Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2021
Using linked administrative data to determine the prevalence of intellectual disability in adult prison in New South Wales, Australia.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Trofimovs J, Dowse L, Srasuebkul P, Trollor J N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Studies of the representation of people with intellectual disability (ID) in custody report widely inconsistent findings that reflect variation in how ID is defined and the methods employed for identification. Using linked administrative data may be of utility in studies of the representation of people with ID in custody. However, this approach requires an understanding of the purpose of and factors influencing identification in disparate administrative datasets.
METHODS: This study uses linked administrative data encompassing disability, health and corrections data for the year 2014 to estimate the prevalence of ID in adult custody and explore how ID representation within administrative data impacts prevalence estimates and what patterns of identification reveal about support service access for this group.
RESULTS: This study finds that 4.3% of the New South Wales adult custody population had an identified ID. Prisoners with ID were younger, more likely to have had a previous custodial episode and more likely to be Indigenous than the general prison population. Identification of ID across linked administrative datasets is uneven, which, if used in isolation, would result in variation in prevalence estimates according to source data.
CONCLUSIONS: The utilisation of linkage data from a broad range of health and support services including custody offers a comprehensive identification methodology. Inconsistency in the identification of ID across datasets indicates a potential disjuncture between prisoners with ID and support services, which may have relevance for efforts to reduce reincarceration of those in this population.
METHODS: This study uses linked administrative data encompassing disability, health and corrections data for the year 2014 to estimate the prevalence of ID in adult custody and explore how ID representation within administrative data impacts prevalence estimates and what patterns of identification reveal about support service access for this group.
RESULTS: This study finds that 4.3% of the New South Wales adult custody population had an identified ID. Prisoners with ID were younger, more likely to have had a previous custodial episode and more likely to be Indigenous than the general prison population. Identification of ID across linked administrative datasets is uneven, which, if used in isolation, would result in variation in prevalence estimates according to source data.
CONCLUSIONS: The utilisation of linkage data from a broad range of health and support services including custody offers a comprehensive identification methodology. Inconsistency in the identification of ID across datasets indicates a potential disjuncture between prisoners with ID and support services, which may have relevance for efforts to reduce reincarceration of those in this population.