Public health · 2026
Social care training for non-custodial staff in England working in prisons: A systematic scoping review to inform the training of 'Empowered Together' social workers.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Buck Deborah, Sharda Leila, Mulligan Lee D, Egan Emily, Minchin Matilda, Buravalla Sanjana, Stalker Kate, Scollay Clare, O'Neill Adam, Robinson Louise, Forsyth Katrina
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To identify/map the nature and extent of the literature on training for non-custodial staff (social workers, healthcare staff and/or their equivalent) working in prisons in England, with a specific focus on social care, to inform the training of individuals delivering the Empowered Together (coordinated social care in prison) intervention.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic scoping review.
METHODS: We conducted systematic searches across eight electronic databases. Pairs of reviewers independently screened articles meeting pre-specified criteria. We extracted the following into Excel spreadsheets: study characteristics; training development, content/delivery, evaluation; author recommendations. We tabulated study characteristics and provided narrative summaries. We also considered the grey literature.
RESULTS: Of 512 records identified through database searches, two met our inclusion criteria. Both focused on training to support people living in prison with dementia. Each embraced stakeholder involvement as part of training development, targeted a range of staff (rather than solely social workers), and aimed to enhance knowledge among staff. However, only one covered practical skills and neither included evaluations of their training programmes. No relevant documents were found within the grey literature.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic scoping review of social care training in prison. Findings suggest a paucity of evidence regarding training for social workers working in prisons across England. Future training should ideally be co-designed with key stakeholders including people living and working in prison, and future research should focus on robust evaluation of training initiatives not only in terms of knowledge but also the impacts this has on people living in prison.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic scoping review.
METHODS: We conducted systematic searches across eight electronic databases. Pairs of reviewers independently screened articles meeting pre-specified criteria. We extracted the following into Excel spreadsheets: study characteristics; training development, content/delivery, evaluation; author recommendations. We tabulated study characteristics and provided narrative summaries. We also considered the grey literature.
RESULTS: Of 512 records identified through database searches, two met our inclusion criteria. Both focused on training to support people living in prison with dementia. Each embraced stakeholder involvement as part of training development, targeted a range of staff (rather than solely social workers), and aimed to enhance knowledge among staff. However, only one covered practical skills and neither included evaluations of their training programmes. No relevant documents were found within the grey literature.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic scoping review of social care training in prison. Findings suggest a paucity of evidence regarding training for social workers working in prisons across England. Future training should ideally be co-designed with key stakeholders including people living and working in prison, and future research should focus on robust evaluation of training initiatives not only in terms of knowledge but also the impacts this has on people living in prison.