Interventions for alcohol-related offending by women: A systematic review ☆ Mary McMurran a, ⁎, Rob Riemsma b , Nathan Manning b , Kate Misso b , Jos Kleijnen b a Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK b Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, Unit 6, Escrick Business Park, Riccall Road, Escrick, York YO19 6FD, UK abstract article info Article history: Received 28 October 2010 Accepted 19 April 2011 Available online 27 April 2011 Keywords: Alcohol-related offending Women Interventions Treatment programmes specifically for women offenders are under-developed. A systematic review of studies that could inform interventions for alcohol-related offending by women is reported. Three questions were addressed: 1) What is the most up to date knowledge of ‘what works’ with females who commit alcohol- related offences? 2) What are the identifiable risk–needs factors for non-alcohol dependent women who commit offences involving alcohol misuse? 3) Are there differences between male and female alcohol-related offending? Four studies addressed the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions; three addressed identifiable risk–needs; and 19 addressed differences between male and female offenders' alcohol-related offending. Heterogeneity of these studies precluded meta-analyses, and so a narrative synthesis method was used. There is insufficient evidence to answer the question of what treatment works with women who commit alcohol-related offences. Drunk-driving is most widely studied, and women offenders appear to have more psychosocial problems than men. Alcohol increases the likelihood of violence for both men and women, and, while the mechanisms whereby alcohol increases the likelihood of violence are likely the same in men and women, the effect may be moderated by gender-associated issues. Again, women offenders appear to have more psychosocial problems than men. Implications for developing interventions are discussed. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 2.1. Inclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 2.2. Search strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 2.3. Study selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 2.4. Quality assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 2.5. Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911 3.1. Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911 3.2. The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for female offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911 3.3. Risk–need factors for women who commit offences involving alcohol misuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913 3.4. Differences between male and female offenders' alcohol-related offending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914 3.4.1. Drunk-driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914 3.4.2. Alcohol and offences other than drunk-driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920 4.1. Drunk driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920 4.2. Offences other than drunk-driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920 Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921 Clinical Psychology Review 31 (2011) 909–922 ☆ This study was funded by the UK Ministry of Justice, reference RPU SW 09 10 24 174. However, the views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Ministry of Justice. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: Mary.McMurran@nottingham.ac.uk (M. McMurran). 0272-7358/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.005 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Clinical Psychology Review