思考的爪子?为监狱中的老年人开发狗狗项目

IF 0.8 Q4 GERONTOLOGY Quality in Ageing and Older Adults Pub Date : 2023-09-08 DOI:10.1108/qaoa-11-2022-0069
Helen Codd
{"title":"思考的爪子?为监狱中的老年人开发狗狗项目","authors":"Helen Codd","doi":"10.1108/qaoa-11-2022-0069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to assess the nature and scope of dog-based programmes in prisons, assessing critically the potential opportunities, benefits, challenges and risks of developing innovative dog-based programmes for older prisoners in England and Wales. This paper outlines the potential benefits and challenges of developing dog-based programmes for older prisoners and sets out next steps for future research and practice.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study is based on a scoping review of published research literature on prison dog programmes (PDPs) in the USA, the UK and other countries, with particular reference to older people in prison, followed by semi-structured interviews with six members of an expert advisory group. The literature review and data from the qualitative interviews were analysed thematically.\n\n\nFindings\nThere is a substantial body of published research literature which supports PDPs as having identifiable positive impacts for people and also dogs, and also published research which highlights the benefits to older people of dog ownership or participation in dog-based activities. However, much of this research is small-scale and qualitative, and it has been argued that there is a lack of a quantitative evidence base. This research concludes that findings from the literature review and the semi-structured interviews support further research and the creation of pilot projects to develop dog-based projects for older people in prison.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis study was small-scale, and the findings need to be approached with caution. The literature review searched a small number of databases and filtered out articles published in languages other than English, and the review of the grey literature focused on reports from the UK. The number of experts interviewed was small and there was no direct consultation with older people in prison nor with older people with recent personal lived experience of imprisonment and community resettlement. A more extensive future study would benefit from a more extensive literature review, a larger group of participants and the inclusion of service users, prison managers and government policymakers, subject to the appropriate ethical and security approvals. At the time the research took place, ongoing COVID-19 restrictions on prison research meant that research with current prisoners and prison managers would not have been approved by the HMPPS NRC.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThis research provides a research-based justification for future dog projects for older prisoners, leading potentially to improved well-being for older people in prison.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study brings together the published research literature on PDPs with the research literature on the needs and experiences of older people in prison for the first time, and identifies potential directions for future research.\n","PeriodicalId":44916,"journal":{"name":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paws for thought? Developing dog projects for older people in prison\",\"authors\":\"Helen Codd\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/qaoa-11-2022-0069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis study aims to assess the nature and scope of dog-based programmes in prisons, assessing critically the potential opportunities, benefits, challenges and risks of developing innovative dog-based programmes for older prisoners in England and Wales. This paper outlines the potential benefits and challenges of developing dog-based programmes for older prisoners and sets out next steps for future research and practice.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis study is based on a scoping review of published research literature on prison dog programmes (PDPs) in the USA, the UK and other countries, with particular reference to older people in prison, followed by semi-structured interviews with six members of an expert advisory group. The literature review and data from the qualitative interviews were analysed thematically.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThere is a substantial body of published research literature which supports PDPs as having identifiable positive impacts for people and also dogs, and also published research which highlights the benefits to older people of dog ownership or participation in dog-based activities. However, much of this research is small-scale and qualitative, and it has been argued that there is a lack of a quantitative evidence base. This research concludes that findings from the literature review and the semi-structured interviews support further research and the creation of pilot projects to develop dog-based projects for older people in prison.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThis study was small-scale, and the findings need to be approached with caution. The literature review searched a small number of databases and filtered out articles published in languages other than English, and the review of the grey literature focused on reports from the UK. The number of experts interviewed was small and there was no direct consultation with older people in prison nor with older people with recent personal lived experience of imprisonment and community resettlement. A more extensive future study would benefit from a more extensive literature review, a larger group of participants and the inclusion of service users, prison managers and government policymakers, subject to the appropriate ethical and security approvals. At the time the research took place, ongoing COVID-19 restrictions on prison research meant that research with current prisoners and prison managers would not have been approved by the HMPPS NRC.