RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Patient and public involvement (PPI) in
prisons: the involvement of people living in
prison in the research process – a
systematic scoping review
Samantha Treacy1,2, Steven Martin3, Nelum Samarutilake2 and Tine Van Bortel2,3*
Abstract
Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is increasingly prevalent and is
promoted in policy as a means of improving the validity of research. This also applies to people living in prison and
using social care services. Whilst evidence for the effectiveness of PPI was limited and reviews of its application in
prisons were not found, the infancy of the evidence base and moral and ethical reasons for involvement mean that
PPI continues to be advocated in the community and in prisons.
Objectives: To conduct a review of the literature regarding the involvement of people or persons living in prison
(PLiP) in health and social care research focused on: (i) aims; (ii) types of involvement; (iii) evaluations and findings;
(iv) barriers and solutions; and (v) feasibility of undertaking a systematic review.
Methods: A systematic scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O’Malley’s (International Journal of
Social Research Methodology 8: 19-32, 2005) five-stage framework. A comprehensive search was conducted
involving ten electronic databases up until December 2020 using patient involvement and context related search
terms. A review-specific spreadsheet was created following the PICO formula, and a narrative synthesis approach
was taken to answer the research questions. PRISMA guidelines were followed in reporting.
Results: 39 papers were selected for inclusion in the review. The majority of these took a ‘participatory’ approach
to prisoner involvement, which occurred at most stages during the research process except for more ‘higher’ level
research operations (funding applications and project management), and only one study was led by PLiPs. Few
studies involved an evaluation of the involvement of PLiP, and this was mostly PLiP or researcher reflections
without formal or independent analysis, and largely reported a positive impact. Barriers to the involvement of PLiP
coalesced around power differences and prison bureaucracy.
© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons
licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the
data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
* Correspondence: tv250@medschl.cam.ac.uk
2Cambridge Public Health, Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical
Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
3Leicester School of Allied Health Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester,
UK
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Health and JusticeTreacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-021-00154-6
Conclusion: Given the very high risk of bias arising from the available ‘evaluations’, it was not possible to derive
firm conclusions about the effectiveness of PLiP involvement in the research process. In addition, given the state of
the evidence base, it was felt that a systematic review would not be feasible until more evaluations were
undertaken using a range of methodologies to develop the field further.
Keywords: Patient and public involvement in research, Engagement in research, Participatory research, Prison
research, People living in prison, People formerly living in prison, Prisoners, Ex-prisoners, Scoping review
Background
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has been defined as
“research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the
public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them” (INVOLVE,
2012). This has been promoted in UK government policy
(Health Research Authority, 2017), is supported by their
major research funding body the National Institute for
Health Services Research (Russell et al., 2019), and national
support centre INVOLVE, and has become increasingly
prevalent in the UK over the last decade (Ball et al., 2019).
The involvement of patients or the public in research
is rooted in social justice and disability rights activism
(Beresford, 2002; Glassman & Erdem, 2014; Macauley,
2017), and aims to move from paternalistic to demo-
cratic practices in health and social care with knowledge
and expertise shared between ‘professionals’ and ‘pa-
tients’ leading to better quality and more valid research
(Aubin et al., 2019; Hoekstra et al., 2020; Madden &
Speed, 2017). However, the systematic, rapid evidence
and literature reviews that have been conducted on PPI
in health and social care research have indicated that
there is typically a lack of evidence of effectiveness
(Samele et al., 2008; Treacy et al., 2019). Although posi-
tive impacts on patients, research quality, the research
team and research system were widely reported (Ball
et al., 2019; Brett et al., 2012), conclusions were severely
limited as the research was generally of poor quality,
with much of the ‘evidence’ based on researchers’ per-
ceptions rather than on robust evaluation (Aubin et al.,
2019; Ball et al., 2019; Cook et al., 2019; Mockford et al.,
2012).
