Multiagency programs with police as a partner for reducing radicalisation to violence.
Journal
Campbell systematic reviews
ISSN: 1891-1803
Titre abrégé: Campbell Syst Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918227275506676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
medline:
5
5
2021
pubmed:
5
5
2021
entrez:
3
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Multiagency responses to reduce radicalisation often involve collaborations between police, government, nongovernment, business and/or community organisations. The complexities of radicalisation suggest it is impossible for any single agency to address the problem alone. Police-involved multiagency partnerships may disrupt pathways from radicalisation to violence by addressing multiple risk factors in a coordinated manner. 1.Synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of police-involved multiagency interventions on radicalisation or multiagency collaboration 2.Qualitatively synthesise information about Terrorism-related terms were used to search the Global Policing Database, terrorism/counterterrorism websites and repositories, and relevant journals for published and unpublished evaluations conducted 2002-2018. The search was conducted November 2019. Expert consultation, reference harvesting and forward citation searching was conducted November 2020. Eligible studies needed to report an intervention where police partnered with at least one other agency and explicitly aimed to address terrorism, violent extremism or radicalisation. Objective 1 eligible outcomes included violent extremism, radicalisation and/or terrorism, and multiagency collaboration. Only impact evaluations using experimental or robust quasi-experimental designs were eligible. Objective 2 placed no limits on outcomes. Studies needed to report an empirical assessment of an eligible intervention and provide data on mechanisms, moderators, implementation or economic considerations. The search identified 7384 records. Systematic screening identified 181 studies, of which five were eligible for Objective 1 and 26 for Objective 2. Effectiveness studies could not be meta-analysed, so were summarised and effect size data reported. Studies for Objective 2 were narratively synthesised by mechanisms, moderators, implementation, and economic considerations. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, EPHPP, EMMIE and CASP checklists. One study examined the impact on vulnerability to radicalisation, using a quasi-experimental matched comparison group design and surveys of volunteers ( A limited number of effectiveness studies were identified, and none evaluated the impact on at-risk or radicalised individuals. More investment needs to be made in robust evaluation across a broader range of interventions.Qualitative synthesis suggests that collaboration may be enhanced when partners take time to build trust and shared goals, staff are not overburdened with administration, there are strong privacy provisions for intelligence sharing, and there is ongoing support and training.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Multiagency responses to reduce radicalisation often involve collaborations between police, government, nongovernment, business and/or community organisations. The complexities of radicalisation suggest it is impossible for any single agency to address the problem alone. Police-involved multiagency partnerships may disrupt pathways from radicalisation to violence by addressing multiple risk factors in a coordinated manner.
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
1.Synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of police-involved multiagency interventions on radicalisation or multiagency collaboration 2.Qualitatively synthesise information about
Search Methods
UNASSIGNED
Terrorism-related terms were used to search the Global Policing Database, terrorism/counterterrorism websites and repositories, and relevant journals for published and unpublished evaluations conducted 2002-2018. The search was conducted November 2019. Expert consultation, reference harvesting and forward citation searching was conducted November 2020.
Selection Criteria
UNASSIGNED
Eligible studies needed to report an intervention where police partnered with at least one other agency and explicitly aimed to address terrorism, violent extremism or radicalisation. Objective 1 eligible outcomes included violent extremism, radicalisation and/or terrorism, and multiagency collaboration. Only impact evaluations using experimental or robust quasi-experimental designs were eligible. Objective 2 placed no limits on outcomes. Studies needed to report an empirical assessment of an eligible intervention and provide data on mechanisms, moderators, implementation or economic considerations.
Data Collection and Analysis
UNASSIGNED
The search identified 7384 records. Systematic screening identified 181 studies, of which five were eligible for Objective 1 and 26 for Objective 2. Effectiveness studies could not be meta-analysed, so were summarised and effect size data reported. Studies for Objective 2 were narratively synthesised by mechanisms, moderators, implementation, and economic considerations. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, EPHPP, EMMIE and CASP checklists.
Results
UNASSIGNED
One study examined the impact on vulnerability to radicalisation, using a quasi-experimental matched comparison group design and surveys of volunteers (
Authors' Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
A limited number of effectiveness studies were identified, and none evaluated the impact on at-risk or radicalised individuals. More investment needs to be made in robust evaluation across a broader range of interventions.Qualitative synthesis suggests that collaboration may be enhanced when partners take time to build trust and shared goals, staff are not overburdened with administration, there are strong privacy provisions for intelligence sharing, and there is ongoing support and training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37131922
doi: 10.1002/cl2.1162
pii: CL21162
pmc: PMC8356331
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e1162Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.
Références
J Pers Assess. 2018 Sep-Oct;100(5):483-492
pubmed: 29927673
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Oct 19;26(1):87
pubmed: 30340516
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jan;10(1):45-53
pubmed: 15667704
Biosecur Bioterror. 2014 Mar-Apr;12(2):106-16
pubmed: 24697783
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2003 Sep-Oct;9(5):352-6
pubmed: 15503598
Eur Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;52:1-14
pubmed: 29614388
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Nov;24(11):700-8
pubmed: 26306609
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Mil Med. 2012 Jan;177(1):52-5
pubmed: 22338980
Disasters. 2010 Jul;34(3):755-86
pubmed: 20345465
BMC Med. 2011 Apr 14;9:39
pubmed: 21492447
Int Rev Psychiatry. 2017 Aug;29(4):350-354
pubmed: 28805120
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2005 Nov;Suppl:S95-9
pubmed: 16205551
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005 Spring;21(2):240-5
pubmed: 15921065
Biosecur Bioterror. 2010 Mar;8(1):25-35
pubmed: 20230230
Am J Disaster Med. 2009 Jan-Feb;4(1):49-57
pubmed: 19378669
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;99:41-52
pubmed: 29548841
Am Psychol. 2017 Apr;72(3):278-288
pubmed: 28383980
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010 Sep-Oct;25(5):464-70
pubmed: 21053197