You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Swift and Certain, Proportionate and Consistent: Key Values of Urine Drug Test Consequences for Probationers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.9.stas2-1709 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy B Cadwallader |
| Abstract |
Traditionally, urine drug testing (UDT) in the correctional population (both prison and community corrections) has been infrequent, is scheduled, and has a high possibility of delayed results. Of practical relevance is that scheduled testing is ineffective for identifying drug misuse. Of ethical relevance is that consequences of positive scheduled tests can be unpredictable-in the form of overly severe punishment or a lack of treatment options-and that the scheduled testing paradigm is a poor way to change behaviors. More innovative programs now use a UDT paradigm with more frequent, random testing providing rapid results and certain, swift consequences and addiction treatment when warranted or requested. Studies have shown these new programs-the foundation of which is frequent, random UDTs-to significantly reduce drug use, criminal recidivism, and incarceration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 53% |
| Unknown | 8 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 24% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |