This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether problem-solving court interventions that employed judicial supervision were more effective in reducing recidivism and improving well-being outcomes for offenders compared with conventional justice processes. More than 11,000 records were collected via a three-phase search strategy that identified 56 independent investigations that included 11,146 treatment and 12,091 comparison subjects. A total of 68 outcomes were assessed for risk of bias, with the majority (59.67%) rated ‘critical’ overall. A subset of recidivism outcomes (k = 22) that were included in a synthesis of relative incident rate ratios revealed a significant reduction in rearrests from pre-treatment to post-treatment among problem-solving court interventions as compared with treatment-as-usual processes. However, there was a high degree of unexplained heterogeneity observed among studies. An analysis of moderators revealed that mental health courts possessed larger treatment effects than both drug courts and driving while intoxicated courts, court programs that reported individualized treatment had greater effects than those that did not, and stronger treatment effects were found among programs that required frequent judicial supervision in the initial phases of treatment. More rigorous investigations, with detailed descriptions of treatment programs, are needed to better explain the sources of variance between and within court formats.

这项系统的审查和荟萃分析调查了采用司法监督的解决问题的法院干预措施，与传统的司法程序相比，在减少累犯和改善罪犯幸福感方面是否更有效。通过三阶段搜索策略收集了超过11,000条记录，该策略确定了56项独立调查，其中包括11,146例治疗和12,091例比较受试者。共评估了68项偏倚风险的结果，其中大多数（59.67％）总体上被评为“关键”。相对事件发生率比的合成中包含一个累犯结果子集（k = 22），与通常的治疗相比，在解决问题的法院干预措施中，从治疗前到治疗后的再起捕事件显着减少。然而，在研究之间观察到高度无法解释的异质性。对主持人的分析显示，精神卫生法院比毒品法院和酒后驾驶法院具有更大的治疗效果，报告个性化治疗的法院程序比没有毒品的法院程序具有更大的效果，并且在需要经常司法的程序中发现了更强的治疗效果。在治疗的初始阶段进行监督。需要更严格的调查并详细描述治疗方案，以更好地解释法院格式之间或之内的差异来源。报告个性化治疗的法院程序所产生的效果要比没有这种效果的法院程序好，并且在治疗的初始阶段需要经常进行司法监督的程序中发现了更强的治疗效果。需要更严格的调查并详细描述治疗方案，以更好地解释法院格式之间或之内的差异来源。报告个性化治疗的法院程序所产生的效果要比未采取个性化治疗的法院程序好，并且在治疗的初始阶段需要经常进行司法监督的程序中发现了更强的治疗效果。需要更严格的调查并详细描述治疗方案，以更好地解释法院格式之间或之内的差异来源。