SynthesisJournal of intellectual disability research : JIDR2025
Judging Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities: Systematic Review of Criminal Justice System Professionals' Expressed Views and Attitudes Towards Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities.
Synthesis in Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Judging Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities: Systematic Review of Criminal Justice System Professionals' Expressed Views and Attitudes Towards Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of an intellectual disability is suggested to have particularly stigmatising connotations, particularly within the criminal justice system (CJS). This paper aims to synthesise qualitative studies investigating the attitudes of CJS professionals to people with intellectual disabilities (PWID), specifically offenders with intellectual disabilities, and to appraise their methodological quality.
methodsA systematic search was conducted using PsychINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete and EThOS databases. Articles were screened for inclusion by title, abstract and full text to ensure predefined inclusion criteria were met. Individual study quality was rated using the 10-item Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, with the addition of an eleventh item to capture included studies' theoretical underpinnings and optimise the value of the quality appraisal. Thematic synthesis was then used to explore and synthesise the findings of the included studies.
resultsTen papers were included in the review, spanning 766 participants. Studies included utilised mixed methods surveys (n = 3), qualitative surveys (n = 1), semistructured interviews (n = 3), semistructured focus groups (n = 1), unstructured interviews (n = 1) and secondary analysis of previously collected research data (n = 1). Methodological quality was broadly of a high standard; however, all included papers failed to reflect on the relationship between the researchers and participants. Five themes were identified: conflating diagnoses, perceptions of PWID as offenders, procedural issues affecting PWID, development and maintenance of perceptions, and impact of training.
conclusionsThis review highlights pervasive negative perceptions of offenders with intellectual disabilities within CJS staff groups. Clinician- and system-level factors are considered in the development and maintenance of such attitudes and suggestions made for improving CJS staff perceptions and knowledge of offenders with intellectual disabilities.
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.