In addition, a number of issues were documented that
reportedly impeded implementation including: a lack of
definition or theoretical basis guiding involvement (Mock-
ford et al., 2012), increased costs and resources (Domecq
et al., 2014), differences of opinion regarding the ‘repre-
sentativeness’ of the patients and its necessity (Lander
et al., 2019; Morgan, 2016), and tokenistic involvement
(Madden & Speed, 2017; Ocloo & Matthews, 2016). Des-
pite this, much of the literature maintained that PPI arose
largely for moral and ethical reasons, which may have re-
sulted in an evidence lag and advocated better evaluations
and a focus on overcoming cultural challenges to ensure
better implementation (Aubin et al., 2019; Ward, Bailey &
Boyd, 2012).
This paper specifically reviews the literature on the in-
volvement of PLiP in health and social care research,
which is also supported by policy on the involvement of
‘the public’ in research (Health Research Authority, 2017).
For the purposes of this paper, PLiPs include people incar-
cerated in both prisons and jails. The general health of
PLiP is typically reported to be poorer than that of people
living in the community possibly due to more chaotic life-
styles including alcohol and substance misuse, less access
to healthcare and stress related to the ‘pains’ of imprison-
ment (Crewe, 2011; Williams et al., 2012). The sharp rise
in older PLiP numbers over the last few decades (Lee et al,
2016; Sturge, 2020) has also, inevitably, brought with it an
exponential increase in health and social care needs with
an estimated 85% of PLiPs aged over 50 reporting prob-
lems (Lee et al, 2019; Hayes et al., 2012; Senior, Forsyth,
Walsh et al., 2013). Whilst policy and legislation promotes
equivalence between the community and prisons regard-
ing health and social care (Care Act, 2014; Department of
Health, 1999), a recent parliamentary inquiry concluded
that the government is “failing in its duty of care” to PLiPs
(Health and Social Care Committee, 2018). In addition,
PLiPs’ health and social care issues have reportedly been
exacerbated by the restricted regimes and services and
suspension of visits applied in prisons in response to the
Covid-19 pandemic (Brennan, 2020; Her Majesty’s Prison
& Probation Service, 2020), the impact of which have left
PLiP and their families in “extreme distress and desper-
ation”, particularly those most vulnerable (Prison Reform
Trust, 2020, p. 7; Clarke, 2020).
It is unclear how equivalent PLiP involvement in the
health and social care research process is relative to that
in the community as no reviews of the literature were
found. However, PPI in prisons has been described as
under-developed (Awenat et al., 2017). A study of prison
and research staffs’ attitudes towards PLiP involvement
demonstrated a lack of understanding and suggested
that PLiPs were not seen as potential partners in the
process (Johnson et al., 2018). One review outlined the
possible ways that PLiPs could be involved, referring to
the involvement of forensic mental health service users
in research, but no examples of practice in prison were
presented (Samele et al., 2008).
Given the extent of PLiP needs and their position as
perhaps the most disempowered health and social care
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 2 of 21
service users, their involvement in the research process
would be highly consistent with the moral and ethical
concerns driving public involvement in research (Revolv-
ing Doors Agency, 2016). Therefore, it is the aim of this
paper to explore the literature for examples of PLiP in-
volvement in the research process and to undertake a
systematic scoping review addressing the following re-
search questions:
1. What were the aims of the research which involved
PLiPs or people who were formerly living in prison
(PFLiP) during the research process?
2. In what ways were PLiPs and PFLiPs involved in the
research process?
3. Was PLiP or PFLiP involvement evaluated, and how
was this carried out? What were the main findings
of these evaluations?
4. What were the main obstacles in involving PLiPs or
PFLiPs, and what were the suggested solutions for
overcoming them?
5. Would it be feasible to undertake a systematic
review of PLiP or PFLiP involvement in health and
social care research?
Methods
Given the lack of reviews of PLiP involvement in health
and social care research, a scoping review methodology
was considered the most appropriate to explore the aims
of the study. Scoping reviews are considered to be par-
ticularly useful to systematically scope, chart and synthe-
sise the available evidence in a research field with a view
to examining whether a full systematic review could be
conducted (Munn et al., 2018). This review used the
five-stage scoping review framework posited by Arksey
and O’Malley (2005), with reporting guided by the
PRISMA extension for scoping reviews checklist and ex-
planation (Tricco et al., 2018) – the completed checklist
for this review is available in Additional file 1. The five-
stage framework followed in this review were:
Stage 1: Identification of the research question(s) –
identified in the ‘Background’ section
Stage 2: Identification of relevant reports – the
literature search
A search strategy to identify review-relevant reports
was formulated by the research team, informed by sys-
tematic reviews undertaken in relation to patient and
public involvement in health and social care research
more broadly (Brett et al., 2010; Staley, 2009). Searching
included electronic and hand searching components.
The electronic database search involved searching ten
databases which focused on health and criminal justice,
which were: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstract
(ASSIA), Criminal Justice Abstracts, Embase, Medline
(OVID), National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS), Psycinfo, Pubmed, Social Services Abstracts,
Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science (WoS). The
search combined research involvement-related terms
AND context-related ones (see Table 1), with no date or
language restrictions, and covered the full range of pub-
lications up until 12th April 2019, with a second updated
search from that date until 10th December 2020.
Additional file 2 has an example of the search strategy
used.
The electronic search was supplemented by a compre-
hensive hand-search, which involved reference mining,
and searches using search engines, specialist prisoner
researcher journals and PPI-specific journals, online
resources or libraries related to prison(er)s or PPI,
recommendations from academic networking sites, and
directly contacting authors in the field.
Stage 3: Study selection – inclusion and exclusion
criteria
Papers were selected for inclusion in this review if the
following criteria were met informed by the People,
Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes (PICO) for-
mula (Richardson et al., 1995):
(i) People: The research process has to involve people
who are, or have been, in prison, which includes
research conducted by prisoner-led organisations.
The research process cannot include prison staff or
any other individuals who have not served time in
prison.
(ii) Intervention (general): The overall research study
has to focus on a health-related topic (including
mental or physical health, public health or sub-
stance misuse), or be conducted with a health-
Table 1 Search terms used in electronic database search
Research involvement-related terms Context-related terms
PPI OR PPIE OR “Patient and Public Involvement” OR “prisoner advisor*” OR “participatory health research”
OR “participatory action research” OR “participatory research” OR “community based participatory
research” OR “service user advisory group” OR “peer research*” OR “advisory committee*” OR
“emancipatory research” OR
“user(engagement OR involvement OR participation OR representation)” OR
“patient(engagement OR involvement OR participation OR representation)” OR
“prisoner(engagement OR involvement OR participation OR representation)” OR
“offender(engagement OR involvement OR participation OR representation)”
Prison* OR Jail* OR Correctional* OR
Penitentiar* OR Penal
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 3 of 21
related professional such as a mental health profes-
sional, a general practitioner (physician) and more.
Studies that focus on other prison-focused topics
(such as education or regime) with no health focus
will be excluded.
(iii) Intervention (specific): The study will need to
involve people currently in prison or those who
have been in prison in the research process itself,
and describe the type of involvement. This
‘involvement’ can be from any approach or
theoretical tradition and can take any form. If PLiP
or PFLiP’s involvement in the research is as
‘participant’ or ‘subject’ only, the study will be
excluded.
(iv)Comparator: Any or none. No papers will be
excluded on this basis.
(v) Outcomes: No papers will be excluded on the basis
of this measure type; the review will chart whether
there was an evaluation of PLiP involvement and
the outcomes reported. The outcomes of the overall
studies will not be reported.
(vi)Context: The overall study has to be set in prison(s)
and jails. If the overall health-related study is set in
the community, or any other institution, it will be
excluded.
(vii)Other criteria (language): Include studies in English,
French or Dutch. Exclude papers in all other
languages.
(viii)Other criteria (paper type): Only include ‘original’
empirical research of any design or methodology,
and literature reviews. Exclude: commentaries,
opinion pieces, newspaper and blog articles,
conference abstracts and presentations.
Each of the papers was screened by title and ab-
stract by one researcher, and full-text screening was
undertaken by two independent researchers and com-
pared to check for inter-rater reliability (Rutter et al.,
2010). Differences of opinion were discussed by the
researchers and resolved between them. Papers were
thus included if they presented health research in
prison with PLiP or PFLiP undertaking any research
activities as part of the study.
Stage 4: Charting the data – data extraction
One researcher extracted data from all of the pa-
pers selected, with a second independent researcher
extracting data from a third of the papers to check
for consistency. Where differences arose, they were
resolved between the researchers and consensus
reached. Both researchers used an extraction tem-
plate informed by the PICO formula, and included:
author, date, country, overall study aim, aim of pris-
oner involvement, type of PPI, sample description (if
applicable), type of PLiP involved (serving or ex-
prisoner), type of prison study situated in, PPI evalu-
ation (whether and how), PPI outcomes on PLiP and
research(er), obstacles and recommendations made
for PLiP involvement. In addition, there was a
section that required extracting data on the research
activities which PLiP and PFLiP were involved in.
This section combined and followed the categories
of research activity suggested by INVOLVE (adapted
by Jacobs et al., 2017) and the THIS Institute (Mar-
janovic et al., 2019), which were conceptualisation,
design, fund/commission, undertaking research, ana-
lysis, dissemination, evaluation, and implementation.
The activity categories were added to when other
research-related activity recurred in a number of the
papers.
Stage 5: Collating, summarising and reporting
results – data analysis
The nature of the papers selected for this review pre-
cluded any form of meta-analytic synthesis. The focus
was on charting the involvement approaches and activ-
ities as described in the papers, and a narrative approach
was undertaken to synthesise the findings where re-
ported (Popay et al., 2006) as these were wholly
qualitative.
Results
The literature search returned 8880 papers of which
7733 remained after duplicates were removed. Following
screening, thirty-nine papers were selected for inclusion
in this scoping review, having met the requisite review
criteria. The stages of the screening process undertaken
to select the papers are depicted in Fig. 1.
An overview of the included papers is given in Table 2,
which is split between papers that used a broadly partici-
patory approach to PLiP/PFLiP involvement (n = 24),
and papers that used other approaches (n = 14). One
review of the literature was also included. The table pre-
sents the key features of each paper relating to PLiP/
PFLiP involvement as well as evaluation details, main
findings and recommendations, where reported.
The majority of the included papers were from the
United Kingdom (n = 19) or North America (n = 17, 10
papers from Canada, 7 from the USA), with two more
from Australia and one from Malaysia. It is of note that
seven of the Canadian papers were generated around
one research programme, and two further papers in-
volved some of the same research team. Sixteen of the
papers involved only PLiPs in the research process, four-
teen included only PFLiPs, and eight involved both
PLiPs and PFLiPs. The review paper did not appear to
involve people who were or had been in prison in the re-
view process. The numbers of PLiPs or PFLiPs involved
in the papers ranged from two to approximately 200.
Whilst sixteen papers did not report the gender
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 4 of 21
identities of the PLiPs or PFLiPs involved, and less re-
ported on other demographic details, twelve papers in-
volved females, seven involved males, and four papers
included both males and females in the research process.
In terms of payment, three studies reported that PLiPs
(n = 1, paper 5) and PFLiPs (n = 2, papers: 28,36) were
paid. A further four papers (papers 9–10,12,17), all from
one research programme, described how involvement in
the research team became a prison work placement, ul-
timately resulting in payment at prison work rates.
Research question one: what were the AIMS of involving
people who were or had been in prisons in the research
process?
