BMJ open · 2025
A pilot randomised controlled trial of a critical time intervention for people leaving prison: findings from an integrated process evaluation.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Williams Adam Dale Newman, Jacob Nina, Moriarty Yvonne, Madoc-Jones Iolo, Fitzpatrick Suzanne, Mackie Peter, Thomas Ian, Grozeva Detelina, Lloyd Barry, Deidda Manuela, Achiaw Samuel Owusu, Lewis Kelly, Cannings-John Rebecca, Katikireddi Srinivasa Vittal, White James, Lewsey Jim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial (the PHaCT study), including a process evaluation to assess the acceptability of a housing-led Critical Time Intervention (CTI) for prison leavers and the use of a trial design. This paper presents the process evaluation findings.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability of both the intervention and the trial design to participants and those delivering the intervention, and to assess whether the intervention was delivered with fidelity.
DESIGN: A process evaluation following Medical Research Council guidelines. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with participants and CTI caseworkers and observations of intervention delivery. A thematic analysis of interviews and observations was conducted to understand the intervention's implementation and contextual factors as well as the trial process acceptability.
SETTING: Participants for the pilot trial were recruited from three prisons in England and Wales where the intervention was being delivered.
PARTICIPANTS: While 28 out of 34 trial participants consented to interviews, only one was completed. Seven caseworkers were interviewed.
INTERVENTION: A housing-led CTI to support people leaving prison at risk of homelessness, involving phased, time-limited support from caseworkers, starting prerelease and continuing postrelease, to help secure stable housing and build independence, without directly providing housing.
RESULTS: The intervention's acceptability was primarily reflected through the positive feedback and success stories shared by CTI caseworkers, as well as observational data indicating high acceptance among service users. The trial design's acceptability was challenged by concerns about randomisation and equipoise, with staff viewing randomisation as unethical due to limited support for vulnerable populations. The fidelity to the CTI intervention housing-led approach was adhered to as best as possible; stable housing was prioritised for service users before addressing other needs. Despite these efforts, both sites encountered significant challenges due to limited housing availability and complex systems for securing social housing, particularly for single men leaving prison.
CONCLUSIONS: This wider study faced significant challenges which impacted the process evaluation. Despite these issues, the evaluation provides important insights into the challenges of conducting trials on interventions for people leaving prison. The challenges experienced should inform future study designs with similar populations and in similar settings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN46969988.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability of both the intervention and the trial design to participants and those delivering the intervention, and to assess whether the intervention was delivered with fidelity.
DESIGN: A process evaluation following Medical Research Council guidelines. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with participants and CTI caseworkers and observations of intervention delivery. A thematic analysis of interviews and observations was conducted to understand the intervention's implementation and contextual factors as well as the trial process acceptability.
SETTING: Participants for the pilot trial were recruited from three prisons in England and Wales where the intervention was being delivered.
PARTICIPANTS: While 28 out of 34 trial participants consented to interviews, only one was completed. Seven caseworkers were interviewed.
INTERVENTION: A housing-led CTI to support people leaving prison at risk of homelessness, involving phased, time-limited support from caseworkers, starting prerelease and continuing postrelease, to help secure stable housing and build independence, without directly providing housing.
RESULTS: The intervention's acceptability was primarily reflected through the positive feedback and success stories shared by CTI caseworkers, as well as observational data indicating high acceptance among service users. The trial design's acceptability was challenged by concerns about randomisation and equipoise, with staff viewing randomisation as unethical due to limited support for vulnerable populations. The fidelity to the CTI intervention housing-led approach was adhered to as best as possible; stable housing was prioritised for service users before addressing other needs. Despite these efforts, both sites encountered significant challenges due to limited housing availability and complex systems for securing social housing, particularly for single men leaving prison.
CONCLUSIONS: This wider study faced significant challenges which impacted the process evaluation. Despite these issues, the evaluation provides important insights into the challenges of conducting trials on interventions for people leaving prison. The challenges experienced should inform future study designs with similar populations and in similar settings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN46969988.