A review of general cognitive-behavioral programs in English and Welsh prisons and probation services: Three decades of quasi-experimental evaluations.

IF 2.9 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ACS Chemical Health & Safety Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI:10.1037/amp0001405
Jamie S Walton,Ian A Elliott
{"title":"A review of general cognitive-behavioral programs in English and Welsh prisons and probation services: Three decades of quasi-experimental evaluations.","authors":"Jamie S Walton,Ian A Elliott","doi":"10.1037/amp0001405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For over 30 years, general cognitive-behavioral programs have contributed to the rehabilitation services offered within His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service in England and Wales. There is an extensive body of international evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of such interventions as a correctional strategy. However, there is widespread variability of program effects associated with the standards of implementation. Over the last 3 decades, British researchers have produced a steady output of quasi-experimental program evaluations that have contributed to the evidence base. The most recent additions are some of the largest and most rigorous available worldwide. This review documents those evaluations and provides a meta-analysis that statistically aggregates the effects of programs delivered in His Majesty's prisons in England and Wales. We suggest there is sufficient evidence from evaluations of acceptable scientific rigor to conclude that general cognitive-behavioral programs delivered in prisons during the last decade and a half (circa 2006 to 2019) have had a small statistically significant mean reductive effect on general reoffending (odds ratio = 0.91). Program characteristics and implementation factors, including program dose, the scale of service delivery and program integrity, are discussed as possible factors associated with the size of the effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":12,"journal":{"name":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For over 30 years, general cognitive-behavioral programs have contributed to the rehabilitation services offered within His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service in England and Wales. There is an extensive body of international evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of such interventions as a correctional strategy. However, there is widespread variability of program effects associated with the standards of implementation. Over the last 3 decades, British researchers have produced a steady output of quasi-experimental program evaluations that have contributed to the evidence base. The most recent additions are some of the largest and most rigorous available worldwide. This review documents those evaluations and provides a meta-analysis that statistically aggregates the effects of programs delivered in His Majesty's prisons in England and Wales. We suggest there is sufficient evidence from evaluations of acceptable scientific rigor to conclude that general cognitive-behavioral programs delivered in prisons during the last decade and a half (circa 2006 to 2019) have had a small statistically significant mean reductive effect on general reoffending (odds ratio = 0.91). Program characteristics and implementation factors, including program dose, the scale of service delivery and program integrity, are discussed as possible factors associated with the size of the effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国和威尔士监狱及缓刑服务中的一般认知行为项目回顾:三十年的准实验评估。
30 多年来,英格兰和威尔士国王陛下监狱和缓刑犯监管局提供的改造服务中一直采用一般认知行为方案。大量国际证据表明,此类干预措施作为一种矫治策略是有效的。然而,与实施标准相关的计划效果却普遍存在差异。在过去的 30 年里,英国研究人员不断推出准实验性计划评估,为证据库做出了贡献。最近新增的一些评估是世界上规模最大、最严格的评估。本综述记录了这些评估,并提供了一项荟萃分析,对英格兰和威尔士国王陛下监狱所实施项目的效果进行了统计汇总。我们认为,具有可接受的科学严谨性的评估提供了充足的证据,可以得出结论认为,过去十五年(约 2006 年至 2019 年)在监狱中实施的一般认知行为项目对一般重新犯罪具有微小的统计学意义上的平均减少效应(几率比 = 0.91)。研究讨论了项目特征和实施因素,包括项目剂量、服务提供规模和项目完整性,认为这些因素可能与效果大小有关。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Chemical Health & Safety
ACS Chemical Health & Safety PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety focuses on news, information, and ideas relating to issues and advances in chemical health and safety. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety covers up-to-the minute, in-depth views of safety issues ranging from OSHA and EPA regulations to the safe handling of hazardous waste, from the latest innovations in effective chemical hygiene practices to the courts'' most recent rulings on safety-related lawsuits. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety presents real-world information that health, safety and environmental professionals and others responsible for the safety of their workplaces can put to use right away, identifying potential and developing safety concerns before they do real harm.
期刊最新文献
Terez Shea-Donohue: Optimism helps, and confidence in your work is critical. MAIT cells: Conserved watchers on the wall. Interleukin-33-activated basophils promote asthma by regulating Th2 cell entry into lung tissue. Basophils: Regulators of lung inflammation over space and time. Suppression of melanoma by mice lacking MHC-II: Mechanisms and implications for cancer immunotherapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1