|
Environmental interventions to reduce fear of crime: systematic review of effectiveness |
Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Neary D, Clayton S, Wright K, Thomson H, Cummins S, Sowden A, Renton A |
|
|
CRD summary The authors concluded there was some evidence for the effectiveness of environmental interventions, such as improved home security, in reducing some indicators of fear of crime, but the context and possible confounders need to be considered in future evaluations. The authors' conclusions reflected the limited quality of the evidence and are likely to be reliable. Authors' objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve the built environment, such as street lights, to reduce the fear of crime. Searching Eighteen databases were searched, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, and ASSIA, for articles from their inception to between November 2010 and January 2011, with no language restrictions. Search terms were reported, with the full MEDLINE search strategy. The Internet was searched, using Google and Google Scholar, and websites of government bodies, research groups and other relevant organisations were searched. Reference lists of included studies were examined, and members of the review advisory group were asked to identify further studies. Study selection Studies with prospective designs (randomised controlled trials, controlled trials or uncontrolled before-and-after studies) evaluating environmental interventions that involved a substantial change to the built environment, were eligible for inclusion. Studies had to report outcomes related to fear of crime. They had to be conducted in a country that was a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In the included studies, the interventions varied widely, including improved residential security, improved street lighting, multi-component interventions (locks, security personnel, entry systems, fencing, and neighbourhood watch), redesign of bus stations, community policing, renovation of school premises, housing improvement and relocation, and area regeneration. Most of the studies were conducted in the UK, some were conducted in the USA, and one was conducted in the Netherlands. Two reviewers independently screened 10% of abstracts and 50% of full papers, with differences resolved through discussion. The remaining abstracts and papers were screened by one reviewer. Assessment of study quality A modified version of the Hamilton tool was used to assess the quality for selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data collection, and withdrawals and drop-outs. Studies were classified as high, medium, or low quality. The assessment was conducted by one reviewer and a sample of studies was double-checked by a second reviewer. Data extraction Data on the outcomes relating to fear of crime were extracted by one reviewer, and a sample was double-checked by a second reviewer. All measures were standardised to a scale of zero to 100. A median effect size was calculated, for relevant outcomes, expressing relative changes for studies with controlled designs, or within-group changes for uncontrolled studies. Methods of synthesis The data were combined in a narrative synthesis according to intervention type. The synthesis was not restricted by the quality of the included studies, but greater emphasis was placed on higher quality studies when interpreting the results. A subgroup analysis, based on population characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status), was conducted. Results of the review Forty-seven studies were included in the review: 22 were controlled studies and 24 were uncontrolled studies. Sample sizes ranged from 52 to 23,633. The overall study quality was low, with 10 studies rated as high, three as medium, and thirty-four as low quality. Home security: Five studies assessed improved home security. Two controlled and one uncontrolled study reported reductions in fear of crime with the improvements, but two uncontrolled studies reported no differences. Street lighting: Sixteen studies assessed installation or improvement of street lights. One of four controlled studies reported a significant improvement in fear of crime, one reported mixed results, and two reported no effect on fear of crime. Seven uncontrolled studies showed a trend to reduced fear, and three showed no change or a trend to increased fear. Two uncontrolled studies found significant reductions in fear with increased brightness. Other interventions: Three controlled and three uncontrolled studies assessed the installation of closed-circuit television, and found no evidence of a reduction in the fear of crime. Five controlled studies and four uncontrolled studies found mixed effects, from multi-component interventions, on the fear of crime. Three controlled studies reported small non-significant improvements in fear of crime with housing improvement and relocation, while four uncontrolled studies reported mixed effects. There were no clear trends for fear of crime, with area regeneration initiatives, in one controlled and one uncontrolled study. One controlled and one uncontrolled study reported improvements in some fear of crime outcomes with small-scale environmental improvements in public areas. Subgroup analyses: Mixed results were reported for the subgroup analysis by age, with some studies reporting greater effects in older people and others in younger people. The results for the subgroup analysis by gender showed slightly greater improvements for women than for men. Authors' conclusions There was some evidence for the effectiveness of environmental interventions, such as improved home security, in reducing some indicators of fear of crime, but the context and possible confounders need to be considered in future evaluations. CRD commentary The review question was clear and adequate inclusion criteria were reported. Several relevant sources were searched, without date and language restrictions, limiting the potential for missed studies. Study quality was assessed, using an appropriate tool, and the results were reported in full. Quality was generally low, and this was considered within the synthesis. Methods to reduce reviewer error and bias were adequate. A narrative synthesis was appropriate, given the differences between studies in their interventions and outcomes. The authors' conclusions reflected the limited quality of the evidence and are likely to be reliable. Implications of the review for practice and research Practice: The authors did not state any implications for practice. Research: The authors stated that further research was needed into the role of the physical environment as a target for effective interventions. The context and confounders should be considered, and research should have a clear equity focus, taking into account socioeconomic status, ethnicity and gender. Funding Funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Bibliographic details Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Neary D, Clayton S, Wright K, Thomson H, Cummins S, Sowden A, Renton A. Environmental interventions to reduce fear of crime: systematic review of effectiveness. Systematic Reviews 2013; 2: 30 Indexing Status Subject indexing assigned by NLM MeSH Crime; Environment Design; Fear; Humans; Milieu Therapy /standards; Public Health; Safety AccessionNumber 12013025078 Date bibliographic record published 14/05/2013 Date abstract record published 15/05/2013 Record Status This is a critical abstract of a systematic review that meets the criteria for inclusion on DARE. Each critical abstract contains a brief summary of the review methods, results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the review and the conclusions drawn. |
|
|
|