英格兰和威尔士监狱成人社会关怀的同伴支持:一种混合方法的快速评估。

Holly Walton, Efthalia Massou, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Donna Gipson, Lucy Wainwright, Paula Harriott, Pei Li Ng, Stephen Riley, Stephen Morris, Naomi J Fulop
{"title":"英格兰和威尔士监狱成人社会关怀的同伴支持:一种混合方法的快速评估。","authors":"Holly Walton, Efthalia Massou, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Donna Gipson, Lucy Wainwright, Paula Harriott, Pei Li Ng, Stephen Riley, Stephen Morris, Naomi J Fulop","doi":"10.3310/MWFD6890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>More adults in prison need social care support. In some prisons, prisoners ('buddies') are trained to provide social care support for non-personal care tasks to other prisoners. These services are not mandated but have been proposed as a solution to support social care provision in prisons. Previous research explored delivery of peer support initiatives in prisons, but there has been little research evaluating the effectiveness, implementation and experience of social care peer support. There is a need to establish how best to measure the impact and cost of peer support schemes for social care in prisons in England and Wales.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate peer support schemes for adult social care in prisons in England and Wales (including implementation, experiences, risks and benefits, outcomes and costs, available data, and how to measure impact and cost).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A rapid mixed-methods study, including a rapid systematic scoping review (<i>n</i> = 70 papers), a documentary analysis of 102 His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons reports, and a multisite study of implementation and experience. The multisite study included 1 workshop with national and local stakeholders (<i>n</i> = 13) and 71 interviews with national and local leads (<i>n</i> = 7), prison leads from 18 prisons (<i>n</i> = 20), staff (<i>n</i> = 7), peers (<i>n</i> = 18) and recipients (<i>n</i> = 19) from 5 prisons. Qualitative analysis took place in two phases: (1) rapid analysis (using rapid assessment procedure sheets) and (2) in-depth thematic analysis. We analysed availability of data to measure impact and cost of services.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>'Buddies' are frequently used in prisons in England and Wales, filling an important gap in social care provision. Implementation varies, due to service, prison, staff and prisoner factors. Prison service instruction guidelines for peer-supported social care are not consistently being implemented. This study identified areas for improvement, for example the need for formal training for buddies and staff, and the need for clear standardised employment procedures. Buddy schemes are valued by staff, buddies and recipients. Some barriers were identified, for example, lack of peer and staff training and supervision, and prison regime. Peer-supported social care may have wide-reaching benefits, yet there are several risks for recipients and buddies that must be mitigated, including the potential for exploitation of the role by staff, buddies and recipients. It is currently not possible to evaluate impact and cost due to limited data. We have developed an evaluation guide which outlines operational, cost and outcome data that needs to be collected to enable regular monitoring and/or evaluation in future.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>There is a lack of data collected on impact and cost, so we were unable to measure effectiveness and cost in this study. Instead, we developed an evaluation framework to inform future impact and cost evaluations.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>National standards for peer-supported social care (including national data infrastructure) would enable robust monitoring and evaluations of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer support for social care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Peer support services are well received by different stakeholders, but standardisation is needed to ensure they are sufficiently resourced and appropriately monitored and evaluated to mitigate against risks.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as researchregistry8783.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135689) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 13, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 1","pages":"1-140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peer support for adult social care in prisons in England and Wales: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Holly Walton, Efthalia Massou, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Donna Gipson, Lucy Wainwright, Paula Harriott, Pei Li Ng, Stephen Riley, Stephen Morris, Naomi J Fulop\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/MWFD6890\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>More adults in prison need social care support. In some prisons, prisoners ('buddies') are trained to provide social care support for non-personal care tasks to other prisoners. These services are not mandated but have been proposed as a solution to support social care provision in prisons. Previous research explored delivery of peer support initiatives in prisons, but there has been little research evaluating the effectiveness, implementation and experience of social care peer support. There is a need to establish how best to measure the impact and cost of peer support schemes for social care in prisons in England and Wales.