{"title":"反激进化个案管理干预:坎贝尔系统性审查结果","authors":"James Lewis, Sarah Marsden","doi":"10.1016/j.avb.2025.102050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article sets out the findings of a Campbell systematic review examining the effectiveness and implementation of case management tools and approaches used to counter radicalisation to violence. This review found that the effectiveness of these tools and approaches remains poorly understood owing to the continued absence of robust impact evaluations. However, by breaking the case management process down into its constituent parts, from client identification to client assessment; case planning, implementation and delivery; monitoring and evaluation; through to exit and transition, this review was able to uncover a robust body of evidence relating to the implementation of different stages of the case management process, and programmes as-a-whole. Based on an analysis of 47 studies, the systematic review identified a range of factors that support the effective implementation of case management interventions. These include the availability of relevant tools; strong multi-agency working arrangements; intervention teams holding relevant knowledge and expertise; and adequate resourcing. In contrast, the absence of these factors can inhibit implementation, as can reliance on overly risk-oriented logics; public and political pressure; and the features of the legislative context within which programmes are delivered. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of the review, and discusses avenues for future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51360,"journal":{"name":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 102050"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Counter-radicalisation case management interventions: Findings from a Campbell systematic review\",\"authors\":\"James Lewis, Sarah Marsden\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.avb.2025.102050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This article sets out the findings of a Campbell systematic review examining the effectiveness and implementation of case management tools and approaches used to counter radicalisation to violence. This review found that the effectiveness of these tools and approaches remains poorly understood owing to the continued absence of robust impact evaluations. However, by breaking the case management process down into its constituent parts, from client identification to client assessment; case planning, implementation and delivery; monitoring and evaluation; through to exit and transition, this review was able to uncover a robust body of evidence relating to the implementation of different stages of the case management process, and programmes as-a-whole. Based on an analysis of 47 studies, the systematic review identified a range of factors that support the effective implementation of case management interventions. These include the availability of relevant tools; strong multi-agency working arrangements; intervention teams holding relevant knowledge and expertise; and adequate resourcing. In contrast, the absence of these factors can inhibit implementation, as can reliance on overly risk-oriented logics; public and political pressure; and the features of the legislative context within which programmes are delivered. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of the review, and discusses avenues for future research.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aggression and Violent Behavior\",\"volume\":\"82 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102050\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aggression and Violent Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178925000199\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178925000199","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Counter-radicalisation case management interventions: Findings from a Campbell systematic review
This article sets out the findings of a Campbell systematic review examining the effectiveness and implementation of case management tools and approaches used to counter radicalisation to violence. This review found that the effectiveness of these tools and approaches remains poorly understood owing to the continued absence of robust impact evaluations. However, by breaking the case management process down into its constituent parts, from client identification to client assessment; case planning, implementation and delivery; monitoring and evaluation; through to exit and transition, this review was able to uncover a robust body of evidence relating to the implementation of different stages of the case management process, and programmes as-a-whole. Based on an analysis of 47 studies, the systematic review identified a range of factors that support the effective implementation of case management interventions. These include the availability of relevant tools; strong multi-agency working arrangements; intervention teams holding relevant knowledge and expertise; and adequate resourcing. In contrast, the absence of these factors can inhibit implementation, as can reliance on overly risk-oriented logics; public and political pressure; and the features of the legislative context within which programmes are delivered. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of the review, and discusses avenues for future research.
期刊介绍:
Aggression and Violent Behavior, A Review Journal is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes substantive and integrative reviews, as well as summary reports of innovative ongoing clinical research programs on a wide range of topics germane to the field of aggression and violent behavior. Papers encompass a large variety of issues, populations, and domains, including homicide (serial, spree, and mass murder: sexual homicide), sexual deviance and assault (rape, serial rape, child molestation, paraphilias), child and youth violence (firesetting, gang violence, juvenile sexual offending), family violence (child physical and sexual abuse, child neglect, incest, spouse and elder abuse), genetic predispositions, and the physiological basis of aggression.