Brief summary of a realist process evaluation of liaison and diversion services for children and young people

Liaison & Diversion (L&D) helps people, at the point of arrest, to access health or social care services. L&D services run across England, for anyone aged 10 and over (all-age model). Some research has shown that L&D is helpful, but the evidence is mixed and much of the research has...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lennox, Charlotte (Autor) ; Smith, Lucy (Autor) ; Hefferman-Clarke, Rebecca (Autor) ; Senior, Jane (Autor) ; Dyer, Wendy (Autor) ; Chitsabesan, Prathiba (Autor) ; Hughes, Nathan 1978- (Autor) ; Shaw, Jenny (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2025
En: The journal of forensic psychiatry & psychology
Año: 2025, Volumen: 36, Número: 5, Páginas: 830-839
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Journals Online & Print:
Gargar...
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway
Palabras clave:
Descripción
Sumario:Liaison & Diversion (L&D) helps people, at the point of arrest, to access health or social care services. L&D services run across England, for anyone aged 10 and over (all-age model). Some research has shown that L&D is helpful, but the evidence is mixed and much of the research has not focused on children. Here, we present a summary of the research and the recommendations presented to NHS England. The study aimed to look at how L&D was delivered for children. Part one was a Rapid Realist Review (RRR) of the literature and undertaking realist interviews with people involved in developing and evaluating L&D. Part two consisted of mixed-methods data collection from six providers of L&D in England to see how L&D works. The RRR identified within the literature seven programme theories (procedural justice, child-centred approach, trauma informed approach, non-labelling, trained workforce, coordinated response and partnership working). The process evaluation showed that delivery was variable and limited by resources, which contributed to gaps in provision and the L&D model was not always working for children and in particular some children, e.g. those already known to services. A series of short- and long-term recommendations were highlighted.
ISSN:1478-9957
DOI:10.1080/14789949.2025.2536259