Creating HoPE: Mental Health in Western Australian Maximum Security Prisons

Fleming, Jennifer; Gately, Natalie; Kraemer, Sharan

doi:10.1080/13218719.2010.543405

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We included 35 studies reported in 38 articles in the metaanalysis (appendix pp 4-5), comprising a total of 663 735 prisoners, 9•6% of whom were women (figure 1). 5,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] Included studies were done across 20 countries (11 [31%] in England and Wales) and published from 1972 to 2020. Median sample size was 785 (IQR 142-2119), ranging from 60 to 263 794 prisoners.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Favril

Hawton

et al. 2020

The Lancet Psychiatry

167

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Self-harm is a leading cause of morbidity in prisoners. Although a wide range of risk factors for self-harm in prisoners has been identified, the strength and consistency of effect sizes is uncertain. We aimed to synthesise evidence and assess the risk factors associated with self-harm inside prison.Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) for observational studies on risk factors for self-harm in prisoners published from database inception to Oct 31, 2019, supplemented through correspondence with authors of studies. We included primary studies involving adults sampled from general prison populations who self-harmed in prison and a comparison group without self-harm in prison. We excluded studies with qualitative or ecological designs, those that reported on lifetime measures of self-harm or on selected samples of prisoners, and those with a comparison group that was not appropriate or not based on general prison populations. Data were extracted from the articles and requested from study authors. Our primary outcome was the risk of self-harm for risk factors in prisoners. We pooled effect sizes as odds ratios (OR) using random effects models for each risk factor examined in at least three distinct samples. We assessed study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and examined between-study heterogeneity. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018087915. FindingsWe identified 35 independent studies from 20 countries comprising a total of 663 735 prisoners, of whom 24 978 (3•8%) had self-harmed in prison. Across the 40 risk factors examined, the strongest associations with self-harm in prison were found for suicide-related antecedents, including current or recent suicidal ideation (OR 13•8, 95% CI 8•6-22•1; I²=49%), lifetime history of suicidal ideation (8•9, 6•1-13•0; I²=56%), and previous self-harm (6•6, 5•3-8•3; I²=55%). Any current psychiatric diagnosis was also strongly associated with self-harm (8•1, 7•0-9•4; I²=0%), particularly major depression (9•3, 2•9-29•5; I²=91%) and borderline personality disorder (9•2, 3•7-22•5; I²=81%). Prison-specific environmental risk factors for self-harm included solitary confinement (5•6, 2•7-11•6; I²=98%), disciplinary infractions (3•5, 1•2-9•7; I²=99%), and experiencing sexual or physical victimisation while in prison (3•2, 2•1-4•8; I²=44%). Sociodemographic (OR range 1•5-2•5) and criminological (1•8-2•3) factors were only modestly associated with selfharm in prison. We did not find clear evidence of publication bias.Interpretation The wide range of risk factors across clinical and custody-related domains underscores the need for a comprehensive, prison-wide approach towards preventing self-harm in prison. This approach should incorporate both population and targeted strategies, with multiagency collaboration between the services for mental health, social care, and criminal justice having a key role.Funding Wellcome Trust.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Favril

Hawton

et al. 2020

The Lancet Psychiatry

167

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar rates of mental illness were discovered in a Queensland custodial sample of adult Aboriginal offenders of which 73% of men and 86% of women presented with a mental health disorder (Heffernan et al, 2012). Of greater concern are findings that indicate Aboriginal offenders are far less likely to have received previous mental health treatment than non-Aboriginal offenders (Fleming et al, 2012; Mazerolle & Legosz, 2007; Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, 2005).…”

Section: Risk Factors For Violence Among Australian Aboriginal Offendersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Violence risk assessment in Australian Aboriginal offender populations: A review of the literature.

Shepherd

Adams

McEntyre

et al. 2014

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The utilization of violence risk instruments in forensic populations is increasing and a plethora of empirical investigations support their ability to predict recidivistic outcomes. However, the generalizability of these findings to culturally diverse populations is problematic given dissimilarities in cultural traditions, norms, and experiences. The present study explored this subject in relation to Aboriginal Australians. First, a concert of violence risk markers that are more prevalent among Aboriginal Australian offenders compared with non-Aboriginal offenders were examined in light of their social and historical context. Next, studies employing violence risk instruments on cohorts of Aboriginal Australian offenders were reviewed. Findings demonstrated moderate predictive accuracy for violence and commensurate utility with non-Aboriginal offenders although results should be treated with caution due to the paucity of available studies for consideration. Implications for clinical practice and culturally appropriate assessment models are discussed.

show abstract

“…It is well established in the literature that prison populations have significantly higher rates of mental health issues compared to general populations (Fazel & Danesh, 2002; Fazel & Seewald, 2012). Depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are prevalent in the Australian prison population (Butler, Allnutt, Cain, Owens, & Muller, 2005; Butler, Indig, Allnutt, & Mamoon, 2011; Egeressy, Butler, & Hunter, 2009; Fleming, Gately, & Kramer, 2012), as are high levels of psychological distress (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2019). Psychological distress is emotional suffering and discomfort that manifests in response to stressful experiences (Arvidsdotter, Marklund, Kylén, Taft, & Ekman, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental Health, Psychological Distress, and Coping in Australian Cross‐Cultural Prison Populations

Rose

Trounson

Louise

et al. 2020

Journal of Traumatic Stress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rates of mental illness are significantly higher in prison populations compared to the general community; however, little research has examined the rates of mental illness for cross‐cultural groups of prisoners in Australia. This omission is concerning given the increasingly diverse nature of the Australian prison population. To address this gap in knowledge, the present study aimed to identify rates of key mental health factors and associated psychological processes in a cohort of 191 men from culturally and linguistically diverse, Indigenous Australian and English‐speaking backgrounds who were incarcerated at a maximum‐security prison in Victoria, Australia. We also explored differences in both psychological distress levels and predictors of psychological distress. Although no significant mental health differences were identified cross‐culturally, the results revealed that several mental health factors predicted psychological distress for all prisoners, F(11, 147) = 33.23, p < .001, R2 = .71. The experiences of anxiety and sleep disturbance–related symptoms, β = .34; depressive symptoms, β = .19; posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, β = .25; and the use of psychological processes, such as avoidance coping, β = .16; and engagement in cognitive fusion, β = .15, all predicted psychological distress. The use of positive thinking as a coping strategy was found to predict a reduced level of psychological distress for prisoners, β = −.13. The findings indicated that the mental health profiles of cross‐cultural groups of prisoners are similar in nature, suggesting that justice involvement may be a more useful predictor than cultural differences concerning psychological health.

show abstract

Creating HoPE: Mental Health in Western Australian Maximum Security Prisons

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Violence risk assessment in Australian Aboriginal offender populations: A review of the literature.

Mental Health, Psychological Distress, and Coping in Australian Cross‐Cultural Prison Populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About