Cross-agency working when conducting a pragmatic RCT for older victims of crime: our experiences and lessons learned.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101263253 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1745-6215 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17456215 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Trials Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: [London] : BioMed Central, 2006-

Crime Victims*/psychology ; Police*; Humans ; Aged ; Female ; Male ; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/methods ; Age Factors

Background: With the population ageing, more victims of community crime are likely to be older adults. The psychological impact of crime on older victims is significant and sustained, but only feasibility trials have been published regarding potential interventions. The integration of public health and care services and cross-agency working is recommended, but there is little information on how this should be undertaken. Our recent Victim Improvement Package (VIP) randomised controlled trial (RCT) involved cross-agency collaboration between our university, a police service and a mental health charity. However, as the VIP trial only managed to recruit 131 out of 226 participants, we hope our reflections will help those wishing to conduct research in this population.
Methods: The trial management group (authors) and partners organisations identified the challenges and lessons learned from conducting the VIP trial in which the police identified and screened victims of reported community crime, aged 65 years or over, for distress. In the VIP trial, three screening methods were used: (1) visits by safer neighbourhood teams (SNTs), (2) police telephone screening and (3) employment of a university researcher embedded within the police service. Staff from the mental health charity were trained to deliver a manualised cognitive-behaviourally informed Victim Improvement Package (VIP) to be compared against treatment as usual (TAU).
Lessons Learned: Factors promoting successful screening included simple IT systems, building rapport with the police and maintaining contact with participants. However, policy and staff changes within the police service and altered public confidence in the police compromised screening. The delivery of therapy was impaired by waiting times, therapist availability and the quality of therapy. Conducting research within an existing busy clinical service was challenging, but the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the acceptability and feasibility of offering online therapy to older victims.
Conclusion: SNT screening was an effective way to identify distressed victims, but service demands question whether it is viable for working police staff and the delivery of the therapy proved challenging in the context of a traditional RCT. Ways in which to strengthen research in this pioneering area of work are discussed.
Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The VIP trial was registered with the University Data Protection Office on the 26th February 2016. The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. All procedures involving human participants were approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee on the 17th March 2016 (6960/001). Signed informed consent was obtained for all participants. The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number is ISRCTN16929670: https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16929670 . Consent for publication: All the authors in this paper consented to publication. We have purposefully maintained anonymity of the services involved in this work. Competing interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
(© 2025. The Author(s).)

Health Expect. 2022 Dec;25(6):2658-2679. (PMID: 36068931)
Behav Cogn Psychother. 2016 Mar;44(2):140-55. (PMID: 25602290)
Behav Res Ther. 2015 May;68:19-26. (PMID: 25791437)
J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 1996 Dec;34(12):20-5. (PMID: 8959586)
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2019 Apr;20(2):197-213. (PMID: 29333999)
Behav Res Ther. 2019 Jun;117:3-17. (PMID: 30527785)
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Oct;167:128-39. (PMID: 27619756)
Am J Public Health. 2017 Aug;107(8):e13-e21. (PMID: 28640686)
Trials. 2020 Apr 16;21(1):333. (PMID: 32299478)
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Mar 6;146(5):317-25. (PMID: 17339617)
Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284-92. (PMID: 14583691)
Br J Community Nurs. 2006 Oct;11(10):414-9. (PMID: 17167354)
Cogn Behav Ther. 2020 Sep;49(5):347-360. (PMID: 32114905)
J Trauma Stress. 2004 Dec;17(6):535-41. (PMID: 15730073)
Transl Behav Med. 2022 Dec 30;12(12):1102-1105. (PMID: 36073770)
J Trauma Stress. 2010 Apr;23(2):198-206. (PMID: 20336674)
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2010 Jul-Aug;32(4):345-59. (PMID: 20633738)
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Dec;66(12):1332-40. (PMID: 19996038)
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023 Dec;24(5):3493-3512. (PMID: 36329564)
Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(2):217-24. (PMID: 21842619)
Int Rev Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;28(5):464-474. (PMID: 27564268)

13/164/32 PHR-NIHR

Keywords: CBT delivery; Impact of crime; Older people; Police screening; RCT

Date Created: 20250115 Date Completed: 20250116 Latest Revision: 20250118

20250118

PMC11734491

10.1186/s13063-024-08680-y

39815345