AUTHOR=Lardén Martin , Högström Jens , Långström Niklas 

TITLE=Effectiveness of an Individual Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention for Serious, Young Male Violent Offenders: Randomized Controlled Study With Twenty-Four-Month Follow-Up

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Psychiatry

VOLUME=12

YEAR=2021

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.670957

DOI=10.3389/fpsyt.2021.670957

ISSN=1664-0640

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Background:</bold> Psychological recidivism-reducing interventions with serious, young violent offenders in residential care have unsatisfactory effects. We tested if a complementary individual cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) intervention focusing problem-solving, cognitive self-control, and relapse prevention reduces criminal recidivism beyond usual institutional care encompassing interventions such as social skills training and prosocial modeling (treatment-as-usual; TAU).</p><p><bold>Method:</bold> We consecutively approached 115 eligible serious, male violent crime offenders in five residential treatment homes run by the Swedish National Board of Institutional Care. Eighty-one (70%) 16 to 21-year-old youth at medium-high violent recidivism risk were included and randomized to an individualized 15 to 20-session CBT intervention plus TAU (<italic>n</italic> = 38) or to TAU-only (<italic>n</italic> = 43), 4–6 months before release to the community. Participants were assessed pre- and post-treatment, at 12 months (self-reported aggressive behavior, reconvictions) and 24 months (reconvictions) after release. Intent-to-treat analyses were applied.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> The violent reconviction rate was slightly higher for iCBT+TAU vs. TAU-only youth at 12 months (34 vs. 23%, <italic>d</italic> = 0.30, 95% CI: −0.24 to 0.84) and 24 months following release (50 vs. 40%, <italic>d</italic> = 0.23, 95% CI: −0.25 to 0.72), but neither of these differences were significant. Cox regression modeling also suggested non-significantly, negligibly to slightly more violent, and any criminal recidivism in iCBT+TAU vs. TAU-only youth during the entire follow-up. Further, we found no significant between-group differences in conduct problems, aggression, and antisocial cognitions, although both iCBT+TAU and TAU-only participants reported small to large within-group reductions across outcome measures at post-treatment. Finally, the 12-month follow-up suggested marginally more DSM-5 Conduct Disorder (CD) symptoms of “aggression to people and animals” in iCBT+TAU vs. TAU-only youth (<italic>d</italic> = 0.10, 95% CI: −0.40 to 0.60) although this difference was not significant.</p><p><bold>Conclusion:</bold> We found no additive effect of individual CBT beyond group-based TAU in residential psychological treatment for serious, young male violent offenders. Limited sample size and substantial treatment dropout reduced the robustness of intent-to-treat effect estimates. We discuss the possible impact of treatment dose and integrity, participant retention, and TAU quality.</p>