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}
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
