Médiation pénale en justice réparatrice en vue de réduire la récidive chez les jeunes délinquants (âgés de 7 à 21 ans)
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008898.pub2Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 28 febrero 2013see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Problemas de desarrollo, psicosociales y de aprendizaje
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
All three authors contributed to the development of this review. Livingstone conducted the literature searches in collaboration with the CDPLPG Trials Search Co‐ordinator. Livingstone, Macdonald and Carr all screened the results for eligibility. Livingstone and Carr extracted data independently and entered data into a piloted data extraction form. Livingstone and Carr assessed each study for risk of bias. Livingstone conducted the meta‐analyses. Livingstone, Macdonald and Carr contributed to the write‐up of the review.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
Queen's University Belfast, UK
External sources
-
The Atlantic Philanthropies, USA
Declarations of interest
Nuala Livingstone ‐ none known
Geraldine Macdonald ‐ none known
Nicola Carr ‐ none known
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful for the invaluable support and advice provided to us by the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group (CDPLPG), in particular, the Managing Editor (Laura MacDonald) and the Trials Search Co‐ordinator (Margaret Anderson). We would like to thank all the authors who responded to us and particularly to those of included studies who took the time to provide us with additional data. We would also like to thank all the statisticians who responded to our requests for advice, including Prof Doug Altman, Prof Steve Higgins and Dr Mark McCann.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2013 Feb 28 | Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21) | Review | Nuala Livingstone, Geraldine Macdonald, Nicola Carr | |
| 2010 Dec 08 | Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders | Protocol | Nuala Livingstone, Geraldine Macdonald, Nicola Carr | |
Differences between protocol and review
The background section of the review, specifically the section "How the intervention might work" has been amended, to further clarify how the outcomes of this review are based on a Reintegrative Shaming Theory model.
ChildData (incorrectly listed as CareData in the original protocol) failed to work reliably on any of the initial or follow‐up search attempts. Therefore, the review authors in consultation with the Trials Search Co‐ordinator agreed to refrain from further attempts at searching this database.
A post‐protocol decision was made to search two trials registers for potential included studies: ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal.
A post‐protocol decision was made to change the primary outcome "Young person's self‐esteem following conference" to three separate secondary outcomes, specifically "young person's sense of remorse", "young person's recognition of wrongdoing" and "young person's self‐perception". It was accepted that each of these sub‐outcomes are measuring three different constructs and as such, are better considered separately, rather than as one global measure of "self‐esteem". By considering each outcomes separately, the review is better able to capture some of the core aims of a restorative justice intervention, specifically to encourage young people to acknowledge their wrongdoing and to demonstrate remorse for their actions.
Although in the original protocol, the intention was to conduct separate analyses for 12‐ and 24‐month follow‐ups, a post‐hoc decision was made to combine all data at the furthest end point, thus allowing the Bethlehem Experiment and the Indianapolis Experiment to be combined in a meta‐analysis.
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Adolescent; Child; Humans; Young Adult;
PICO
Study flow diagram
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Comparison 1: Recidivism, Outcome 1: Number reoffending
Comparison 1: Recidivism, Outcome 2: Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)
Comparison 2: Recidivism without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Number reoffending
Comparison 2: Recidivism without cluster adjustment, Outcome 2: Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)
Comparison 3: Recidivism without imputed data or cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Number reoffending
Comparison 4: Recidivism (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Number reoffending
Comparison 5: Recidivism (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Number reoffending
Comparison 6: Recidivism (without decline group), Outcome 1: Number reoffending
Comparison 7: Recidivism (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Number reoffending
Comparison 7: Recidivism (fixed‐effect), Outcome 2: Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence)
Comparison 8: Young person's sense of remorse, Outcome 1: Remorse
Comparison 9: Young person's sense of remorse without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Remorse
Comparison 10: Young person's sense of remorse without imputed data of cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Remorse
Comparison 11: Young person's sense of remorse (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Remorse
Comparison 12: Young person's sense of remorse (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment), Outcome 1: Remorse
Comparison 13: Young person's sense of remorse (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Remorse
Comparison 14: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing, Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
Comparison 15: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
Comparison 16: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing without imputed data or cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
Comparison 17: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
Comparison 18: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
Comparison 19: Young person's recognition of wrongdoing (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Recognition of wrongdoing
Comparison 20: Young person's self‐perception, Outcome 1: Self‐perception
Comparison 21: Young person's self‐perception without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Self‐perception
Comparison 22: Young person's self‐perception without imputed data or cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Self‐perception
Comparison 23: Young person's self‐perception (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Self‐perception
Comparison 24: Young person's self‐perception (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Self‐perception
Comparison 25: Young person's self‐perception (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Self‐perception
Comparison 26: Young person's satisfaction with overall process, Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
Comparison 27: Young person's satisfaction without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
