Purpose In the literature, 65 years is commonly used as the age to designate an older person in the community. When studying older prisoners, there is much variation. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how researchers define older offenders and for what reasons. Design/methodology/approach The authors reviewed articles on health and well-being of older offenders to assess terminology used to describe this age group, the chosen age cut-offs distinguishing younger offenders from older offenders, the arguments provided to support this choice as well as the empirical base cited in this context. Findings The findings show that the age cut-off of 50 years and the term “older” were most frequently used by researchers in the field. The authors find eight main arguments given to underscore the use of specific age cut-offs delineating older offenders. They outline the reasoning provided for each argument and evaluate it for its use to define older offenders. Originality/value With this review, it is hoped to stimulate the much-needed discussion advancing towards a uniform definition of the older offender. Such a uniform definition would make future research more comparable and ensure that there is no ambiguity when researchers state that the study population is “older offenders”.

No abstract

BackgroundMental health professionals working in correctional contexts engage a double role to care and control. This dual loyalty conflict has repeatedly been criticized to impede the development of a high-quality alliance. As therapeutic alliance is a robust predictor of outcome measures of psychotherapy, it is essential to investigate the effects of this ethical dilemma.MethodsThis qualitative interview study investigates patients’ perceptions of their therapists’ dual role conflict in court-mandated treatment settings. We interviewed 41 older incarcerated persons using a semi-structured interview guide, the interviews were subsequently analyzed following thematic analysis.ResultsWe first present the patients’ perceptions of their treating psychotherapist’s dual loyalty conflict, which was linked to their overall treatment experience. In a second step, we outline the study participants’ reasons for this judgment, which were most commonly linked to feelings of trust or betrayal. More specifically, they named certain therapist characteristics and activities that enabled them to develop a trustful therapeutic alliance, which we grouped into four topics: (1) respecting the patient’s pace and perceived coercion; (2) patient health needs to be first priority; (3) clarity in roles and responsibilities; and (4) the art of communication – between transparency and unchecked information sharing.DiscussionDeveloping a high quality alliance in mandatory offender treatment is central due to its relationship with recovery and desistance. Our findings show that some therapists’ characteristics and activities attenuate the negative impact of their double role on the development and maintenance of the alliance. To increase the effectiveness of court-mandated treatments, we need to support clinicians in dealing with their dual role to allow the formation of a high quality therapeutic alliance. Our qualitative interview study contributed to this much-needed empirical research on therapist’ characteristics promoting a trustful relationship in correctional settings.

Background The population of incarcerated older adults is the fastest growing demographic in prisons. Older persons in custody have poorer health as compared with those in the community. The unmet and complex health care needs of incarcerated older adults with mental illness raise justice, safety, dignity and fairness in care as ethical concerns. As there exists research gap to better understand these concerns, the current study aimed at exploring the perspectives of mental health professionals on challenges in delivering ethically competent care to mentally ill incarcerated older adults in Canada. Methods Thirty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted between August 2017 and November 2018 with prison mental health professionals in Canada who were selected using purposive and convenience sampling techniques. The audio recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively to generate themes. Results The results were distilled into three main categories and seven subcategories that related to ethical issues in the provision of health care for mentally ill incarcerated older adults. The main categories included imprisoned older persons with special care needs, lack of resources, and the peer-support program. Conclusions Results of this study showed that existing practices of care of mentally ill incarcerated older adults are characterised by challenges that increase their vulnerability to worse health conditions. It is imperative for local authorities, policy makers and representatives to prepare for and respond to the challenges that compromise ethically competent health care for, and healthy ageing of, mentally ill incarcerated older adults.

Background Mental health professionals (MHP) working in court-mandated treatment settings face ethical dilemmas due to their dual role in assuring their patient’s well-being while guaranteeing the security of the population. Clear practical guidelines to support these MHPs’ decision-making are lacking, amongst others, due to the ethical conflicts within this field. This qualitative interview study contributes to the much-needed empirical research on how MHPs resolve these ethical conflicts in daily clinical practice. Methods 31 MHPs working in court-mandated treatment settings were interviewed. The interviews were semi-structured and our in-depth analysis followed the thematic analysis approach. Results We first outline how mental health professionals perceive their dual loyalty conflict and how they describe their affiliations with the medical and the justice system. Our findings indicate that this positioning was influenced by situational factors, drawing the MHPs at times closer to the caring or controlling poles. Second, our results illustrate how participating MHPs solve their dual loyalty conflict. Participants considered central to motivate the patient, to see the benefits of treatment and its goals. Further, transparent communication with patients and representatives of the justice system was highlighted as key to develop a trustful relationship with the patient and to manage the influences from the different players involved. Conclusions Even though individual positioning and opinions towards dealing with the influences of the justice system varied, the results of our research show that, in spite of varying positions, the underlying practice is not very different across participating MHPs. Several techniques that allow developing a high-quality therapeutic alliance with the patient are key elements of general psychotherapy. Transparency appears as the crucial factor when communicating with the patient and with representatives of the justice system. More specifically, patients need to be informed since the beginning of therapy about the limits of medical confidentiality. It is also recommended to develop guidelines that define the level of detailed information that should be disclosed when communicating with the authorities of the justice system.