Yasemin Irvin‑Erickson1*

Abstract This study aims to provide an understanding of the nature, extent, and quality of the research evidence on identity fraud victimization in the US. Specifically, this article reviews, summarizes, and comments on the state of empirical research of identity fraud victimization in the US based on a narrative review of 52 published empirical studies. Studies included in this review suggest that the prevalence of identity fraud in the US has increased over the years and existing account frauds is the most prevalent type of identity fraud. There is a pressing need for more research on the prevalence of identity fraud victimization among minors, institutionalized individuals, and individuals from minority groups; long‑term prevalence of identity fraud victimization; and emerging forms of identity fraud such as synthetic identity fraud victimization. Studies included in this review further suggest that identity fraud risk factors vary based on the fraud type considered. Identity fraud victims can experience a variety of harms. Longitudinal studies following identity fraud victims are essential for reliably estimating the risk factors for identity fraud victimization and the impact of identity fraud victimization on individual victims. The research on services for identity fraud victims is limited and suggests the positive impact of trauma‑informed services for serious identity fraud victims. The overwhelming lack of research on the impact of programs and services for identity fraud victims necessitates more attention from scholars to study the impact of programs, interventions, and services for identity fraud victims on reporting of victimization, prevention of victimization, experiences of victims, and victim‑centered cost benefit analysis of services. Policy and practice implications of these findings are discussed.

Springer Open Access. : 10 February 2024. Crime Science. Volume 13, article number 3, (2024). 26p.

Eric L. Sevigny, Jared Greathouse, Danye N. Medhin

Background. Globally, cannabis laws and regulations are rapidly changing. Countries are increasingly permitting access to cannabis under various decriminalization, medicalization, and legalization laws. With strong economic, public health, and social justice incentives driving these domestic cannabis policy reforms, liberalization trends are bound to continue. However, despite a large and growing body of interdisciplinary research addressing the policy-relevant health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences of cannabis liberalization, there is a lack of robust primary and systematic research that comprehensively investigates the consequences of these reforms.

Objectives. This evidence and gap map (EGM) summarizes the empirical evidence on cannabis liberalization policies. Primary objectives were to develop a conceptual framework linking cannabis liberalization policies to relevant outcomes, descriptively summarize the empirical evidence, and identify areas of evidence concentration and gaps.

Search Methods. We comprehensively searched for eligible English-language empirical studies published across 23 academic databases and 11 gray literature sources through August 2020. Additions to the pool of potentially eligible studies from supplemental sources were made through November 2020.

Selection Criteria. The conceptual framework for this EGM draws upon a legal epidemiological perspective highlighting the causal effects of law and policy on population-level outcomes. Eligible interventions include policies that create or expand access to a legal or decriminalized supply of cannabis: comprehensive medical cannabis laws (MCLs), limited medical cannabidiol laws (CBDLs), recreational cannabis laws (RCLs), industrial hemp laws (IHLs), and decriminalization of cultivations laws (DCLs). Eligible outcomes include intermediate responses (i.e., attitudes/behaviors and markets/environments) and longer-term consequences (health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes) of these laws.

Data Collection and Analysis. Both dual screening and dual data extraction were performed with third person deconfliction. Primary studies were appraised using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale and systematic reviews were assessed using AMSTAR 2.

Main Results. The EGM includes 447 studies, comprising 438 primary studies and nine systematic reviews. Most research derives from the United States, with little research from other countries. By far, most cannabis liberalization research focuses on the effects of MCLs and RCLs. Studies targeting other laws—including CBDLs, IHLs, and DCLs—are relatively rare. Of the 113 distinct outcomes we documented, cannabis use was the single most frequently investigated. More than half these outcomes were addressed by three or fewer studies, highlighting substantial evidence gaps in the literature. The systematic evidence base is relatively small, comprising just seven completed reviews on cannabis use (3), opioid-related harms (3), and alcohol-related outcomes (1). Moreover, we have limited confidence in the reviews, as five were appraised as minimal quality and two as low quality.

Authors’ Conclusions. More primary and systematic research is needed to better understand the effects of cannabis liberalization laws on longer-term—and arguably more salient—health, safety, and socioeconomic outcomes. Since most research concerns MCLs and RCLs, there is a critical need for research on the societal impacts of industrial hemp production, medical CBD products, and decriminalized cannabis cultivation. Future research should also prioritize understanding the heterogeneous effects of these laws given differences in specific provisions and implementation across jurisdictions

Systematic Reviews, vol. 19(4), 2023.

BY Stephanie Beckwith, Lauren Lowe, Liz Wall, Emily Stevens, Rachel Carson, Rae Kaspiew, Jasmine B. MacDonald, Jade McEwen and Melissa Willoughby

This report presents a literature review on coercive control in the context of domestic and family violence, with a particular focus on the understanding of, and responses to coercive control in the Australian context.

Commissioned by the Australian Attorney-General’s Department, this review focuses on identifying, summarising, analysing and synthesising the existing Australian academic research and evaluations on coercive control. The review highlights the complexities of defining, recognising and responding to coercive control and identifies relevant gaps in the evidence base.

Drawing from a range of quantitative and qualitative studies across scholarly and grey literature, including non-government reports, government and parliamentary reports, peak body reports, and position papers, this review captures the growing recognition of coercively controlling behaviour in the context of family and domestic violence.

Southbank VIC: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2023. 54p.