Comparison 28: Young person's satisfaction without imputed data or cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
Comparison 29: Young person's satisfaction (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
Comparison 30: Young person's satisfaction (imputing positive outcome) without cluster adjustment, Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
Comparison 31: Young person's satisfaction (without decline group), Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
Comparison 32: Young person's satisfaction (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Young offender satisfaction
Comparison 33: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process, Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
Comparison 34: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction without imputed data, Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
Comparison 35: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction (imputing positive outcome), Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
Comparison 36: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction (without decline group), Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
Comparison 37: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction (fixed‐effect), Outcome 1: Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process
| Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient or population: Offenders aged 7 to 21 years | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of Participants | Quality of the evidence | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Restorative justice conference | |||||
| Number reoffending | Study population | OR 1 | 1029 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ||
| 518 per 1000 | 518 per 1000 | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 482 per 1000 | 482 per 1000 | |||||
| Post‐intervention monthly offending rate (any offence) | The mean post‐intervention monthly offending rate (any offence) ranged across control groups from | The mean post‐intervention monthly offending rate (any offence) in the intervention groups was | 321 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | SMD ‐0.06 (‐0.28 to 0.16) | |
| Remorse | Study population | OR 1.73 | 217 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ||
| 452 per 1000 | 588 per 1000 | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 448 per 1000 | 584 per 1000 | |||||
| Recognition of wrongdoing | Study population | OR 1.97 | 217 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ||
| 548 per 1000 | 705 per 1000 | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 539 per 1000 | 697 per 1000 | |||||
| Self‐perception | Study population | OR 0.95 | 217 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ||
| 478 per 1000 | 465 per 1000 | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 467 per 1000 | 454 per 1000 | |||||
| Young offender satisfaction | Study population | OR 0.42 | 467 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ||
| 836 per 1000 | 682 per 1000 | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 791 per 1000 | 614 per 1000 | |||||
| Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process | Study population | OR 4.03 | 428 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ | ||
| 690 per 1000 | 900 per 1000 | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 640 per 1000 | 878 per 1000 | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | ||||||
| 1 Random allocation procedures were adequate. However, the risk of bias due to absence of blinding procedures and self‐selection was high | ||||||
| Issue | Method |
|---|---|
| Objectives | If future updates identify studies with sufficient information, we will address the second objective of this review, viz: To explore process and implementation issues in relation to programme effects on recidivism and improving participants' self‐concept. |
| Outcomes | Attention must be paid to recidivism rates that reflect crimes committed prior to the intervention, but for which judicial proceedings have only begun after the intervention. Care will be taken to ensure that these rates are not falsely reflected as post‐intervention offending. |
| Cluster‐randomised trials | If insufficient information is available to control for clustering, we will enter data into RevMan using individuals as the unit of analyses. We will then perform sensitivity analyses to assess the potential bias that may occur as a result of the inadequately controlled clustered trials. We would also perform sensitivity analyses if the ICCs had been obtained from external sources. |
| Studies with multiple intervention groups
| If two or more interventions groups are compared to an eligible control group, the intervention group that most closely follows the previously outlined definition of a restorative justice conference will be included in the meta‐analysis. The decisions made during this process will be clearly outlined in the review. Some studies may also include more than one control group, who undergo different yet equally eligible forms of "management as usual". In this situation, the control groups will be combined to create a single pair‐wise comparison. If this strategy poses a problem for investigation of heterogeneity, each group would be compared separately as part of a subgroup analyses. The sample size for the shared comparator group will be split accordingly for subgroup analyses to prevent the same comparator participants being included twice (Higgins 2011). |
| Dealing with missing data | Data that are missing at random (due, for example, to postal disruptions) can be ignored as the reasons are unlikely to be related to the outcomes of the missing data. In this case, we will analyse data using an available case analysis. Where continuous data are missing, we will impute data using a 'last observation carried forward' approach. Where cases are missing from the first outcome measure, sample means values will be imputed. |
| Assessment of heterogeneity | Future updates will describe the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies, as done in this review. If unexpected variability arises, it will be discussed in full. |
| Assessment of reporting biases | When sufficient studies are available for inclusion in this review, we will assess publication and other reporting biases through the use of visual inspection of funnel plots along with trim and fill analyses. |
| Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity | If the number of included studies is sufficient, subgroup analyses will be used to examine:
|
| Sensitivity analysis | We will perform sensitivity analysis to assess whether the findings of this review are robust to the decisions made in the process of obtaining them. When the data permit, we will perform sensitivity analysis by reanalysis, excluding studies according to study quality issues, including those with low sample size, high risk of bias, or high attrition and dropout rate, and whether randomisation occurred pre‐charge, post‐charge but pre‐sentencing, or post‐sentencing, and before or after agreement to participate in the study. |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1.1 Number reoffending Show forest plot | 2 | 1029 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.00 [0.59, 1.71] |
