Objectives

Describe the development, results, and stakeholder perceptions of randomization procedures for determining outcomes of a co-response police-mental health team.

Methods

We present randomization results using the CONSORT diagram and report on three semi-structured focus groups with eight co-response team members, including police officers, mental health clinicians, and program leaders.

Results

Study procedures resulted in randomization of 686 co-response team-eligible calls for service to either receive a co-response team (treatment group, n = 376) or police-as-usual response (control group, n = 310). Focus groups revealed lessons for randomization of a co-response team, including the importance of the researcher-practitioner partnership, considerations for study site selection and staffing, and suggestions to proactively address ethical concerns of randomizing calls for service.

Conclusions

Rigorous evaluation of alternative policing programs is possible through randomization at the call-for-service level, provided researchers and program stakeholders work together to determine feasible procedures.

中文翻译：

---

警察-心理健康小组共同响应的随机对照试验的研究方案和利益相关者的看法

目标

描述用于确定警察-心理健康共同响应小组结果的随机化程序的发展、结果和利益相关者的看法。

方法

我们使用 CONSORT 图呈现随机化结果，并报告由 8 名共同响应团队成员组成的三个半结构化焦点小组，其中包括警察、心理健康临床医生和项目负责人。

结果

研究程序对 686 个符合共同响应小组资格的服务请求进行了随机分组，要么接受共同响应小组（治疗组，n  = 376），要么接受常规警察响应（对照组，n  = 310）。焦点小组揭示了共同响应团队随机化的经验教训，包括研究人员与从业者伙伴关系的重要性、研究地点选择和人员配置的考虑因素，以及主动解决随机化服务呼叫的道德问题的建议。

结论

只要研究人员和项目利益相关者共同努力确定可行的程序，就可以通过服务请求级别的随机化对替代警务项目进行严格评估。