Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

A qualitative synthesis of the positive and negative impacts related to delivery of peer-based health interventions in prison settings

Authors: Jane South, James Woodall, Karina Kinsella, Anne-Marie Bagnall

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Peer interventions involving prisoners in delivering peer education and peer support in a prison setting can address health need and add capacity for health services operating in this setting. This paper reports on a qualitative synthesis conducted as part of a systematic review of prison-based peer interventions. One of the review questions aimed to investigate the positive and negative impacts of delivering peer interventions within prison settings. This covered organisational and process issues relating to peer interventions, including prisoner and staff views.

Methods

A qualitative synthesis of qualitative and mixed method studies was undertaken. The overall study design comprised a systematic review involving searching, study selection, data extraction and validity assessment. Studies reporting interventions with prisoners or ex-prisoners delivering education or support to prisoners resident in any type of prison or young offender institution, all ages, male and female, were included. A thematic synthesis was undertaken with a subset of studies reporting qualitative data (n = 33). This involved free coding of text reporting qualitative findings to develop a set of codes, which were then grouped into thematic categories and mapped back to the review question.

Results

Themes on process issues and wider impacts were grouped into four thematic categories: peer recruitment training and support; organisational support; prisoner relationships; prison life. There was consistent qualitative evidence on the need for organisational support within the prison to ensure smooth implementation and on managing security risks when prisoners were involved in service delivery. A suite of factors affecting the delivery of peer interventions and the wider organisation of prison life were identified. Alongside reported benefits of peer delivery, some reasons for non-utilisation of services by other prisoners were found. There was weak qualitative evidence on wider impacts on the prison system, including better communication between staff and prisoners. Gaps in evidence were identified.

