ArticleJournal of substance use2025
Are Operations Backed by Best Practices in American Problem-Solving Courts?
Article in Journal of substance use, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The wide-angle lens of implementation science to improve health outcomes in criminal legal settings.Health & justice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Problem-solving courts (PSCs) are specialized courts offering evidence-based interventions for rehabilitating and diverting individuals from carceral institutions. PSCs allow participants to address problems influencing their behavior, such as mental health and/or substance use disorders, while remaining in the community under court supervision. PSCs are designed to serve as linkage sites to support services and research supports PSCs' efficacy in doing so. Objective: Less is known about how PSC operations align with national best practices specified by All Rise (professional association of PSCs) in serving court participants. Methods: This study explores whether American PSCs adopt All Rise's 10 best practice principles based on surveys from a larger study of PSC operations reported by local ( Results: Of the All Rise principles captured in our study, only 4% of courts adopted eight EBPs whereas 56% of courts adopted four to six EBPs. PSCs using EBPs employed diversified staff positions, collaborated with multiple treatment providers, participated in treatment trainings, offered peer navigators, used validated screening tools, used varied treatment modals, and had eligibility criteria for participants to enter PSC programs. Conclusions: PSCs' operations were generally backed by some of All Rise's best practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.