ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2021
Multiagency programs with police as a partner for reducing radicalisation to violence.
Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol: Deterrence-Oriented Counterterrorism Interventions in OECD Countries for Domestic Terrorist Attacks: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Assessment of Selective Reporting Biases in Studies Included in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Non-Criminal Justice Interventions for Countering Cognitive and Behavioural Radicalisation Amongst Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Implementation: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Review
- Protocol: Interventions to Prevent Cognitive and Behavioural Violent Radicalisation: A Systematic Review and Multilevel Meta-Analysis: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Article
- PROTOCOL: Non-criminal justice interventions for countering cognitive and behavioural radicalisation amongst children and adolescents: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Article
- PROTOCOL: Risk and protective factors for child sexual abuse and interventions against child sexual abuse: An umbrella review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Update on Campbell's Countering Violent Extremism programme.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Case management interventions seeking to counter radicalisation to violence and related forms of violence: A systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Review
- Criminal justice interventions for preventing radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism: An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2023Article
- PROTOCOL: Case management interventions seeking to counter radicalisation to violence: A systematic review of tools and approaches.Campbell systematic reviews · 2023Article
- PROTOCOL: Criminal justice interventions for preventing terrorism and radicalisation: An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Getting evidence into use: The experience of the Campbell Collaboration.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Multiagency programs with police as a partner for reducing radicalisation to violence.Campbell systematic reviews · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: 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: 1.Synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of police-involved multiagency interventions on radicalisation or multiagency collaboration 2.Qualitatively synthesise information about Search Methods: 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: 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: 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: One study examined the impact on vulnerability to radicalisation, using a quasi-experimental matched comparison group design and surveys of volunteers ( Authors' Conclusions: 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.
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.