About this presentation - College of Policing · Reports meeting inclusion criteria & mapped N=25...
18
About this presentation • These slides present interim findings from a review of the evidence undertaken in workshop conditions at Evidence Base Camp 2013/14. • The findings from the review are not exhaustive. Due to time constraints not all available bibliographic databases have been searched, and books and longer reports were excluded from our synthesis sessions. • The findings have not been peer reviewed or quality assured in the same way as a formal research publication. • The College of Policing Research Analysis and Information Unit (RAI) plans to turn this review of the evidence into a full Rapid Evidence Assessment Report in due course.
Transcript of About this presentation - College of Policing · Reports meeting inclusion criteria & mapped N=25...
About this presentation• These slides present interim findings from a review of the evidence undertaken in workshop conditions at Evidence Base Camp 2013/14.
• The findings from the review are not exhaustive. Due to time constraints not all available bibliographic databases have been searched, and books and longer reports were excluded from our synthesis sessions.
• The findings have not been peer reviewed or quality assuredin the same way as a formal research publication.
• The College of Policing Research Analysis and Information Unit (RAI) plans to turn this review of the evidence into a full Rapid Evidence Assessment Report in due course.
What interventions have been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing theft from the person?
Delegates:
Richard Butler - Derbyshire
Frank Pike – College APP
Brendan Goffin – Suffolk
Brian Green – Cheshire
Julia Jones – West Yorkshire
Marj Maccallum – Wiltshire
Delegates:
Rachel Winbow – Dorset
Katherine Wrathrall - Sussex
College of Policing:
Levin Wheller - Research
Shayan Moftizadeh - Research
Ian Macey– National Police Library
How did we answer the question?
• Using a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA)
• REAs follow a systematic process to identify and appraise evidence…
• …but make compromises given available time and resources
• Pragmatic and transparent approach
• Ensure best possible coverage of literature in the time available
The process (in a nutshell)
1. Draft search terms
2. Draft sift criteria
3. Sift received abstracts
4. Request relevant papers
5. Read and ‘grade’ papers
6. Write it up (‘synthesis’)
Developing search terms
What interventions have been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing theft from the person?
Tier Area Synonyms include…
1 Theft from the person Robbery; mugging; dipping; pick pocketing; snatching; theft from person; bag theft; bag snatch; street crime.
2 Prevention or Reduction Prevent; reduce; decrease; fall; stop; deter; divert; decline; eradicate; solve; cut.
3 Intervention Strategy; tactics; activity; initiative; operation; approach.
4 What Works Systematic review; rapid evidence assessment; trial; RCT; experiment; evaluation; effective; assessment; “What works”; impact; success.
Search outcomes
844 potentiallyrelevant studies
identified.
Theft
InterventionPrevention
What Works
Our search identifies studies that mention all
four of our areas: Theft, Prevention, Interventions and
‘What Works’…
Searches find all potentially relevant studies…
Yuan Gang Qiu et al. Profile on circadian blood pressure and the influencing factors in essential hypertensive patients after treatment
Abstract:Non-dippers were defined as those whose nocturnal decrease in mean systolic BP and/or mean diastolic BP was < 10% of the daytime BP. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the correlation between circadian blood pressure profile and factors as gender, age, height, body mass index (BMI), family history of premature cardiovascular disease, women under age 65 or men under age 55, smoking habits, grade of hypertension, and strategyof antihypertensive drugs.
Sifting our abstracts identifies the truly relevantliterature. Sift criteria is used so that we are consistent and transparent in our sifting.
Returned by the theft search…
Sifting – inclusion criteria
Question Answer ActionQ1. Is the paper directly
related to:Theft from a person/individual
No Exclude
Yes Go to Q2
Unclear Exclude
Q2. Does the paper focus on:Interventions to prevent or reduce theft from the person
No Exclude
Yes Go to Q3
Unclear Exclude
Q3. Does the paper include:Empirical data/ methods
No Exclude
Yes Include
Unclear Can’t exclude
Sifting – flow of papers
Searches of online databases and
library catalogueN=844
Papers sifted out: N=762
Reasons for exclusion:• Did not meet sift criteria.