As shown in Table 2, the main aims of PLiP or PFLiP
involvement were to make the research more ‘valid’,
legible or applicable to prisoners (n = 19,
papers5,6,8,10,15,18,20,21,23-28,30,32,35–37); to deter-
mine the feasibility as well as benefits and challenges of
PLiP or PFLiP involvement in the research process
overall (n = 7, papers 3,5,11-13,16,22); to empower
PLiPs or PFLiPs, advance social justice or detail
commissioned prisoner-led work (n = 8, papers
1,5,9,14,19,25,35,38), and to increase the chances of
research success or sustainability (n = 3, papers
4,26,28).
Research question two: in what ways were people who
were or had been in prison involved in the research
process?
PLiP or PFLiP involvement largely happened within a
research-specific group, team or advisory panels, which
mostly worked together with academic researchers (n =
26, papers 1–6,8-12,14-17,19,20,25,27–33). Six papers
also detailed the involvement of PLiPs or PFLiPs on trial
or project steering committees (papers 4,6,31-33,38), in
an expert symposium and listening exercises (n = 1,
paper 35); and as a co-applicant on projects (n = 2, paper
31,32). One study included was also entirely PFLiP-led
and managed research (paper 38).
Figure 2 shows how PLiPs or PFLiPs were involved in
each part of the research process. The majority of papers
involved PLiP or PFLiPs in generating ideas or, research
questions or conceptualising the research and evaluation
(n = 23). A very high number of papers involved people
in research design (n = 32), predominantly in co-
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 5 of 21
Ta
b
le
2
St
ud
y
fe
at
ur
es
St
ud
y
N
o
A
ut
ho
r;
Y
ea
r;
C
ou
nt
ry
St
ud
y
ai
m
PP
Ia
im
or
PP
Ip
ap
er
ai
m
PP
It
yp
e
Ty
p
e
of
p
ri
so
ne
r
Sa
m
p
le
si
ze
&
ty
p
e
Pr
is
on
ty
p
e
Ev
al
ua
ti
on
&
ty
p
e
O
ut
co
m
es
(i)
Pr
is
on
er
s
(ii
)
Re
se
ar
ch
(e
rs
)
(i)
O
b
st
ac
le
s
&
(ii
)
re
co
m
m
en
d
at
io
ns
(i)
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
A
pp
ro
ac
he
s
1
Bu
ch
an
an
et
al
.,
20
11
;
C
an
ad
a
To
un
de
r-
st
an
d
PL
iP
s
re
as
on
s
fo
r
su
bs
ta
nc
e
m
is
us
e
So
ci
al
ju
st
ic
e,
co
lla
bo
ra
tio
n,
in
cr
ea
se
se
ns
e
of
co
nt
ro
l
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
re
se
ar
ch
;
pe
er
re
se
