Cited by 26Policing Practices and PerceptionsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis

Effectiveness of current policing-related mental health interventions in England and Wales and Crisis Intervention Teams as a future potential model: a systematic review

Open access
Kane, Eddie, Evans, Emily, Shokraneh, Farhad·2017·Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Experiencing mental ill health adds a layer of complexity for individuals in touch with the justice system and for those responsible for working in the justice service with these individuals, such as frontline police officers. In England and Wales, there are three commonly used but not necessarily commonly designed or operated, mental health interventions associated with policing, Liaison and Diversion, Street Triage and specialist staff embedded in Police Contact Control Rooms. A fourth US designed model, Crisis Intervention Teams (CITs), is now attracting some interest in England and Wales, and these four are to be considered in this review. A fifth intervention, Mental Health Courts, was trialed but has now been abandoned in England and Wales and so has been excluded, but remains in use elsewhere. In recent years, there has been an increase in the level of investment related to these intervention options. This has largely been without an evidence base being available to aid design, structure, and consistency of approach. The review will address this gap and provide a systematic review of each of these options. This will provide a baseline of research evidence for those who commission and provide services for individuals experiencing mental ill health and who are in contact with the justice system. METHODS: Twenty-nine relevant databases and sources have been selected which will be systematically searched to locate relevant studies. These studies have to meet the set inclusion criteria which require them to report an objective outcome measure(s) in respect of offending or mental health outcomes and to have an experimental or quasi-experimental design including a comparator group(s) or a pre/post comparison. The review will exclude PhD theses, papers in non-English languages and papers published prior to 1980. Keywords have been collected through canvassing experts' opinion, literature review, controlled vocabulary and reviewing the results of a primary scoping review carried out to aid the development of the PICO, composed of Population/Participants, Intervention/Indicator, Comparator/Control, and Outcomes. For the proposed review, the key elements of the PICO are the following: persons with mental health problems, symptoms or diagnoses who come into contact with the police; interventions involving partnership working between police and mental health nurses and related professionals to divert those with mental health problems away from criminal justice processes; comparisons with control groups or areas where such interventions have not been introduced; and outcomes concerning criminal justice and health outcomes. The results of the searches will be screened using the set criteria and the selected papers reviewed and analysed to allow findings regarding these interventions to be reported. DISCUSSION: The objectives of the review are firstly to identify and report research on the relevant interventions, nationally and internationally and then secondly to consider, when possible, which interventions or aspects of those interventions are effective. This is judged with regard to changes in mental health status or service use and future offending behaviour. The approaches to be considered have gained a good deal of support and funding over recent years, and this review will provide a systematic review of the underpinning research evidence to inform future commissioning, service design and investment decisions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13643-017-0478-7

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

10 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kane, E., Evans, E., & Shokraneh, F.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Kane, Eddie
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Published
2017-04-17
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
85-85
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2606556659
Cited by
26
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Higher Education Funding Council for England (RR4809)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Keywords
crisis intervention teams, mental health courts, mental health outcomes, justice-involved individuals, England and Wales
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Crisis Intervention, England, Humans, Mental Health Services, Wales, Program Evaluation, Police, Models, Organizational

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review