The Hospital as a Therapeutic Institution. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 10:66–70, 1946. (Reprinted in Therapeutic Communities 17(2):77–80).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harrison T: Bion, Rickman, Foulkes and the Northfield Experiments. Advancing on a Different Front. London, Jessica Kingsley, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Black T: Sound and fury: Grief and despair in the large group, in Therapeutic Communities: Past, Present and Future. Edited by Campling P, Haigh R. London, Jessica Kingsley, 1999. pp. 107–115.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coombe P: Glimpses of a Cassel Hospital Outpatient Group. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 29:309–315, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rapoport RN: Community as Doctor. London, Tavistock, 1960.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones M: Beyond the Therapeutic Community. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rapoport RN, Manning N: Rejection and re-incorporation: A case study in social research utilisation. Social Science and Medicine 10:458–468, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haigh R: The quintessence of a therapeutic environment: Five universal qualities, in Therapeutic Communities. Past, Present and Future. Edited by Campling P, Haigh R. London, Jessica Kingsley, 1999, pp. 246–257.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bloor MJ, McKeganey NP, Fonkert JD: One Foot in Eden. London, Routledge, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chiesa M, Fonagy P: Cassel personality disorder study: Methodology and treatment effects. British Journal of Psychiatry 176:485–491, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiesa M, Iacoponi E, Morris M: Changes in health service utilization by patients with severe personality disorders before and after inpatient psychosocial treatment. British Journal of Psychotherapy 12(4):501–512, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cullen E: Grendon: The therapeutic prison that works Therapeutic Communities 15(4)301–311, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marshall P: A Reconviction Study of HMP Grendon Therapeutic Community (Research findings no. 53). London, Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newton M: Changes in Test Scores During Treatment at Grendon. Research and Development Unit, Grendon Underwood. Bucks, UK, HMP Springhill and Grendon, Unpublished research paper, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shine J: A Compilation of Grendon Research. Aylesbury, UK, HMP Grendon, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Warren F, Dolan B: Perspectives on Henderson Hospital, 2nd ed. Sutton, Surrey, Henderson Hospital, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yablonsky L: Synanon: The Tunnel Back. New York, Macmillan, 1965.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sugarman B: Daytop Village: A Therapeutic Community. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Leon G: The Phoenix House Therapeutic Community: Changes in psychopathological signs. Archives of General Psychiatry 28:131–135, 1973.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Leon G: Residential Therapeutic Communities in the Mainstream: Diversity and issues. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 27:(1):3–15, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ogbourne AC, Melotte C: An evaluation of a Therapeutic Community for former drug users. British Journal of Addiction 72(1)75–82, 1977.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilson S, Mandelbrote B: The relationship between duration of treatment in a therapeutic community for drug abusers and subsequent criminality. British Journal of Psychiatry 132:487–491, 1978.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wexler H: Therapeutic Communities in American prisons, in Therapeutic Community for Offenders. Edited by Cullen E, Jones L, Woodward R. Chichester, Wiley, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lees J: Practice evaluation of Therapeutic Communities, in A Culture of Enquiry. Research Evidence and the Therapeutic Community. Edited by Lees J, Manning N, Menzies D, Morant N. London, Jessica Kingsley, 2004, pp. 76–90.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lees J: ‘Research. The Importance of Asking Questions,’ in Therapeutic Communities. Past, Present and Future. Edited by Campling P, Haigh R. London, Jessica Kingsley, 1999, pp. 207–222.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lees J, Manning N, Rawlings B: Therapeutic Community Effectiveness: A Systematic International Review of Therapeutic Community Treatment for People with Personality Disorders and Mentally Disordered Offenders (CRD Report no. 17). York, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination): Undertaking Systematic reviews of Research on Effectiveness (CRD Report no. 4). York, University of York, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Artus HM: Science indicators derived from databases. Scientometrics 37:297–311, 1996.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seglen PO: Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314:498–502, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kahn HA, Sempos CT: Statistical Methods in Epidemiology. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thompson SG, Sharp SJ: Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: A comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine 18:2693–2708, 1999.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal 315:629–634, 1997.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gunderson JG: Building structure for the borderline construct. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 89(suppl. 379):12–18, 1994.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    DoH/HO: Report of the Department of Health/Home Office working group on psychopathic disorder. London, HMSO, 1994.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Manning N: Psychiatric diagnosis under conditions of uncertainty: Personality disorder, science, and professional legitimacy. Sociology of Health and Illness 22(5):621–639, 2000.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Manning N: Actor-networks, policy networks and personality disorder. Sociology of Health and Illness 24(5):644–666, 2002.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Glaser AN: Therapeutic communities and therapeutic communities: A personal perspective. International Journal of Therapeutic Communities 4(2)150–162, 1983.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Leon G: The research context for therapeutic communities in the USA, in A Culture of Enquiry. Research Evidence and the Therapeutic Community. Edited by Lees J, Manning N, Menzies D, Morant N. London, Jessica Kingsley, 2004, pp. 91–108.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Clarke RVG, Cornish DB: The Controlled Trial in Institutional Research—paradigm or pitfall for penal evaluators. London, HMSO, 1972.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nieminen P: Therapeutic community research and statistical data analysis. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis Medica, Oulu: University of Oulu Printing Center, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Lees
    • 1
  • Nick Manning
    • 2
  • Barbara Rawlings
    • 3
  1. 1.Francis Dixon LodgeLeicesterUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.University of NottinghamUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Department of SociologyUniversity of ManchesterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations