Exploration of delivering brief interventions in a prison setting: A qualitative study in one English region

Abstract

Aims: There is evidence that alcohol is strongly correlated with offending. This qualitative study explored the views of staff on the efficacy of alcohol brief interventions within a prison setting. The perceptions of prisoners in relation to non-dependent drinking were also examined.Methods: Nine prisons in one English region took part in this research. Five focus groups with 25 prisoners were undertaken with prisoners alongside focus group discussions with 30 professionals. Discussions were recorded using shorthand notation and the main themes were thematically mapped using visual mapping techniques. Findings:The use of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) was perceived as problematic. Prisoner drinking norms differed widely from community consumption patterns. There were also operational issues that reduced the salience of a brief intervention for prisoners. Conclusions:The delivery of screening and brief interventions within a prison setting is highly nuanced and fraught with inconsistencies. Despite these challenges, there are opportunities to develop coherent and tailored brief interventions for a custodial environment that should focus on developing three key areas around: (a) interventions for the point of release; (b) enhanced content around family impact and offending; and (c) forward-looking goal-setting as motivational tools to facilitate change. Keywords:Alcohol -Screening and Brief Intervention -Prison

Containment and care? A qualitative interview study exploring police custody staff views about delivering brief alcohol interventions to heavy drinking arrestees

“…Both the DOs and AIRS expressed a pessimistic view of arrestees' willingness to accurately report upon their alcohol use, which impacted upon the perceived value of providing care for heavy drinkers. Perceptions of offender inaccurate reporting have been highlighted as a barrier in other intervention research in the criminal justice system (Maggia et al, 2004;Sondhi, Birch, Lynch, Holloway, & Newbury-Birch, 2016), including in a study of alcohol and brief interventions delivered by physicians within a custody suite (Chariot et al, 2014b). This suggests that interactional and interpersonal barriers are a characteristic of the context rather than the specific care and containment roles within it.…”

“…Whilst positive effects have been reported, it is not possible to attribute this reduction to the alcohol intervention due to the absence of a control group (Kennedy et al, 2012;McCracken et al, 2012). Similarly, mental health liaison and diversion services have been introduced in a number of police custody suites (Scott, McGilloway, Browne, & Donnelly, 2013;Srivastava, Forrester, Davies, & Nadkarni, 2013). Within the UK system, external partners such as health and voluntary sector organisations with close alignment to priorities of care, also work within the custody suite; responding to a range of health and social care needs.…”

Perceived Substance Use Norms Among Jailed Women with Alcohol Use Disorders

“…Justice‐involved individuals drink more than the general population and consider their drinking to be normative (Sondhi et al, 2016). Substance use is more prevalent among incarcerated populations than in the general population, with two‐thirds of incarcerated adults meeting criteria for a substance use disorder compared to 9% of adults in the general population (Saloner et al, 2016).…”

A Scoping Review of Qualitative Research Methods Used With People in Prison

“…This may be resource intensive and determine what research designs are feasible in different prison contexts and may lead to a choice to use opportunistic sampling, as was common in our review, instead of more rigorous sampling methods. Focus groups may be chosen to sample more participants quickly (Sondhi, Birch, Lynch, Holloway, & Newbury-Birch, 2016). Other mechanisms of promoting rigor in qualitative research may be impeded by access barriers, such as through limiting opportunities to interview participants more than once or to check findings with participants.…”