Summary of findings 8. Psychosocial risk management ('Resettle' programme) versus treatment‐as‐usual for antisocial personality disorder.

Psychosocial risk management ('Resettle' programme) compared with treatment‐as‐usual (standard probation supervision) for antisocial personality disorder
Patient or population: adults with antisocial personality disorder Settings: prison and community Intervention: psychosocial risk management (PSRM 'Resettle' programme) Comparison: treatment‐as‐usual (standard probation supervision)
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with treatment‐as‐usual alone	Risk with psychosocial risk management 'Resettle'
Aggression	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	No data available
Reconviction: total number of official offences recorded (higher number = worse outcome) Timing of the assessment: 1 year after release from prison	The mean number of official offences recorded for 16 participants in the PSRM group one year after release from prison was 4.13 (SD = 5.78, range = 0 to 22), compared to 5.21 (SD = 3.28, range = 0 to 11) for 19 participants in the TAU group		‐	35 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa	Narrative data only (skewed data), see Table 11
Global state/functioning	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	No data available
Social functioning	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	No data available
Adverse events: death during the study period Timing of assessment: 2 years after release from prison	29 per 1000	26 per 1000 3 fewer per 1000 (28 fewer to 281 more)	OR 0.89 (0.05 to 14.83)	35 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa	‐
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio; PSRM: Psychosocial risk management; RCT: Randomised controlled trial; SD: Standard deviation; TAU: Treatment‐as‐usual.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

^aEvidence downgraded three levels overall due to high risk of bias (‘blinding of personnel’ bias, ‘blinding of outcome assessors’ bias, ‘incomplete outcome data/attrition’ bias, ‘selective reporting’ bias and 'other' bias; downgraded two levels), and likely imprecision (downgraded one level) due to optimal information size criterion not being met as well as skewed data.