Young people’s experiences of secure care: A synthesis of qualitative research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is a paucity of literature qualitatively exploring adolescents’ experiences in secure care, which is an essential consideration for future service design. We aimed to increase understanding of factors which contribute both positively and negatively to these young people’s experience. Methods A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were identified by searching five online databases in June 2024. The quality and risk of bias of each study meeting inclusion criteria was independently assessed by two authors using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. Results 26 relevant studies were identified. Analysis revealed key themes: relationships/communication with others, rules and regulations, thoughts towards self and perspectives on treatment plans. Effective care appeared linked to supportive, empathetic staff and a balance between regulation and freedom. ’Peer solidarity,’ based on shared experiences, appeared important, fostering trust and friendship. Transition periods, especially to adult services, were identified as disruptive and anxiety-inducing. The importance of personalised care plans and supportive, therapeutic environments was emphasised, though findings varied across settings and age groups. Most papers were of moderate to high quality. Conclusions Our findings offer valuable insights for professionals involved in design of supportive secure care environments tailored to the needs of involved young people. Future research should focus on directly exploring the lived experiences of less explored populations, such as the impact of neurodiversity or living in the developing world, on young people’s experience of secure care. This would ensure a more inclusive range of perspectives shape effective and compassionate care strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".