Papers excluded: Total N=57/82
Reasons for exclusion:• Did not meet sift criteria n=31• Language (not English) n=1
Other exclusions:• Publication not available n=11• Duplicates n=4• Hardback n=10
Reports meeting inclusion criteria &
mappedN=25
Abstract and title
screened
N=844
Full text
screened
N=82
Our initial search identified 844 papers, but only 25 (3%) were actually relevant to our research question. Our findings are drawn from these 25 studies that we have reviewed over the last two days.
• We searched the main databases available to the National Police Library• Due to time restrictions, we have not included books and reports in our synthesis• Some longer studies could not be included due to time restrictions.
Synthesis – Mapping the evidence
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010+
Publication Date
Synthesis – Mapping the evidence
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
UK USA Australia Swtizerland Sweden
Country of focus
Synthesis – Mapping the evidence
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Enforcement Geographic Prevention Community/
Partnership
Misc
Intervention Type
Interventions
• Prevention
CCTV
Street lighting
Safe passage
Micro dotting
Chelsea Clips
• Community/Partnership
Drugs
Neighbourhood Policing
Sentencing
• Enforcement
ARB/ Covert/ Plain ClothesPatrolMotorcycleIntensive enforcementRoad Traffic
• GeographicDefensible spaceRedesign of areasCurbing traffic/ cul-de-
sacs
What does ‘good’ or ‘robust’ evidence look like?
Systematic Reviews(Based on level 3-5 studies)
5 Randomised controlled trials
4Before/after measures
Multiple site comparisons
3Before/after measuresTwo site comparisons
2Before/after measures
No comparison site
1One-off measure
No comparison site
Study designs increasingly rule out potential alternative causes
Statements about ‘what works’
Statements about ‘what’s promising’
Study designs cannot rule out potential alternative causes
Statements about possible impact
Synthesis – Quality of evidence
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Systematic
Review
Number of studies
What Works There is no clear evidence to show ‘what works’ in reducing/ preventing theft from the person
What’s Promising
There is promising evidence to suggest use of defensible space at ATMs can lead to large reductions in theft from the person (based on one study in Manchester).
One study from Birmingham found that moving market stalls further apart had an impact in reducing theft from person.
What’s Unknown CCTV – mixed evidence from four studies – balance of evidence suggests this is a promising approach but confounding factors make it hard to be definitive.
Street lighting – mixed evidence, not entirely consistent. Many studies from the 1970s and in the US.
Drugs – one study from Switzerland found a Heroin prescription scheme helped reduce muggings.
Aggressive traffic enforcement – findings were inconclusive. Neighbourhood policing/ engagement – short term impacts but inconclusive longer term findings – further studies required.
What Doesn’t Work
Safe passage – no impact and may have caused displacement of crime.
Sentencing – no deterrence impact was identified.
What’s Harmful There was no evidence to identify harmful approaches to treating theft from the person. One study from Sweden found an increase in fear of crime from media campaigns.
Key messages
• Studies tend not to distinguish between theft from person, robberies, and muggings. American/ UK definition of robbery is possibly different.
• Theft is not the main focus of a number of the studies – acts as a measure for success of other interventions, e.g. CCTV.
• Almost half of studies were published in the 1970s. These papers tend to focus on robbery rather than theft from person. Only seven studies were published after 2000.
• Almost two-thirds of studies were focussed on the USA. Six were focussed on the UK.
• Half of the studies identified were ‘level 2’ on the Maryland Scale. Of the higher-scoring studies, many had problems with their design or implementation that make strong conclusions difficult.
• The most promising approaches appear to be around geographic interventions such as defensible space and redesigning the layout of market stalls. However the evidence to support these is limited.
• More research is needed in all areas.
• We identified one systematic review from 2011, but this only cites five studies.
What interventions have been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing theft from the person?
Next steps???
• Problem identification is a big issue – a risk assessment/ risk profile of theft in each force would be useful. What type of theft is the main problem and where?
• More collaboration between forces and academics/ Universities to ensure research does what the service needs it to!
• Better collation and evaluation of work going on in forces and tapping in to existing organisational knowledge
– POLKA
– Intelligence requirements to all forces
– Crime prevention tips – test them! (e.g. Bells!)
– What can we learn from the private sector?
• Further research on interventions with a limited evidence base– Piloting of approaches from other countries
– Set up an RCT or two!
What interventions have been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing theft from the person?
