ArticleCriminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH2022
Supporting young people's cognition and communication in the courtroom: A scoping review of current practices.
Article in Criminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of the narrative elaboration technique and open-ended rapport on accuracy of children's recall according to age.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Supporting young people's cognition and communication in the courtroom: A scoping review of current practices.Criminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA recent meta-analysis suggested that the majority of young people in contact with the criminal justice system have cognitive and/or communication impairments. Over the past 20 years, recognition of these complex needs has resulted in support measures being put in place in courtrooms across the globe. It is therefore timely to review evidence for the efficacy of these measures.
aimsThis scoping review evaluates evidence on support measures employed to facilitate access to court proceedings for individuals with cognition and communication impairments, and considers how this evidence might inform future research and practice.
methodsResearch databases were searched for studies that: directly or indirectly involved a population with a form of functional impairment and/or diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorder; and refer to support delivered to remove barriers or support access to courtroom processes.
resultsSearches identified 3,318 distinct articles. Following review, 37 papers were identified for inclusion. The papers were published between 1993 and 2019, with the majority being published since 2010 (n = 23). The majority of papers were from the United Kingdom (n = 26); other countries represented were Australia (n = 1), Canada (n = 3), New Zealand (n = 2), UK papers don't necessarily state which countries involved (n = 2) Scotland specifically state Scotland only and the United States (n = 3). No papers met the criteria for an experimental research design.
conclusionsWhilst the high level of need in this population is well established, which support measures are most effective in enabling engagement in court processes is not currently clear. More robust evaluative research is therefore required to establish the most effective methods of support. Despite this lack of evidence regarding outcomes, both young people and professionals generally view support measures favourably. There is an increasing onus on professionals to adapt their practice rather than to support/enhance the cognition and communication skills of young people.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.