Equity considerations in clinical practice guidelines for traumatic brain injury and the criminal justice system: A systematic review

Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is disproportionately prevalent among individuals who intersect or are involved with the criminal justice system (CJS). In the absence of appropriate care, TBI-related impairments, intersecting social determinants of health, and the lack of TBI awareness in CJS settings can lead to lengthened sentences, serious disciplinary charges, and recidivism. However, evidence suggests that most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) overlook equity and consequently, the needs of disadvantaged groups. As such, this review addressed the research question "To what extent are (1) intersections with the CJS considered in CPGs for TBI, (2) TBI considered in CPGs for CJS, and (3) equity considered in CPGs for CJS?". Methods and findings CPGs were identified from electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), targeted websites, Google Search, and reference lists of identified CPGs on November 2021 and March 2023 (CPGs for TBI) and May 2022 and March 2023 (CPGs for CJS). Only CPGs for TBI or CPGs for CJS were included. We calculated the proportion of CPGs that included TBI- or CJS-specific content, conducted a qualitative content analysis to understand how evidence regarding TBI and the CJS was integrated in the CPGs, and utilised equity assessment tools to understand if and how equity was considered. Fifty-seven CPGs for TBI and 6 CPGs for CJS were included in this review. Fourteen CPGs for TBI included information relevant to the CJS, but only 1 made a concrete recommendation to consider legal implications during vocational evaluation in the forensic context. Two CPGs for CJS acknowledged the prevalence of TBI among individuals in prison and one specifically recommended considering TBI during health assessments. Both CPGs for TBI and CPGs for CJS provided evidence specific to a single facet of the CJS, predominantly in policing and corrections. The use of equity best practices and the involvement of disadvantaged groups in the development process were lacking among CPGs for CJS. We acknowledge limitations of the review, including that our searches were conducted in English language and thus, we may have missed other non-English language CPGs in this review. We further recognise that we are unable to comment on evidence that is not integrated in the CPGs, as we did not systematically search for research on individuals with TBI who intersect with the CJS, outside of CPGs. Conclusions Findings from this review provide the foundation to consider CJS involvement in CPGs for TBI and to advance equity in CPGs for CJS. Conducting research, including investigating the process of screening for TBI with individuals who intersect with all facets of the CJS, and utilizing equity assessment tools in guideline development are critical steps to enhance equity in healthcare for this disadvantaged group. Author summary Why was this study done? Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is more common among individuals involved with the criminal justice system (CJS) than the general population, often resulting in longer prison sentences, serious disciplinary charges, and repeated future conflicts with the CJS. Although individuals with TBI who are involved with the CJS must receive care that meets their needs, studies show that most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)-designed to guide care-tend to overlook equity and disadvantaged groups, instead focussing on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of care. As a first step to improving equitable care, this study assessed existing CPGs for TBI and CPGs for CJS to see if and how (1) evidence regarding individuals who intersect with the CJS is included in CPGs for TBI and evidence regarding TBI is integrated in CPGs for CJS; and (2) equity is considered in CPGs for CJS. What did the researchers do and find? We used available electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), targeted websites, Google search, and reference lists for CPGs for TBI and CPGs for CJS.We documented their characteristics, reviewed their content, and assessed whether equity was considered using checklists focused on equity and disadvantaged groups.We found that 14 out of 57 CPGs for TBI referenced individuals who are involved with the CJS and 2 out of 6 CPGs for CJS referenced TBI.Practices to ensure that equity is considered, such as the involvement of disadvantaged groups when developing CPGs were lacking in CPGs for CJS. What do these findings mean? Findings from this review suggest that consideration of equity is lacking in the development of CPGs for TBI for those within the CJS and provide the foundation to consider CJS involvement in CPGs for TBI and to advance equity in CPGs for CJS.There is a critical need for further research into screening processes for TBI with individuals who intersect with all facets of the CJS, and into the benefits of equity assessment tools in guideline development to enhance equity in healthcare for this disadvantaged groupUnfortunately, we cannot comment on how much of the existing evidence regarding TBI or individuals who are involved with the CJS remains unintegrated in existing CPGs, as our search did not include research papers on TBI and the CJS, outside of CPGs.