审判智障罪犯:系统回顾刑事司法系统专业人士对智障罪犯的看法和态度。

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Georgia Powell, Kate Blake-Holmes, Adela Petrache, Rebecca Turrell, Peter Beazley
{"title":"审判智障罪犯:系统回顾刑事司法系统专业人士对智障罪犯的看法和态度。","authors":"Georgia Powell, Kate Blake-Holmes, Adela Petrache, Rebecca Turrell, Peter Beazley","doi":"10.1111/jir.13252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The diagnosis of an intellectual disability is suggested to have particularly stigmatising connotations, particularly within the criminal justice system (CJS). This paper aims to synthesise qualitative studies investigating the attitudes of CJS professionals to people with intellectual disabilities (PWID), specifically offenders with intellectual disabilities, and to appraise their methodological quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted using PsychINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete and EThOS databases. Articles were screened for inclusion by title, abstract and full text to ensure predefined inclusion criteria were met. Individual study quality was rated using the 10-item Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, with the addition of an eleventh item to capture included studies' theoretical underpinnings and optimise the value of the quality appraisal. Thematic synthesis was then used to explore and synthesise the findings of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten papers were included in the review, spanning 766 participants. Studies included utilised mixed methods surveys (n = 3), qualitative surveys (n = 1), semistructured interviews (n = 3), semistructured focus groups (n = 1), unstructured interviews (n = 1) and secondary analysis of previously collected research data (n = 1). Methodological quality was broadly of a high standard; however, all included papers failed to reflect on the relationship between the researchers and participants. Five themes were identified: conflating diagnoses, perceptions of PWID as offenders, procedural issues affecting PWID, development and maintenance of perceptions, and impact of training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review highlights pervasive negative perceptions of offenders with intellectual disabilities within CJS staff groups. Clinician- and system-level factors are considered in the development and maintenance of such attitudes and suggestions made for improving CJS staff perceptions and knowledge of offenders with intellectual disabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judging Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities: Systematic Review of Criminal Justice System Professionals' Expressed Views and Attitudes Towards Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities.\",\"authors\":\"Georgia Powell, Kate Blake-Holmes, Adela Petrache, Rebecca Turrell, Peter Beazley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jir.13252\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The diagnosis of an intellectual disability is suggested to have particularly stigmatising connotations, particularly within the criminal justice system (CJS). This paper aims to synthesise qualitative studies investigating the attitudes of CJS professionals to people with intellectual disabilities (PWID), specifically offenders with intellectual disabilities, and to appraise their methodological quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted using PsychINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete and EThOS databases. Articles were screened for inclusion by title, abstract and full text to ensure predefined inclusion criteria were met. Individual study quality was rated using the 10-item Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, with the addition of an eleventh item to capture included studies' theoretical underpinnings and optimise the value of the quality appraisal. Thematic synthesis was then used to explore and synthesise the findings of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten papers were included in the review, spanning 766 participants. Studies included utilised mixed methods surveys (n = 3), qualitative surveys (n = 1), semistructured interviews (n = 3), semistructured focus groups (n = 1), unstructured interviews (n = 1) and secondary analysis of previously collected research data (n = 1). Methodological quality was broadly of a high standard; however, all included papers failed to reflect on the relationship between the researchers and participants. Five themes were identified: conflating diagnoses, perceptions of PWID as offenders, procedural issues affecting PWID, development and maintenance of perceptions, and impact of training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review highlights pervasive negative perceptions of offenders with intellectual disabilities within CJS staff groups. Clinician- and system-level factors are considered in the development and maintenance of such attitudes and suggestions made for improving CJS staff perceptions and knowledge of offenders with intellectual disabilities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.13252\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.13252","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:智力残疾的诊断被认为具有特别污名化的内涵,特别是在刑事司法系统(CJS)内。本文旨在综合质性研究,调查CJS专业人员对智障人士(特别是智障罪犯)的态度,并评估其方法学质量。方法:系统检索PsychINFO、Web of Science、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL Complete和EThOS数据库。文章通过标题、摘要和全文进行筛选,以确保符合预定义的纳入标准。使用10项关键评估技能计划(CASP)清单对个人研究质量进行评级,并增加了第11项,以捕获包括研究的理论基础并优化质量评估的价值。然后使用主题综合来探索和综合纳入研究的结果。结果:纳入10篇论文,766名受试者。研究包括使用混合方法调查(n = 3)、定性调查(n = 1)、半结构化访谈(n = 3)、半结构化焦点小组(n = 1)、非结构化访谈(n = 1)和对先前收集的研究数据的二次分析(n = 1)。方法质量大体上是高标准的;然而,所有纳入的论文都没有反映研究人员和参与者之间的关系。确定了五个主题:合并诊断,将PWID视为罪犯的看法,影响PWID的程序问题,看法的发展和维持以及培训的影响。结论:本综述突出了CJS工作人员群体中普遍存在的对智力障碍罪犯的负面看法。临床医生和系统层面的因素在发展和维持这种态度和建议,以提高CJS工作人员对智力残疾罪犯的认识和认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Judging Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities: Systematic Review of Criminal Justice System Professionals' Expressed Views and Attitudes Towards Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities.

Background: The diagnosis of an intellectual disability is suggested to have particularly stigmatising connotations, particularly within the criminal justice system (CJS). This paper aims to synthesise qualitative studies investigating the attitudes of CJS professionals to people with intellectual disabilities (PWID), specifically offenders with intellectual disabilities, and to appraise their methodological quality.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PsychINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete and EThOS databases. Articles were screened for inclusion by title, abstract and full text to ensure predefined inclusion criteria were met. Individual study quality was rated using the 10-item Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, with the addition of an eleventh item to capture included studies' theoretical underpinnings and optimise the value of the quality appraisal. Thematic synthesis was then used to explore and synthesise the findings of the included studies.

Results: Ten papers were included in the review, spanning 766 participants. Studies included utilised mixed methods surveys (n = 3), qualitative surveys (n = 1), semistructured interviews (n = 3), semistructured focus groups (n = 1), unstructured interviews (n = 1) and secondary analysis of previously collected research data (n = 1). Methodological quality was broadly of a high standard; however, all included papers failed to reflect on the relationship between the researchers and participants. Five themes were identified: conflating diagnoses, perceptions of PWID as offenders, procedural issues affecting PWID, development and maintenance of perceptions, and impact of training.

Conclusions: This review highlights pervasive negative perceptions of offenders with intellectual disabilities within CJS staff groups. Clinician- and system-level factors are considered in the development and maintenance of such attitudes and suggestions made for improving CJS staff perceptions and knowledge of offenders with intellectual disabilities.

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
5.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.
×
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