Pharmacological interventions for those who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending
Citation: Khan O., Ferriter M., Huband N., et al. Pharmacological interventions for those who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 2.Art.No.:CD007989.DOI:10.1002/14651858.pub2.
No firm conclusions can be drawn regarding pharmacological interventions as an effective intervention for reducing sexual offending.
Biological treatments of sex offenders include antilibidinal medication, comprising hormonal drugs that have a testosterone-suppressing effect, and non-hormonal drugs that affect libido through other mechanisms. This review evaluates the effects of pharmacological interventions on target sexual behavior for people who have been convicted or are at risk of sexual offending. Seven clinical trials met inclusion criteria and were found to be of low quality as seen by their small sample sizes, short duration, inclusion of varied participants, and lack of testing newer drugs currently in use, particularly SSRIs or GnRH analogues. As well, authors had concerns about: number of participants leaving studies, blinding of those who measured outcomes, ways in which investigators concealed allocation of treatment to those delivering it, and reporting of our primary outcome: reoffending. This review stated a need for higher quality research to be conducted on the topic matter.
Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence on the health of refugees and asylum seekers but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made about the health of refugees and asylum seekers on the basis of this summary alone.
If you have found this summary helpful, please consider making a donation. If everyone who looked at our COVID-19 resources gave us just £2 per month, it would fund Evidence Aid’s life-saving work.