Exploring Reasons for Non-Engagement From a Peer-Led Diversionary Intervention for Veterans in Police Custody
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UK veterans with complex needs arrested in police custody can access support through pre-charge diversion into treatment and ancillary services. We consider why veterans in police custody disengaged from a peer-led criminal justice diversionary support service in one UK region that adopted a continuous case management approach. Seven hundred and fifty-seven veterans were assessed to have high levels of comorbid health needs and socio-economic harms, with one-quarter (26.7%, n = 202) subsequently disengaging from the service. A logistic regression model using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations identified that veterans of a younger age, no-fixed-abode, a history of incarceration, and those from a Royal Navy background were likelier to disengage from the intervention. We conclude that this peer-based diversionary model has some efficacy in maintaining the engagement of a highly complex, comorbid segment of criminally-justice-exposed UK military veterans. The perceived benefits of an integrated peer-based model predicated on continuous case-management techniques are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".