Psychological health and safety of criminal justice workers: a scoping review of strategies and supporting research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: People working in the criminal justice system face substantial occupational stressors due to their roles involving high-risk situations, trauma exposure, heavy workloads, and responsibility for public safety. Consequently, they have a higher prevalence of mental health problems than the general population. Employees identifying as women, Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual, and all others (2SLGBTQIA+), or Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), may experience additional stressors due to discrimination, harassment, and systemic barriers to seeking and receiving support. Psychoeducational and psychosocial programs have shown mixed effectiveness for preventing or reducing occupational stress, emphasizing the urgent need for multi-level, comprehensive, system-wide approaches. This scoping review aimed to capture and consolidate recommendations from strategies, frameworks, and guidelines on supporting the psychological health of criminal justice workers. RESULTS: The scoping review of 65 grey and 85 academic literature records presents recommendations aimed at improving the psychological health and safety of criminal justice system workers. Findings were mapped by occupational groups to the Social-Ecological Model and accounted for factors across the individual, interpersonal, institutional, and policy levels. The most common recommendation across all criminal justice occupational groups was workplace mental health training to reduce stigma, encourage help-seeking, prepare workers for traumatic incidents, and promote culturally responsive approaches. At the individual level, physical health, healthy lifestyle choices, and coping strategies were widely recommended. Interpersonal interventions, including peer support and models emphasizing wraparound care, were also recommended. Institutional factors such as fair workloads, safe working conditions, and harassment-free workplaces were emphasized. At the policy level, presumptive coverage policies and adequate funding for staffing needs were highlighted. CONCLUSION: This scoping review captured intersecting strategies and recommendations, consisting primarily of individual- and institutional-level supports and services. Fewer records discussed the need to address structural and policy considerations such as labor shortages, patchy mental health benefits, underfunding, and discrimination. The review highlights the need for shared responsibility across different levels, providing a framework for improving the psychological health and safety of criminal justice workers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».