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate peer support schemes for adult social care in prisons in England and Wales (including implementation, experiences, risks and benefits, outcomes and costs, available data, and how to measure impact and cost).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A rapid mixed-methods study, including a rapid systematic scoping review (<i>n</i> = 70 papers), a documentary analysis of 102 His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons reports, and a multisite study of implementation and experience. The multisite study included 1 workshop with national and local stakeholders (<i>n</i> = 13) and 71 interviews with national and local leads (<i>n</i> = 7), prison leads from 18 prisons (<i>n</i> = 20), staff (<i>n</i> = 7), peers (<i>n</i> = 18) and recipients (<i>n</i> = 19) from 5 prisons. Qualitative analysis took place in two phases: (1) rapid analysis (using rapid assessment procedure sheets) and (2) in-depth thematic analysis. We analysed availability of data to measure impact and cost of services.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>'Buddies' are frequently used in prisons in England and Wales, filling an important gap in social care provision. Implementation varies, due to service, prison, staff and prisoner factors. Prison service instruction guidelines for peer-supported social care are not consistently being implemented. This study identified areas for improvement, for example the need for formal training for buddies and staff, and the need for clear standardised employment procedures. Buddy schemes are valued by staff, buddies and recipients. Some barriers were identified, for example, lack of peer and staff training and supervision, and prison regime. Peer-supported social care may have wide-reaching benefits, yet there are several risks for recipients and buddies that must be mitigated, including the potential for exploitation of the role by staff, buddies and recipients. It is currently not possible to evaluate impact and cost due to limited data. We have developed an evaluation guide which outlines operational, cost and outcome data that needs to be collected to enable regular monitoring and/or evaluation in future.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>There is a lack of data collected on impact and cost, so we were unable to measure effectiveness and cost in this study. Instead, we developed an evaluation framework to inform future impact and cost evaluations.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>National standards for peer-supported social care (including national data infrastructure) would enable robust monitoring and evaluations of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer support for social care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Peer support services are well received by different stakeholders, but standardisation is needed to ensure they are sufficiently resourced and appropriately monitored and evaluated to mitigate against risks.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as researchregistry8783.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135689) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 13, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"1-140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/MWFD6890\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/MWFD6890","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:越来越多的监狱成年人需要社会关怀支持。在一些监狱,囚犯(“伙伴”)接受培训,为其他囚犯提供非个人照顾任务的社会照顾支持。这些服务不是强制性的,但已被提议作为支持监狱提供社会关怀的解决办法。先前的研究探讨了同伴支持倡议在监狱中的实施,但很少有研究评估社会关怀同伴支持的有效性、实施和经验。有必要确定如何最好地衡量英格兰和威尔士监狱社会关怀同伴支持计划的影响和成本。目的:评估英格兰和威尔士监狱成人社会关怀同伴支持计划(包括实施,经验,风险和收益,结果和成本,现有数据,以及如何衡量影响和成本)。方法:一项快速的混合方法研究,包括快速系统的范围审查(n = 70篇论文),对102份国王陛下监狱监察局报告进行文献分析,以及对执行情况和经验进行多地点研究。多地点研究包括与国家和地方利益相关者(n = 13)的1次研讨会,以及与国家和地方领导(n = 7)、18所监狱的监狱领导(n = 20)、工作人员(n = 7)、同行(n = 18)和5所监狱的受训者(n = 19)的71次访谈。定性分析分两个阶段进行:(1)快速分析(使用快速评估程序表)和(2)深入的专题分析。我们分析了数据的可用性,以衡量服务的影响和成本。结果:“哥们儿”在英格兰和威尔士的监狱中被频繁使用,填补了社会关怀服务的重要空白。执行情况因服务、监狱、工作人员和囚犯因素而异。监狱服务关于同伴支持的社会关怀的指导方针没有得到一贯的执行。这项研究确定了需要改进的领域,例如需要对伙伴和工作人员进行正式培训,需要制定明确的标准化雇用程序。伙伴计划受到员工、伙伴和接受者的重视。确定了一些障碍,例如缺乏同伴和工作人员的培训和监督,以及监狱制度。同伴支持的社会关怀可能具有广泛的益处,但对受助者和伙伴来说,有一些必须减轻的风险,包括工作人员、伙伴和接受者利用这一角色的可能性。由于数据有限,目前无法评估影响和成本。我们制定了一份评估指南,概述了需要收集的业务、成本和成果数据,以便将来进行定期监测和/或评估。局限性:缺乏收集到的影响和成本的数据,因此我们无法在本研究中衡量有效性和成本。相反,我们开发了一个评估框架,为未来的影响和成本评估提供信息。未来工作:同侪支持的社会照护国家标准(包括国家数据基础设施)将能够对同侪支持的社会照护的有效性和成本效益进行强有力的监测和评估。结论:同伴支持服务受到不同利益相关者的好评,但需要标准化,以确保它们得到充分的资源和适当的监测和评估,以减轻风险。研究注册:本研究注册为researchregistry8783。资助:该奖项由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究项目(NIHR奖励编号:NIHR135689)资助,全文发表在《卫生和社会保健提供研究》上;第13卷第1期有关进一步的奖励信息,请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助和奖励网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Peer support for adult social care in prisons in England and Wales: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation.