Conclusions

The quality of included studies limited the strength of the conclusions. The main conclusion is that peer interventions cannot be seen as independent of prison life and health services need to work in partnership with prison services to deliver peer interventions. More research is needed on long-term impacts.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO ref: CRD42012002349.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Enggist S, Møller L, Galea G, Udesen C, editors. Prisons and health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2014.
2.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, WHO Europe. Good governance for prison health in the 21st century. A policy brief on the organization of prison health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2013.
3.
National Offender Management Service, NHS England. Public Health England. National partnership agreement between: the National Offender Management Service, NHS England and Public Health England for the Co-commissioning and delivery of healthcare services in prisons in England. London: NHS England; 2013.
4.
Ross MW, Harzke AJ, Scott DP, McCann K, Kelley M. Outcomes of project wall talk: an HIV/AIDS peer education program implemented within the Texas state prison system. AIDS Educ Prev. 2006;18:504–17.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Grinstead OA, Zack B, Faigeles B, Grossman N, Blea L. Reducing postrelease HIV risk among male prison inmates - A peer-led intervention. Crim Justice Behav. 1999;26:453–65. doi:10.​1177/​0093854899026004​003.
6.
Ross MW. Pedagogy for prisoners: an approach to peer health education for inmates. J Correct Health Care. 2011;17:6–18.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Schinkel M, Whyte B. Routes out of prison using life coaches to assist resettlement. Howard J Crim Justice. 2012;4:359–71.CrossRef
8.
Edgar K, Jacobson J, Biggar K. Time Well Spent: A practical guide to active citizenship and volunteering in prison. London: Prison Reform Trust; 2011.
9.
10.
Snow L, Biggar K. The role of peer support in reducing self-harm in prisons. In: Dear GE, editor. Preventing suicide and other self-harm in prison. New York: Palgrave; 2006. p. 153–66.
11.
South J, Bagnall A, Hulme C, Woodall J, Longo R, Dixey R et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve offender health in prison settings. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2014; 2(35). doi:10.​3310/​hsdr02350.
12.
13.
Baxter S, Killoran A, Kelly MP, Goyder E. Synthesizing diverse evidence: the use of primary qualitative data analyis methods and logic models in public health. Public Health. 2010;124:99–106.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Woodall JR, South J, Dixey R, de Viggiani N, Penson W. Expert views of peer-based interventions for prisoner health. Int J Prison Health. 2015;11:87–97.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration PRISMA: explanation and elaboration. Ann Inter Med. 2009;15:W-65.
16.
Rees R, Oliver S, Woodman J, Thomas J. Children’s views about obesity, body size, shape and weight: a systematic review. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2009.
17.
Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, et al. Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews: an example from public health. Brit Med J. 2004;328:1010–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
19.
Seale C, Silverman D. Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. Eur J Public Health. 1997;7:379–84.CrossRef
20.
Boyce I, Hunter G, Hough M. Peer advice project. An evaluation. London: St Giles Trust; 2009.
21.
22.
Foster J. Peer support in prison health care. An investigation into the Listening scheme in one adult male prison. London: School of Health & Social Care, University of Greenwich; 2011.
23.
Syed F, Blanchette K. Results of an evaluation of the peer support program at Joliette Institution for women. Correctional Service of Canada: Canada; 2000.
24.
Delveaux K, Blanchette K. Results of an evaluation of the peer support program at nova institution for women. Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada: Canada; 2000.
25.
Brooker C, Sirdifield C. New futures Health trainers: An impact assessment. Lincoln, UK: University of Lincoln; 2007.
26.
Jacobson J, Edgar K, Loucks N. There when you need them most: Pact’s first night in custody services. London: Prison Reform Trust; 2008.
27.
Blanchette K, Eljdupovic-Guzina G. Results of a pilot study of the peer support program for women offenders. Correctional Service of Canada: Canada; 1998.
28.
Betts-Symond G. Community based health and first aid – Irish Red Cross Prisoner Volunteers. Irish Prison Service: Dublin; 2011.
29.
30.
Syed B. Results of an evaluation of the peer support program at Grand Valley Institution for Women. Correctional Service of Canada: Ottawa; 2000.
31.
32.
Stewart W. Evaluating peer social care training in prisons. Prison Serv J. 2011;195:43–6.
33.
Eamon KC, McLaren DL, Munchua MM, Tsutsumi LM. The peer support program at Edmonton institution for women. Forum. 2012;11:28–30.
34.
Hoover J, Jurgens R. Harm reduction in prison: the Moldova model. New York: Open Society Institute; 2009.
35.
Sirdifield C. Piloting a new role in mental health -prison based health trainers. J Ment Health Training Educ Pract. 2006;1:15–22.CrossRef
36.
37.
38.
Wright KN, Bronstein L. Organizational analysis of prison hospice. Prison J. 2007;87:391–407.CrossRef
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Baybutt M, Acin E, Hayton P, Dooris M. Promoting health in prisons: a settings approach. In: Enggist S, Møller L, Galea G, Udesen C, editors. Prisons and health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2014. p. 180–4.
44.
Cichowlas JA, Chen Y-J. Volunteer prisoners provide hospice to dying inmates. Ann Health Law. 2010;19:127–32.PubMed
45.
Maull FW. Hospice care for prisoners: establishing an inmate-staffed hospice program in a prison medical facility. Hospice J. 1991;7:43–55.CrossRef
46.
Goffman E. Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1968.
47.
Levenson J, Farrant F. Unlocking potential: active citizenship and volunteering by prisoners. Probat J. 2002;49:195–204.CrossRef
48.
National Offender Management Service. Discussion Document. NOMS Commissioning Intentions 2012–13. Version 2. London: Ministry of Justice; 2012.
49.
Noblit G, Hare R. Meta-ethnography: synthesising qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A qualitative synthesis of the positive and negative impacts related to delivery of peer-based health interventions in prison settings
Authors
Jane South
James Woodall
Karina Kinsella
Anne-Marie Bagnall
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1753-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Health Services Research 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Access and utilization of healthcare services in Massachusetts, United States: a qualitative study of the perspectives and experiences of Brazilian-born immigrant women

Research article

Sociodemographic disparities in survival from colorectal cancer in South Australia: a population-wide data linkage study

Research article

Cost-effectiveness of preventive case management for parents with a mental illness: a randomized controlled trial from three economic perspectives

Research article

The promise and the reality: a mental health workforce perspective on technology-enhanced youth mental health service delivery

Research article

Drug prescribing patterns at primary health care level and related out-of-pocket expenditures in Tajikistan

Research article

The effect of increasing the supply of skilled health providers on pregnancy and birth outcomes: evidence from the midwives service scheme in Nigeria