ar
ch
er
in
he
al
th
re
se
ar
ch
te
am
PL
iP
s
&
PF
Li
Ps
n
=
88
,f
em
al
e,
si
m
ila
r
to
pr
is
on
er
po
pu
la
tio
n,
re
po
rt
ed
ly
Fe
m
al
e,
m
in
/
m
ed
iu
m
se
cu
rit
y
pr
is
on
N
o
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
2
C
ra
bt
re
e,
O
hm
et
al
.;
C
ra
bt
re
e,
O
hm
,e
t
al
.,
20
16
U
SA
To
ev
al
ua
te
an
oc
cu
pa
ti-
on
al
th
er
-
ap
y
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
PA
R
m
od
el
;
m
et
3–
4
tim
es
pe
r
m
on
th
PL
iP
s
n
=
3,
m
al
e
M
al
e
m
in
im
um
se
cu
rit
y
pr
is
on
N
o
(i)
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
re
fle
ct
ed
on
po
te
nt
ia
lb
ia
s
in
an
al
ys
is
(a
ca
de
m
ic
&
pr
is
on
er
)
(i)
bu
re
au
cr
ac
y
af
fe
ct
ed
pr
is
on
er
av
ai
la
bi
lit
y;
(ii
)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
3
C
ra
bt
re
e,
W
al
le
t
al
.;
C
ra
bt
re
e,
W
al
l,
&
O
hm
,2
01
6;
U
SA
To
ev
al
ua
te
an
oc
cu
p-
at
io
na
lt
he
r-
ap
y
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
Re
fle
ct
iv
e
ac
co
un
t
of
PP
I,
be
ne
fit
s
&
ch
al
le
ng
es
PA
R
m
od
el
;
m
et
3–
4
tim
es
pe
r
m
on
th
PL
iP
s
n
=
3,
m
al
e,
al
l
ha
d
co
lle
ge
de
gr
ee
s
&
ha
d
w
or
ke
d
as
cl
er
ks
M
al
e
m
in
im
um
se
cu
rit
y
pr
is
on
Ye
s;
cr
iti
ca
l
re
fle
ct
io
n;
(i)
an
op
po
rt
un
ity
,h
el
pe
d
m
ak
e
se
ns
e
of
pr
is
on
ex
pe
rie
nc
e
–
a
‘p
al
lia
tiv
e’
;
re
sp
ec
t,
di
gn
ity
&
re
la
tio
ns
hi
ps
im
po
rt
an
t;
em
an
ci
pa
to
ry
;(
ii)
PA
R
te
am
as
‘p
er
fe
ct
st
or
m
’;
m
ut
ua
l
le
ar
ni
ng
;s
ig
ni
fic
an
t
pe
rs
on
al
&
pr
of
es
si
on
al
im
pa
ct
;
fu
rt
he
re
d
ca
us
e
of
‘o
cc
up
at
io
na
lj
us
tic
e’
(i)
po
w
er
sk
ew
ed
;u
na
bl
e
to
do
in
te
rn
et
-b
as
ed
re
se
ar
ch
;
bu
re
au
cr
ac
y
af
fe
ct
ed
pr
is
-
on
er
&
ro
om
av
ai
la
bi
lit
y;
(ii
)
he
lp
s
if
ha
ve
pr
e-
ex
is
tin
g
tr
us
t;
m
in
im
um
se
cu
rit
y
pr
is
on
s;
ex
-p
ris
on
er
s
fo
r
an
a-
ly
si
s;
us
e
in
-h
ou
se
m
es
sa
-
gi
ng
sy
st
em
to
co
m
m
un
ic
at
e;
m
or
e
pa
rt
ic
i-
pa
tio
n;
im
po
rt
an
t
to
se
e
ch
an
ge
of
fe
el
lik
e
a
sy
st
em
st
oo
ge
.
4
C
ur
d
et
al
.;
C
ur
d
et
al
.,
20
07
;
U
SA
Ev
al
ua
tio
n
of
w
el
ln
es
s
in
te
rv
en
tio
n
in
su
bs
ta
nc
e
ab
us
e
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
To
en
su
re
th
e
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
su
cc
es
