| Title |
Contextualising health screening risk assessments in police custody suites – qualitative evaluation from the HELP-PC study in London, UK
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5271-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Iain McKinnon, Tracy Finch |
| Abstract |
In the UK, police custody officers have a responsibility to screen for health morbidity and vulnerability among detainees. This study aimed to develop an understanding of the barriers to performing effective health screening in police custody suites, understand the impact of screening tools on practice within the custody suite, and to identify factors that could hinder or facilitate the future implementation of a new screening intervention in this environment. A qualitative study was conducted alongside a quantitative evaluation of a novel screening tool. Qualitative methods included observation of the custody environment, semi-structured interviews with police staff, and elicitation of comments from detainees about their experiences of screening. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) was used to inform data collection and as a framework for higher level analysis of findings. Five overall constructs were identified that develop understanding of the integration of health screening within custody: the workability of risk assessment screening tools; the effect of the custody environment and the people therein; shifts in professional roles and interrelationships amongst staff; cultural responses to risk and liability in police work; how infrastructure, knowledge and skills can impact on detainee safety. Health and risk assessment screening in police custody is a complex and demanding activity which extends beyond the delivery of a screening tool. Professional roles, the demanding environment and police culture impact on the overall process. Recommendations for improved integration of health and risk assessment screening in wider police custody practice are proposed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 27% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 64% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 18% |
| Psychology | 9 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 22 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,308,131
of 23,390,392 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,618
of 15,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,669
of 333,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#91
of 317 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,390,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 317 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.