风险公式是否有助于独立审查委员会对释放囚犯的决定?对英格兰和威尔士假释委员会成员的定性研究。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Mary McMurran, Libby Payne, Alys Harrop, Nicola Bowes
{"title":"风险公式是否有助于独立审查委员会对释放囚犯的决定?对英格兰和威尔士假释委员会成员的定性研究。","authors":"Mary McMurran, Libby Payne, Alys Harrop, Nicola Bowes","doi":"10.1002/cbm.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Parole Board for England & Wales makes decisions on the release or continued detention of people in prison. Psychological risk assessments (PRAs) assist in decision making and it is crucial that they are of good quality, including coherent and useful case formulations.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The purpose of this study was to examine Parole Board members' views on the accessibility, quality and usefulness of case formulations in PRAs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Interviews were conducted with 8 psychologist/psychiatrist members and 11 independent/judicial members.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents valued formulations in identifying idiosyncratic risk factors and linking these to risk management strategies. Nevertheless, they identified challenges to their validity, with concerns about facts versus hypotheses. Particular problems were seen in the assessment of those denying their offending and in collaborative case formulation. Integrating information and hypothesising under what conditions a risk factor might be activated was seen as important. Ignoring ethnic and cultural factors was seen as commonplace.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The opinions of Parole Board users of PRAs provide information that could be used to improve the validity and usefulness of risk formulations, including adding to existing practice guidelines. A broader study of users' perceptions of PRAs as a whole, not just formulations, would be useful and research on impacts is desirable.</p>","PeriodicalId":47362,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Risk Formulation Help Independent Review Board Decisions on Release of Prisoners? A Qualitative Study With Parole Board Members in England and Wales.\",\"authors\":\"Mary McMurran, Libby Payne, Alys Harrop, Nicola Bowes\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cbm.70001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Parole Board for England & Wales makes decisions on the release or continued detention of people in prison. Psychological risk assessments (PRAs) assist in decision making and it is crucial that they are of good quality, including coherent and useful case formulations.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The purpose of this study was to examine Parole Board members' views on the accessibility, quality and usefulness of case formulations in PRAs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Interviews were conducted with 8 psychologist/psychiatrist members and 11 independent/judicial members.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents valued formulations in identifying idiosyncratic risk factors and linking these to risk management strategies. Nevertheless, they identified challenges to their validity, with concerns about facts versus hypotheses. Particular problems were seen in the assessment of those denying their offending and in collaborative case formulation. Integrating information and hypothesising under what conditions a risk factor might be activated was seen as important. Ignoring ethnic and cultural factors was seen as commonplace.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The opinions of Parole Board users of PRAs provide information that could be used to improve the validity and usefulness of risk formulations, including adding to existing practice guidelines. A broader study of users' perceptions of PRAs as a whole, not just formulations, would be useful and research on impacts is desirable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.70001\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.70001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:英格兰和威尔士假释委员会决定释放或继续拘留监狱中的人。心理风险评估(PRAs)有助于决策,至关重要的是,它们的质量很好,包括连贯和有用的案例公式。目的:本研究的目的是探讨假释委员会成员对假释案件公式的可及性、质量和有用性的看法。方法:对8名心理医师/精神科医师和11名独立/司法人员进行访谈。结果:受访者重视确定特殊风险因素并将其与风险管理策略联系起来的公式。然而,他们发现了对其有效性的挑战,关注事实与假设。在对那些否认犯罪的人的评估和合作案件的制定中发现了特别的问题。整合信息和假设风险因素在什么条件下可能被激活被认为是重要的。忽视种族和文化因素被视为司空见惯。结论:假释委员会用户的意见提供了可用于提高风险表述的有效性和有用性的信息,包括添加到现有的实践指南中。更广泛地研究用户对整个公共服务系统的看法,而不仅仅是公式,将是有用的,对影响的研究是可取的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does Risk Formulation Help Independent Review Board Decisions on Release of Prisoners? A Qualitative Study With Parole Board Members in England and Wales.

Background: The Parole Board for England & Wales makes decisions on the release or continued detention of people in prison. Psychological risk assessments (PRAs) assist in decision making and it is crucial that they are of good quality, including coherent and useful case formulations.

Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine Parole Board members' views on the accessibility, quality and usefulness of case formulations in PRAs.

Method: Interviews were conducted with 8 psychologist/psychiatrist members and 11 independent/judicial members.

Results: Respondents valued formulations in identifying idiosyncratic risk factors and linking these to risk management strategies. Nevertheless, they identified challenges to their validity, with concerns about facts versus hypotheses. Particular problems were seen in the assessment of those denying their offending and in collaborative case formulation. Integrating information and hypothesising under what conditions a risk factor might be activated was seen as important. Ignoring ethnic and cultural factors was seen as commonplace.

Conclusion: The opinions of Parole Board users of PRAs provide information that could be used to improve the validity and usefulness of risk formulations, including adding to existing practice guidelines. A broader study of users' perceptions of PRAs as a whole, not just formulations, would be useful and research on impacts is desirable.

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
40
期刊介绍: Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health – CBMH – aims to publish original material on any aspect of the relationship between mental state and criminal behaviour. Thus, we are interested in mental mechanisms associated with offending, regardless of whether the individual concerned has a mental disorder or not. We are interested in factors that influence such relationships, and particularly welcome studies about pathways into and out of crime. These will include studies of normal and abnormal development, of mental disorder and how that may lead to offending for a subgroup of sufferers, together with information about factors which mediate such a relationship.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信