Background: More adults in prison need social care support. In some prisons, prisoners ('buddies') are trained to provide social care support for non-personal care tasks to other prisoners. These services are not mandated but have been proposed as a solution to support social care provision in prisons. Previous research explored delivery of peer support initiatives in prisons, but there has been little research evaluating the effectiveness, implementation and experience of social care peer support. There is a need to establish how best to measure the impact and cost of peer support schemes for social care in prisons in England and Wales.

Objective: To evaluate peer support schemes for adult social care in prisons in England and Wales (including implementation, experiences, risks and benefits, outcomes and costs, available data, and how to measure impact and cost).

Methods: A rapid mixed-methods study, including a rapid systematic scoping review (n = 70 papers), a documentary analysis of 102 His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons reports, and a multisite study of implementation and experience. The multisite study included 1 workshop with national and local stakeholders (n = 13) and 71 interviews with national and local leads (n = 7), prison leads from 18 prisons (n = 20), staff (n = 7), peers (n = 18) and recipients (n = 19) from 5 prisons. Qualitative analysis took place in two phases: (1) rapid analysis (using rapid assessment procedure sheets) and (2) in-depth thematic analysis. We analysed availability of data to measure impact and cost of services.

Results: 'Buddies' are frequently used in prisons in England and Wales, filling an important gap in social care provision. Implementation varies, due to service, prison, staff and prisoner factors. Prison service instruction guidelines for peer-supported social care are not consistently being implemented. This study identified areas for improvement, for example the need for formal training for buddies and staff, and the need for clear standardised employment procedures. Buddy schemes are valued by staff, buddies and recipients. Some barriers were identified, for example, lack of peer and staff training and supervision, and prison regime. Peer-supported social care may have wide-reaching benefits, yet there are several risks for recipients and buddies that must be mitigated, including the potential for exploitation of the role by staff, buddies and recipients. It is currently not possible to evaluate impact and cost due to limited data. We have developed an evaluation guide which outlines operational, cost and outcome data that needs to be collected to enable regular monitoring and/or evaluation in future.

Limitations: There is a lack of data collected on impact and cost, so we were unable to measure effectiveness and cost in this study. Instead, we developed an evaluation framework to inform future impact and cost evaluations.

Future work: National standards for peer-supported social care (including national data infrastructure) would enable robust monitoring and evaluations of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer support for social care.

Conclusions: Peer support services are well received by different stakeholders, but standardisation is needed to ensure they are sufficiently resourced and appropriately monitored and evaluated to mitigate against risks.

Study registration: This study is registered as researchregistry8783.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135689) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 13, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信