Dhaliwal R, Harrower J. Reducing prisoner vulnerability and providing a means of empowerment: evaluating the impact of a
listener scheme on the listeners.Br J Forensic Pract2009;11:35–43
Relevant to review questions: 1; possibly 2
Study design: Cross-sectional qualitative study. Qualitative interviews (intervention group only) using interpretative phenomenological analysis
Method of data collection,e.g. 15 semistructured interviews
and two focus groups
50- to 60-minute semistructured interviews. Nine individuals met the inclusion criteria of having been a listener for a minimum of 6 months and seven agreed to take part
Intervention
Nature of the intervention/scheme,e.g. peer counselling Listener (peer listening) scheme: volunteer prisoners are
trained to provide confidential listening support to prisoners who are distressed or vulnerable
Theoretical model (if given) None given
Health or other issue,e.g. self-harm Suicide, self-harm, mental distress
Comparator No comparison group
Setting A Midlands prison (UK)
Peer trainer/facilitator, etc. (who delivered it), e.g. ex-prisoners
Current prisoners. Seven of nine prisoners who had been a
listener for≥6 months agreed to take part. Mean age was
42 years (range 26–60 years). Six were in prison for sexual
offences and one for attempted murder. Participants had been listeners for a mean of 17 months (range
8–34 months)
Definition of peer ‘Listener’ –no definition of peer given
Recruitment of peer trainers/facilitators Prisoners are selected and trained by the Samaritans
Implementation–details about what the scheme involved,
how often it ran, etc.
The Listener scheme was established in 1991 and involves joint working between the prison service and the Samaritans. Very little information is provided on the implementation of the scheme as the paper is evaluating the impact of the scheme on the listeners
Details of training and provider The Samaritans provide the training for prisoners to enable
them to provide a confidential listening support to fellow prisoners in distress or who may be at risk of suicide [Study results: Listeners have requested further in-depth
training to cover‘mental health, suicide, child abuse, drugs,
diversity and new crimes. Participants also requested
opportunities to role-play and to shadow other Listeners’
(p. 41)]
Reward/incentive for peer None reported
(Results section reports benefits such as personal satisfaction and gaining trust with staff, personal growth, changes in attitudes)
Support given/level of supervision Little information was provided around specific support provided for listeners
[Study results: Indication that more support could be provided, especially around suicide with regard to the
feeling of blame for the listener:‘Interviewer: Were you
blaming yourself? Listener: You have to, don’t you, you feel
like you do, and well I did, you know, I’d spent two weeks
talking to him and if I didn’t know he was going to kill
himself you think well you’ve failed’(p. 41)]
When was intervention delivered/prisoner pathway–what
stage intervention takes place, e.g. first night in prison
Not reported
Where was intervention delivered, e.g.cell/education
centre/health centre
In cells (not stated but assumed by reviewer)
Population
Target recipients (who it was aimed at),e.g. age, sex,
length of sentence, health condition, recruitment methods, on remand or sentenced
Vulnerable or distressed prisoners or those at risk of suicide
Individual outcomes for health or determinants of health–
list outcomes, how each was measured (e.g. scale), who measured it and when it was measured; use another form for actual results
Study aimed to explore listeners’own experiences and the
impact on them as individuals. This includes what skills and/ or benefits they acquire from being involved. Themes that emerged provide a coherent framework in which to identify the costs and benefits of Listener schemes for vulnerable prisoners, listeners, prison staff and prison management. Six themes were identified: benefits of being a listener, personal growth, changes, challenges, resilience and needs [Study results: Individual outcomes were reported such as gaining the trust of prison staff, having responsibility,
feeling respected and valued by others–service users,
prison staff and listeners, increase in self-efficacy and self-esteem/confidence. (1) Personal growth: all participants reported developing new skills or enhancing existing skills such as communication, perspective taking, assertiveness, empathy, patience and problem solving; (2) all participants expressed a sense of achievement and personal satisfaction from being a listener; (3) another benefit of being a listener is that it gave some participants the opportunity to gain the trust of officers and service users and have more
responsibility]
Service delivery, organisational outcomes–list outcomes Presents findings in relation to what the prison service can
do to support the scheme
(Study results: Listeners want to be recognised as doing something for the prison. Identified support and training needs will have implications for the resources of prisons and the Samaritans)
Views of the prison population prison stakeholders,
e.g. prison staff, governors–list whose views, if any,
are reported
Not included; only the views of the listeners providing the role within the prison are included in the paper
Costs/economic matters–state whether or not paper
contains any economic information
None (although see above re. increased resource use)
[Study results:‘the potential benefits would seem to far
outweigh the costs, most specifically in relation to the reduction of suicides in prison, and an unforeseenbenefit in relation to the major focus of the correctional system,
support from the prison service.‘The participants wanted longer training sessions to discuss specific topics in depth and how to manage them as a Listener. These topics included mental health, suicide, child abuse, drugs, diversity and new crimes. Participants also requested opportunities
to role-play and to shadow other Listeners’(p. 41). Listener
schemes need to be robust in providing intensive training to listeners which can empower them to manage difficult
situations they encounter.‘The provision of such support
and training inevitably presents a resource issue and has practical implications for both the Samaritans and the Prison
Service’(p. 43)]
Any negative impacts reported?Yes/no, individual/
organisational, etc.
Yes–challenges of being a listener
[Study results: Some negative impacts for the individual are
reported–the demands of the role and it’s impact on
individuals and others such as family membersas well as
emotional impacts.‘. . . demands include long hours, being
approached at any time and any place, dealing with a diverse range of people with assorted problems, observing people self-harm and experiencing burnout. . . . listening to specific topics that may be emotionally distressing . . . . Consequently, . . . some participants had had thoughts
about giving up’)]
Limitations/weaknesses of study–as reported by authors As this is a small-scale study in one prison it has limited
generalisability to the wider population. The authors do not report any limitations
Any other comments This paper looks only at the issues for and impacts on the
listeners, not the recipients. It would have been useful for information to have been provided around implementation and training and who the intervention is delivered to, but this is not the focus of the paper