警察-心理健康小组共同应对随机对照试验的研究方案和利益相关者的看法

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Experimental Criminology Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1007/s11292-023-09598-2
Katie Bailey, Meret Hofer, Emily Sightes, Evan Marie Lowder, Eric Grommon, Bradley Ray
{"title":"警察-心理健康小组共同应对随机对照试验的研究方案和利益相关者的看法","authors":"Katie Bailey, Meret Hofer, Emily Sightes, Evan Marie Lowder, Eric Grommon, Bradley Ray","doi":"10.1007/s11292-023-09598-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>Describe the development, results, and stakeholder perceptions of randomization procedures for determining outcomes of a co-response police-mental health team.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We present randomization results using the CONSORT diagram and report on three semi-structured focus groups with eight co-response team members, including police officers, mental health clinicians, and program leaders.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Study procedures resulted in randomization of 686 co-response team-eligible calls for service to either receive a co-response team (treatment group, <i>n</i> = 376) or police-as-usual response (control group, <i>n</i> = 310). Focus groups revealed lessons for randomization of a co-response team, including the importance of the researcher-practitioner partnership, considerations for study site selection and staffing, and suggestions to proactively address ethical concerns of randomizing calls for service.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Rigorous evaluation of alternative policing programs is possible through randomization at the call-for-service level, provided researchers and program stakeholders work together to determine feasible procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":47684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Study protocol and stakeholder perceptions of a randomized controlled trial of a co-response police-mental health team\",\"authors\":\"Katie Bailey, Meret Hofer, Emily Sightes, Evan Marie Lowder, Eric Grommon, Bradley Ray\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11292-023-09598-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>Describe the development, results, and stakeholder perceptions of randomization procedures for determining outcomes of a co-response police-mental health team.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>We present randomization results using the CONSORT diagram and report on three semi-structured focus groups with eight co-response team members, including police officers, mental health clinicians, and program leaders.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>Study procedures resulted in randomization of 686 co-response team-eligible calls for service to either receive a co-response team (treatment group, <i>n</i> = 376) or police-as-usual response (control group, <i>n</i> = 310). Focus groups revealed lessons for randomization of a co-response team, including the importance of the researcher-practitioner partnership, considerations for study site selection and staffing, and suggestions to proactively address ethical concerns of randomizing calls for service.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>Rigorous evaluation of alternative policing programs is possible through randomization at the call-for-service level, provided researchers and program stakeholders work together to determine feasible procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Criminology\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09598-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09598-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

方法我们使用 CONSORT 图表展示了随机化结果,并报告了与八名共同应对小组成员(包括警官、心理健康临床医生和项目负责人)进行的三次半结构化焦点小组讨论的结果。结果研究程序将 686 个符合共同应对小组条件的服务呼叫随机分配给共同应对小组(治疗组,n = 376)或警察照常应对(对照组,n = 310)。焦点小组揭示了共同应对小组随机化的经验教训,包括研究人员与从业人员合作的重要性、研究地点选择和人员配备的注意事项,以及积极解决服务电话随机化的伦理问题的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Study protocol and stakeholder perceptions of a randomized controlled trial of a co-response police-mental health team

Objectives

Describe the development, results, and stakeholder perceptions of randomization procedures for determining outcomes of a co-response police-mental health team.

Methods

We present randomization results using the CONSORT diagram and report on three semi-structured focus groups with eight co-response team members, including police officers, mental health clinicians, and program leaders.

Results

Study procedures resulted in randomization of 686 co-response team-eligible calls for service to either receive a co-response team (treatment group, n = 376) or police-as-usual response (control group, n = 310). Focus groups revealed lessons for randomization of a co-response team, including the importance of the researcher-practitioner partnership, considerations for study site selection and staffing, and suggestions to proactively address ethical concerns of randomizing calls for service.

Conclusions

Rigorous evaluation of alternative policing programs is possible through randomization at the call-for-service level, provided researchers and program stakeholders work together to determine feasible procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Journal of Experimental Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Criminology focuses on high quality experimental and quasi-experimental research in the advancement of criminological theory and/or the development of evidence based crime and justice policy. The journal is also committed to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and experimental methods in criminology and criminal justice. The journal seeks empirical papers on experimental and quasi-experimental studies, systematic reviews on substantive criminological and criminal justice issues, and methodological papers on experimentation and systematic review. The journal encourages submissions from scholars in the broad array of scientific disciplines that are concerned with criminology as well as crime and justice problems.
期刊最新文献
Eyes on phishing emails: an eye-tracking study Higher expectations: a systematic review of reporting the science of propensity score modeling in criminal justice studies Unpacking job satisfaction among law enforcement through self-determination theory: a meta-analytic approach Examining the use of drug screening technologies in night-time entertainment districts The MAXLab aggression and bystander intervention scenario set (MAXLab_ABISS): A modular scenario set for studying decision making in situations of interpersonal violence in virtual reality
×
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