BackgroundThis paper reports how we used a realist review, as part of a wider project to improve collaborative mental health care for prisoners with common mental health problems, to develop a conceptual platform. The importance of offenders gaining support for their mental health, and the need for practitioners across the health service, the criminal justice system, and the third sector to work together to achieve this is recognised internationally. However, the literature does not provide coherent analyses of how these ambitions can be achieved. This paper demonstrates how a realist review can be applied to inform complex intervention development that spans different locations, organisations, professions, and care sectors.MethodsWe applied and developed a realist review for the purposes of intervention development, using a three-stage process. (1) An iterative database search strategy (extending beyond criminal justice and offender health) and groups of academics, practitioners, and people with lived experience were used to identify explanatory accounts (n = 347). (2) From these accounts, we developed consolidated explanatory accounts (n = 75). (3) The identified interactions between practitioners and offenders (within their organisational, social, and cultural contexts) were specified in a conceptual platform. We also specify, step by step, how these explanatory accounts were documented, consolidated, and built into a conceptual platform. This addresses an important methodological gap for social scientists and intervention developers about how to develop and articulate programme and implementation theory underpinning complex interventions.ResultsAn integrated person-centred system is proposed to improve collaborative mental health care for offenders with common mental health problems (near to and after release) by achieving consistency between the goals of different sectors and practitioners, enabling practitioners to apply scientific and experiential knowledge in working judiciously and reflectively, and building systems and aligning resources that are centred on offenders’ health and social care needs.ConclusionsAs part of a broader programme of work, a realist review can make an important contribution to the specification of theoretically informed interventions that have the potential to improve health outcomes. Our conceptual platform has potential application in related systems of health and social care where integrated, and person-centred care is a goal.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0321-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Medical Research Council guidelines recognise the need to optimise complex interventions prior to full trial through greater understanding of underlying theory and formative process evaluation, yet there are few examples. A realist approach to formative process evaluation makes a unique contribution through a focus on theory formalisation and abstraction. The Evaluation 25(2) success of an intervention is dependent on the extent to which it gels or jars with existing provision and can be successfully transferred to new contexts. Interventions with underlying programme theory about how they work, for whom, and under which circumstances will be better able to adapt to work with (rather than against) different services, individuals, and settings. In this methodological article, we describe and illustrate how a realist approach to formative process evaluation develops contextualised intervention theory that can underpin more adaptable and scalable interventions. We discuss challenges and benefits of this approach.

Earlier identification of language difficulties requires routine assessment of young people at risk of engagement in offending behavior. Where language difficulties are identified, holistic assessments of needs should be undertaken. There is a need for speech and language therapy provision within youth justice services, as well as in other services accessed by young people at risk of engagement in offending.

BackgroundThe transition from prison to community is difficult for prisoners with mental illness. Critical time intervention (CTI) is designed to provide intensive support to meet health, social care and resettlement needs through close working between client and key worker pre, and up to 6 weeks post, release.ObjectivesTo establish whether or not CTI is effective in (1) improving engagement of discharged male prisoners who have mental illness with community mental health teams (CMHTs) and (2) providing practical support with housing, finance and re-establishing social networks.Trial designA multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with follow-up at 6 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A subset of prisoners and case managers participated in a complementary qualitative study.SettingEight English prisons.ParticipantsOne hundred and fifty adult male prisoners, convicted or remanded, cared for by mental health in-reach teams and diagnosed with severe mental illness, with a discharge date within 6 months of the point of recruitment.InterventionParticipants were randomised to either the intervention or the control (treatment as usual). The intervention group was assigned a case manager who assessed mental and physical health before and following release, made appropriate links to health, housing and financial services and supported the re-establishment of family/peer contact.OutcomeThe primary outcome measure was engagement with a CMHT 6 weeks post discharge. Secondary outcomes included contact with mental health services at 6 and 12 months. A health economic evaluation was undertaken using service contact at the follow-up time points. We were unable to assess the intervention’s effect on reoffending and longer-term health-care use because of study delays.ResultsOne hundred and fifty prisoners were recruited: 72 were randomised to the intervention and 78 were randomised to the control. Engagement with teams at 6 weeks was 53% for the intervention group compared with 27% for the control group [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13% to 0.78%;p = 0.012]. At 6 months’ follow-up, intervention participants showed continued increase in engagement with teams compared with control participants (95% CI 0.12% to 0.89%;p = 0.029); there were no significant differences at 12 months. Increased engagement resulted in higher levels of service use and costs for the intervention than for the control. Qualitative data showed the intervention group reporting better continuity of care and improved access to services.ConclusionThe intervention significantly improved contact with services at 6 weeks, although at a higher cost than the control. This is important as, in the days and weeks following release, recently released individuals are at a particularly high risk of suicide and drug overdose. Further research is required to establish how teams can better maintain contact with clients when the intervention ends.Future workFurther studies are indicated for groups with different needs, for example women, young prisoners and those in police custody, and at other transition points, for example following arrest and short-term custody, and at points of transition between different mental health services.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN98067793.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 5, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.