司法智力残疾服务:丹麦和挪威系统中工作人员观点的差异

Eskil Nyhus, S. Holst, Charlotte Munch, E. Søndenaa
{"title":"司法智力残疾服务:丹麦和挪威系统中工作人员观点的差异","authors":"Eskil Nyhus, S. Holst, Charlotte Munch, E. Søndenaa","doi":"10.1108/jidob-01-2021-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nPersons with intellectual disabilities (ID) who offend are treated differently depending on the national jurisdiction. Norway and Denmark are two such examples. The differences in care models may also have an impact on staff perspectives. This paper aims to study the differences between Norwegian and Danish staff members within secure forensic ID services.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA cross-sectional study involving Norwegian (n = 145) and Danish staff (n = 279) in secure forensic learning disabilities services was conducted. The response rates were 50% in Denmark (n = 147) and 69% in Norway (n = 98), respectively. An electronic survey covering five sets of topics (demographic characteristics, working conditions, workplace culture, work motivation and work resilience) was used. The findings was statistically analysed using SPSS.\n\n\nFindings\nThis study confirmed that staff in the two neighbouring countries have common conceptions of their employment. Danish staff were more exposed to violent incidents (t = 4.1(237); p < 0.001). There was greater concern with workplace safety in Denmark (t = 5.2(237); p < 0.001) compared to more team-based and rigid working conditions in Norway (t = −2.6(237); p < 0.01).\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThese differences are discussed in relation to some important national differences in a professional culture, educational systems, service organisation and legal issues that possibly add realistic explanations to the findings.\n","PeriodicalId":43468,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forensic intellectual disability services: differences in staff perspectives in the Danish and Norwegian systems\",\"authors\":\"Eskil Nyhus, S. Holst, Charlotte Munch, E. Søndenaa\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jidob-01-2021-0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nPersons with intellectual disabilities (ID) who offend are treated differently depending on the national jurisdiction. Norway and Denmark are two such examples. The differences in care models may also have an impact on staff perspectives. This paper aims to study the differences between Norwegian and Danish staff members within secure forensic ID services.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nA cross-sectional study involving Norwegian (n = 145) and Danish staff (n = 279) in secure forensic learning disabilities services was conducted. The response rates were 50% in Denmark (n = 147) and 69% in Norway (n = 98), respectively. An electronic survey covering five sets of topics (demographic characteristics, working conditions, workplace culture, work motivation and work resilience) was used. The findings was statistically analysed using SPSS.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis study confirmed that staff in the two neighbouring countries have common conceptions of their employment. Danish staff were more exposed to violent incidents (t = 4.1(237); p < 0.001). There was greater concern with workplace safety in Denmark (t = 5.2(237); p < 0.001) compared to more team-based and rigid working conditions in Norway (t = −2.6(237); p < 0.01).\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThese differences are discussed in relation to some important national differences in a professional culture, educational systems, service organisation and legal issues that possibly add realistic explanations to the findings.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":43468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jidob-01-2021-0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jidob-01-2021-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的根据国家管辖权的不同,智障人士受到不同的待遇。挪威和丹麦就是这样的两个例子。护理模式的差异也可能对员工的观点产生影响。本文旨在研究挪威和丹麦工作人员在安全法医身份证服务中的差异。设计/方法/方法一项横断面研究涉及挪威(n=145)和丹麦工作人员(n=279)在安全的法医学学习障碍服务中的参与。丹麦(n=147)和挪威(n=98)的应答率分别为50%和69%。使用了一项涵盖五组主题(人口特征、工作条件、工作场所文化、工作动机和工作弹性)的电子调查。这项研究证实,这两个邻国的员工对自己的就业有着共同的看法。丹麦工作人员更容易受到暴力事件的影响(t=4.1(237);p<0.001)。丹麦对工作场所安全的关注度更高(t=5.2(237);p<0.001),而挪威的工作条件更为团队化和严格(t=−2.6(237);p<0.01)。原创性/价值这些差异与职业文化、教育系统、服务组织和法律问题方面的一些重要国家差异有关,这些差异可能会为研究结果提供现实的解释。
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
Forensic intellectual disability services: differences in staff perspectives in the Danish and Norwegian systems
Purpose Persons with intellectual disabilities (ID) who offend are treated differently depending on the national jurisdiction. Norway and Denmark are two such examples. The differences in care models may also have an impact on staff perspectives. This paper aims to study the differences between Norwegian and Danish staff members within secure forensic ID services. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional study involving Norwegian (n = 145) and Danish staff (n = 279) in secure forensic learning disabilities services was conducted. The response rates were 50% in Denmark (n = 147) and 69% in Norway (n = 98), respectively. An electronic survey covering five sets of topics (demographic characteristics, working conditions, workplace culture, work motivation and work resilience) was used. The findings was statistically analysed using SPSS. Findings This study confirmed that staff in the two neighbouring countries have common conceptions of their employment. Danish staff were more exposed to violent incidents (t = 4.1(237); p < 0.001). There was greater concern with workplace safety in Denmark (t = 5.2(237); p < 0.001) compared to more team-based and rigid working conditions in Norway (t = −2.6(237); p < 0.01). Originality/value These differences are discussed in relation to some important national differences in a professional culture, educational systems, service organisation and legal issues that possibly add realistic explanations to the findings.
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
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Trauma and adversity in forensic patients with an intellectual disability: a review of risk assessment reports What is important in forensic psychiatric evaluation in people with Down syndrome? A sample from Türkiye Demographic, forensic and service involvement characteristics related to adults referred to a community-based learning disability forensic team pre- and post-COVID-19 The relationship between institutional climate and constructive deviance A feasibility study to identify the presence of autism specific risk factors in secure services using an autism specific framework
×
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