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThis research provides a research-based justification for future dog projects for older prisoners, leading potentially to improved well-being for older people in prison.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis study brings together the published research literature on PDPs with the research literature on the needs and experiences of older people in prison for the first time, and identifies potential directions for future research.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":44916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/qaoa-11-2022-0069\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qaoa-11-2022-0069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本研究旨在评估监狱中基于狗的计划的性质和范围,批判性地评估为英格兰和威尔士的老年囚犯开发创新的基于狗的项目的潜在机会、好处、挑战和风险。本文概述了为老年囚犯制定基于狗的计划的潜在好处和挑战,并为未来的研究和实践提出了下一步行动。设计/方法/方法本研究基于对美国、英国和其他国家已发表的监狱犬计划(PDP)研究文献的范围审查,特别是对监狱中的老年人的研究,然后对专家咨询小组的六名成员进行半结构化访谈。对文献综述和定性访谈的数据进行了主题分析。发现有大量已发表的研究文献支持PDP对人和狗都有可识别的积极影响,也有已发表的报告强调了养狗或参与以狗为基础的活动对老年人的好处。然而,这项研究大多是小规模的定性研究,有人认为缺乏定量的证据基础。这项研究的结论是,文献综述和半结构化访谈的结果支持进一步的研究和创建试点项目,为监狱中的老年人开发基于狗的项目。研究局限性/含义这项研究规模较小,需要谨慎对待研究结果。文献综述搜索了少量数据库,筛选出了以英语以外的语言发表的文章,灰色文献综述的重点是来自英国的报告。接受采访的专家人数很少,既没有与监狱中的老年人直接协商,也没有与最近有过监禁和社区安置个人生活经历的老年人协商。更广泛的未来研究将受益于更广泛的文献综述、更大的参与者群体以及服务使用者、监狱管理人员和政府决策者的参与,但需获得适当的道德和安全批准。在研究进行时,新冠肺炎对监狱研究的持续限制意味着HMPPS NRC不会批准对当前囚犯和监狱管理人员的研究。实际意义这项研究为未来老年囚犯的狗项目提供了基于研究的理由,有可能改善监狱中老年人的福祉。原创性/价值本研究首次将已发表的关于PDP的研究文献与关于监狱中老年人需求和经历的研究文献结合在一起,并确定了未来研究的潜在方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Paws for thought? Developing dog projects for older people in prison
Purpose This study aims to assess the nature and scope of dog-based programmes in prisons, assessing critically the potential opportunities, benefits, challenges and risks of developing innovative dog-based programmes for older prisoners in England and Wales. This paper outlines the potential benefits and challenges of developing dog-based programmes for older prisoners and sets out next steps for future research and practice. Design/methodology/approach This study is based on a scoping review of published research literature on prison dog programmes (PDPs) in the USA, the UK and other countries, with particular reference to older people in prison, followed by semi-structured interviews with six members of an expert advisory group. The literature review and data from the qualitative interviews were analysed thematically. Findings There is a substantial body of published research literature which supports PDPs as having identifiable positive impacts for people and also dogs, and also published research which highlights the benefits to older people of dog ownership or participation in dog-based activities. However, much of this research is small-scale and qualitative, and it has been argued that there is a lack of a quantitative evidence base. This research concludes that findings from the literature review and the semi-structured interviews support further research and the creation of pilot projects to develop dog-based projects for older people in prison. Research limitations/implications This study was small-scale, and the findings need to be approached with caution. The literature review searched a small number of databases and filtered out articles published in languages other than English, and the review of the grey literature focused on reports from the UK. The number of experts interviewed was small and there was no direct consultation with older people in prison nor with older people with recent personal lived experience of imprisonment and community resettlement. A more extensive future study would benefit from a more extensive literature review, a larger group of participants and the inclusion of service users, prison managers and government policymakers, subject to the appropriate ethical and security approvals. At the time the research took place, ongoing COVID-19 restrictions on prison research meant that research with current prisoners and prison managers would not have been approved by the HMPPS NRC. Practical implications This research provides a research-based justification for future dog projects for older prisoners, leading potentially to improved well-being for older people in prison. Originality/value This study brings together the published research literature on PDPs with the research literature on the needs and experiences of older people in prison for the first time, and identifies potential directions for future research.
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Involving older adults and unpaid carers in the research cycle: reflections on implementing the UK national standards for public involvement into practice The relationship between older adults’ perceptions of ageing and depression: a systematic review Participatory action research and empowerment of nursing home residents Cognitive functioning and life satisfaction as predictors of subjective health complaints in elderly people Editorial: Recognising new partners and activities in older peoples’ care but also potential burdens in new forms of care and research
×
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