s
&
su
st
ai
n-
ab
ili
ty
C
BP
R
m
od
el
–
w
el
ln
es
s
co
m
m
itt
ee
,
ev
al
ua
tio
n
ad
vi
so
ry
pa
ne
l
(E
A
P)
PL
iP
s
n
=
2
on
co
m
m
itt
ee
;n
=
6–
8
in
EA
P,
m
al
e
M
al
e
m
in
se
cu
rit
y
pr
is
on
–
TC
N
o
(i)
se
ns
e
of
ow
ne
rs
hi
p;
(ii
)
de
ve
lo
pe
d
a
m
or
e
va
lid
in
te
rv
en
tio
n
(s
oc
ia
lly
&
sc
ie
nt
ifi
ca
lly
),
in
vo
lv
em
en
t
in
ad
m
in
is
tr
at
io
n
re
lie
ve
d
st
af
f
bu
rd
en
(i)
st
af
f
an
d
pr
is
on
er
tu
rn
ov
er
,h
ie
ra
rc
hy
,s
ca
rc
e
re
so
ur
ce
s,
po
or
da
ta
sy
st
em
s;
(ii
)
ge
t
st
af
f
bu
y-
in
,
es
pe
ci
al
ly
se
ni
or
s;
in
vo
lv
e
in
ad
m
in
is
tr
at
io
n
to
re
lie
ve
st
af
f
bu
rd
en
;t
ur
no
ve
r
ca
n
be
an
op
po
rt
un
ity
to
re
fre
sh
if
so
m
e
ol
de
r
m
em
be
rs
re
m
ai
n;
5
Fi
el
ds
et
al
.;
Fi
el
ds
et
al
.,
20
08
;
U
SA
To
re
fle
ct
on
a
se
xu
al
ity
fo
cu
se
d
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
Fo
re
gr
ou
nd
pr
is
on
er
vi
ew
s;
de
te
rm
in
e
PA
R
fe
as
ib
ili
ty
;
in
cr
ea
se
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
g
&
va
lid
ity
PA
R
-
w
or
ks
ho
ps
w
ith
ed
uc
at
io
n
&
re
se
ar
ch
PL
iP
s,
&
at
le
as
t
on
e
PF
Li
P
n
=
74
,f
em
al
e,
av
er
ag
e
ag
e
36
ye
ar
s
(ra
ng
e
19
–
63
),
pr
io
rit
y
to
w
om
en
of
co
lo
ur
;p
ai
d
Fe
m
al
e
co
un
ty
ja
il,
C
A
Ye
s;
re
fle
ct
ed
on
pr
oc
es
s
th
ro
ug
ho
ut
(i)
in
cr
ea
se
d
co
nf
id
en
ce
,
co
m
pa
ss
io
n
em
pa
th
y,
re
sp
ec
t,
op
tim
is
m
;f
el
t
va
lu
ed
;e
xp
lo
re
ow
n
lif
e;
us
e
in
te
lli
ge
nc
e;
(ii
)
PA
R
in
pr
is
on
a
“p
ar
tic
ul
ar
ly
lib
er
at
or
y
ac
t”
(p
g
80
);
ro
le
s
ov
er
-la
pp
ed
&
ch
an
ge
d;
m
ut
ua
ll
ea
rn
in
g;
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
&
in
st
itu
tio
ns
al
lc
on
tr
ib
ut
e
(i)
po
w
er
di
ffe
re
nc
es
;
bu
re
au
cr
ac
y
af
fe
ct
in
g
pr
is
on
er
av
ai
la
bi
lit
y
&
in
te
rr
up
tin
g
pr
oc
es
s;
di
ffi
cu
lt
to
pr
om
ot
e
se
xu
al
ex
pr
es
si
on
in
op
pr
es
si
ve
sy
st
em
;v
ol
un
ta
ry
at
te
nd
an
ce
m
ay
no
t
be
po
ss
ib
le
;(
ii)
tr
ai
ni
ng
;d
es
ig
n
re
se
ar
ch
so
w
om
en
ca
n
di
p
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 6 of 21
Ta
b
le
2
St
ud
y
fe
at
ur
es
(C
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
N
o
A
ut
ho
r;
Y
ea
r;
C
ou
nt
ry
St
ud
y
ai
m
PP
Ia
im
or
PP
Ip
ap
er
ai
m
PP
It
yp
e
Ty
p
e
of
p
ri
so
ne
r
