Maletzky et al

Question 1

aims

Answer 1

• Maletzky et al aimed to explain that a 1999 House Bill in Oregon required certain offenders to be assessed before release to see if treatment using MPA would help to reduce their risk.

Question 2

procedure (sample)

Answer 2

• 275 men were evaluated from 2000-2004 and were reviewed by Maletzky et al 2006.
• MPA goes under the trade name Depo-Provera
• men were split into 3 groups: men who needed MPA and got it, men who were recommended MA but didn’t get it, men who didn’t need MPA.

Question 3

procedure

Answer 3

• questionnaires were used to collect the outcome data, including whether a new offence had been committed since release, whether any rearrest was down to sexual problems etc.
• the supervising officer also said whether they thought the offender was doing well or not
• the researchers collected data on recidivism, and they also noted whether the the recidivism was sexual.

Question 4

results

Answer 4

• 134/275 offenders were recommended to receive MPA and 151 were not.
• the crime itself was looked at against whether MPA was recommended and it was found that a lot of the recommendations were for offenders who had committed the most shocking crimes
• none of the offenders who received MPA had returned to prison.

Question 5

conclusions

Answer 5

• those who took MPA were less likely to re-offend than those recommend it but not receiving it.
• the not taking MPA group had similar findings whether it was recommend for them or not .