Developing best practice principles for the provision of programs and services to people transitioning from custody to the community: study protocol for a modified Delphi consensus exercise.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of standard nomenclature and a limited understanding of programmes and services delivered to people in prisons as they transition into the community to support their integration and reduce reoffending related risk factors. The aim of this paper is to outline the protocol for a modified Delphi study designed to develop expert consensus on the nomenclature and best-practice principles of programmes and services for people transitioning from prison into the community. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An online, two-phase modified Delphi process will be conducted to develop an expert consensus on nomenclature and the best-practice principles for these programmes. In the preparatory phase, a questionnaire was developed comprising a list of potential best-practice statements identified from a systematic literature search. Subsequently, a heterogeneous sample of experts including service providers, Community and Justice Services, Not for Profits, First Nations stakeholders, those with lived experience, researchers and healthcare providers will participate in the consensus building phase (online survey rounds and online meeting) to achieve consensus on nomenclature and best-practice principles. Participants will indicate, via Likert scale, to what extent they agree with nomenclature and best-practice statements. If at least 80% of the experts agree to a term or statement (indicated via Likert scale), it will be included in a final list of nomenclature and best-practice statements. Statements will be excluded if 80% experts disagree. Nomenclature and statements not meeting positive or negative consensus will be explored in a facilitated online meeting. Approval from experts will be sought on the final list of nomenclature and best-practice statements. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval has been received from the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee, the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council Human Research Ethics Committee, the Corrective Services New South Wales Ethics Committee and the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee. The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.