| 1.2 Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence) Show forest plot | 2 | 321 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.28, 0.16] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 2.1 Number reoffending Show forest plot | 2 | 1074 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.01 [0.59, 1.73] |
| 2.2 Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence) Show forest plot | 2 | 373 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.26, 0.15] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 3.1 Number reoffending Show forest plot | 2 | 1004 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.06 [0.55, 2.07] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 4.1 Number reoffending Show forest plot | 2 | 1029 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.01 [0.56, 1.80] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 5.1 Number reoffending Show forest plot | 2 | 1074 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.03 [0.56, 1.89] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 6.1 Number reoffending Show forest plot | 2 | 937 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.81 [0.63, 1.05] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 7.1 Number reoffending Show forest plot | 2 | 1029 | Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.90 [0.70, 1.15] |
| 7.2 Post intervention monthly offending rate (any offence) Show forest plot | 2 | 321 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.28, 0.16] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 8.1 Remorse Show forest plot | 2 | 217 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.73 [0.97, 3.10] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 9.1 Remorse Show forest plot | 2 | 250 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.69 [0.98, 2.93] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 10.1 Remorse Show forest plot | 2 | 186 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.72 [0.91, 3.24] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 11.1 Remorse Show forest plot | 2 | 217 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.56 [0.81, 2.98] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 12.1 Remorse Show forest plot | 2 | 250 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.97 [0.41, 2.32] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 13.1 Remorse Show forest plot | 2 | 217 | Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.72 [1.00, 2.95] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 14.1 Recognition of wrongdoing Show forest plot | 2 | 217 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.97 [0.81, 4.80] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 15.1 Recognition of wrongdoing Show forest plot | 2 | 250 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.85 [0.77, 4.47] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 16.1 Recognition of wrongdoing Show forest plot | 2 | 186 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 2.15 [0.87, 5.35] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 17.1 Recognition of wrongdoing Show forest plot | 2 | 217 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.92 [0.82, 4.52] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 18.1 Recognition of wrongdoing Show forest plot | 2 | 250 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.85 [0.85, 4.05] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 19.1 Recognition of wrongdoing Show forest plot | 2 | 217 | Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) | 1.87 [1.06, 3.28] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 20.1 Self‐perception Show forest plot | 2 | 217 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.95 [0.55, 1.63] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 21.1 Self‐perception Show forest plot | 2 | 250 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.94 [0.57, 1.55] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 22.1 Self‐perception Show forest plot | 2 | 186 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.25 [0.65, 2.39] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 23.1 Self‐perception Show forest plot | 2 | 217 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.32 [0.68, 2.55] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 24.1 Self‐perception Show forest plot | 2 | 250 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.34 [0.73, 2.49] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 25.1 Self‐perception Show forest plot | 2 | 217 | Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.95 [0.55, 1.63] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 26.1 Young offender satisfaction Show forest plot | 2 | 467 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.42 [0.05, 3.81] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 27.1 Young offender satisfaction Show forest plot | 2 | 503 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.42 [0.05, 3.81] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 28.1 Young offender satisfaction Show forest plot | 2 | 425 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.25 [0.06, 1.08] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 29.1 Young offender satisfaction Show forest plot | 2 | 467 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.16 [0.05, 0.55] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 30.1 Young offender satisfaction Show forest plot | 2 | 503 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [0.06, 0.96] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 31.1 Young offender satisfaction Show forest plot | 2 | 408 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.63 [0.03, 13.49] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 32.1 Young offender satisfaction Show forest plot | 2 | 467 | Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) | 0.85 [0.49, 1.49] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 33.1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process Show forest plot | 2 | 428 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 4.03 [0.59, 27.75] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 34.1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process Show forest plot | 2 | 369 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 4.33 [0.66, 28.43] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 35.1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process Show forest plot | 2 | 428 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 3.95 [0.50, 30.90] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 36.1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process Show forest plot | 2 | 370 | Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 6.22 [2.31, 16.74] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 37.1 Victim/key stakeholder satisfaction with overall process Show forest plot | 2 | 428 | Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) | 2.45 [1.39, 4.30] |
