BMJ open · 2024
International consensus statement on the design, delivery and evaluation of sport-based interventions aimed at promoting social, psychological and physical well-being in prison.
СтатьяОбзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАConsensus StatementНазвание 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.
Murray Conor, Coyle Brendan, Morgan Haydyn, Marder Ian, Woods David, Haughey Tandy, Maycock Matthew, Genovesi Federico, Meek Rosie, Parker Andrew, Smith Andy, Kay Chris, Brink Gerko, Rovers Hubert, Haudenhuyse Rein, Roe Daniel, Contreras-Osorio Falonn, Donohue Brad, Bohall Greg, Martinez Nagore, Martos-Garcia Daniel, Whitley Meredith, Norman Mark, Demalija Rifat, Sherry Emma, Chitsawang Nathee, Adebayo Aderonmu Kehinde, Breslin Gavin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To develop an international consensus statement to advise on designing, delivering and evaluating sport-based interventions (SBIs) aimed at promoting social, psychological and physical well-being in prison.
DESIGN: Modified Delphi using two rounds of survey questionnaires and two consensus workshops.
PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary panel of more than 40 experts from 15 international jurisdictions was formed, including representation from the following groups and stakeholders: professionals working in the justice system; officials from sport federations and organisations; academics with research experience of prisons, secure forensic mental health settings and SBIs; and policy-makers in criminal justice and sport.
RESULTS: A core research team and advisory board developed the initial rationale, statement and survey. This survey produced qualitative data which was analysed thematically. The findings were presented at an in-person workshop. Panellists discussed the findings, and, using a modified nominal group technique, reached a consensus on objectives to be included in a revised statement. The core research team and advisory board revised the statement and recirculated it with a second survey. Findings from the second survey were discussed at a second, virtual, workshop. The core research team and advisory board further revised the consensus statement and recirculated it asking panellists for further comments. This iterative process resulted in seven final statement items; all participants have confirmed that they agreed with the content, objectives and recommendations of the final statement.
CONCLUSIONS: The statement can be used to assist those that design, deliver and evaluate SBIs by providing guidance on: (1) minimum levels of competence for those designing and delivering SBIs; (2) the design and delivery of inclusive programmes prioritising disadvantaged groups; and (3) evaluation measures which are carefully calibrated both to capture proposed programme outcomes and to advance an understanding of the systems, processes and experiences of sport engagement in prison.
DESIGN: Modified Delphi using two rounds of survey questionnaires and two consensus workshops.
PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary panel of more than 40 experts from 15 international jurisdictions was formed, including representation from the following groups and stakeholders: professionals working in the justice system; officials from sport federations and organisations; academics with research experience of prisons, secure forensic mental health settings and SBIs; and policy-makers in criminal justice and sport.
RESULTS: A core research team and advisory board developed the initial rationale, statement and survey. This survey produced qualitative data which was analysed thematically. The findings were presented at an in-person workshop. Panellists discussed the findings, and, using a modified nominal group technique, reached a consensus on objectives to be included in a revised statement. The core research team and advisory board revised the statement and recirculated it with a second survey. Findings from the second survey were discussed at a second, virtual, workshop. The core research team and advisory board further revised the consensus statement and recirculated it asking panellists for further comments. This iterative process resulted in seven final statement items; all participants have confirmed that they agreed with the content, objectives and recommendations of the final statement.
CONCLUSIONS: The statement can be used to assist those that design, deliver and evaluate SBIs by providing guidance on: (1) minimum levels of competence for those designing and delivering SBIs; (2) the design and delivery of inclusive programmes prioritising disadvantaged groups; and (3) evaluation measures which are carefully calibrated both to capture proposed programme outcomes and to advance an understanding of the systems, processes and experiences of sport engagement in prison.