Sa
m
p
le
si
ze
&
ty
p
e
Pr
is
on
ty
p
e
Ev
al
ua
ti
on
&
ty
p
e
O
ut
co
m
es
(i)
Pr
is
on
er
s
(ii
)
Re
se
ar
ch
(e
rs
)
(i)
O
b
st
ac
le
s
&
(ii
)
re
co
m
m
en
d
at
io
ns
to
fe
m
al
e
pr
is
on
er
is
su
es
(e
xp
lo
it
or
in
se
ns
iti
ve
);
le
ss
ab
ou
t
he
al
th
is
su
e
&
m
or
e
of
re
la
tio
ns
hi
ps
,&
in
eq
ua
lit
y
of
ra
ce
&
po
ve
rt
y;
ne
ve
r
ga
in
ed
fu
ll
tr
us
t
–
eq
ua
lit
y
el
us
iv
e;
im
pr
ov
ed
th
e
se
rv
ic
e
in
&
ou
t
bu
t
st
ill
co
nt
rib
ut
e
(c
yc
lic
al
);
op
po
rt
un
iti
es
fo
r
pa
id
re
se
ar
ch
er
ro
le
s
on
re
le
as
e;
6
H
at
to
n
&
Fi
sh
er
;
H
at
to
n
&
Fi
sh
er
,
20
11
;
U
SA
To
ex
pl
or
e
th
e
im
pa
ct
of
pr
is
on
&
co
pa
ym
en
t
of
fe
es
,
on
he
al
th
To
de
sc
rib
e
ho
w
PP
I
fa
ci
lit
at
ed
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
g
C
BP
R
–
fo
rm
ed
co
m
m
un
ity
ad
vi
so
ry
bo
ar
d
(C
A
B)
PF
Li
Ps
N
=
3,
C
A
B
m
em
be
rs
Fe
m
al
e
pr
is
on
N
o
(i)
st
re
ng
th
en
ed
ca
se
of
pr
is
on
ad
vo
ca
te
s;
(ii
)
in
cr
ea
se
cr
ed
ib
ili
ty
of
re
se
ar
ch
to
pr
is
on
er
s;
pr
is
on
er
s
as
br
id
ge
in
co
m
m
un
ic
at
io
ns
w
ith
pr
is
on
er
s;
vi
ta
li
n
an
al
ys
is
;
bu
ild
s
kn
ow
le
dg
e
&
ev
id
en
ce
(i)
on
ly
in
cl
ud
ed
ex
-
pr
is
on
er
s
as
m
in
im
is
ed
fu
r-
th
er
re
se
ar
ch
ob
st
ac
le
s
&
st
af
f
re
tr
ib
ut
io
n;
(ii
)
he
lp
if
ha
ve
po
si
tiv
e
pr
e-
ex
is
tin
g
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p;
us
e
of
ex
-
pr
is
on
er
s
an
d
co
nf
id
en
tia
lit
y
ce
rt
ifi
ca
te
s
7
H
at
to
n
et
al
.;
H
at
to
n
et
al
.,
20
06
;
U
SA
To
ex
pl
or
e
pr
is
on
er
he
al
th
pr
ob
le
m
s
&
ca
re
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
re
se
ar
ch
in
co
lla
bo
ra
tio
n
w
ith
an
N
G
O
in
cl
ud
in
g
ex
-
pr
is
on
er
s
PF
Li
Ps
fro
m
lo
ca
lN
G
O
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
Fe
m
al
e
co
un
ty
pr
is
on
,
W
es
te
rn
U
SA
N
o
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
(i)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
tr
ai
ni
ng
on
fo
cu
s
gr
ou
p
fa
ci
lit
at
io
n
8
Ke
nd
al
l
et
al
.,
Ke
nd
al
l
et
al
.,
20
20
,
A
us
tr
al
ia
Ex
pl
or
e
ex
pe
rie
nc
es
of
ac
ce
ss
in
g
he
al
th
ca
re
an
d
lim
ita
tio
ns
of
‘e
qu
al
tr
ea
tm
en
t’
En
su
re
re
se
ar
ch
&
co
m
m
un
ity
pr
io
rit
ie
s
m
es
h;
us
e
va
lid
co
nc
ep
ts
,
es
ta
bl
is
h
an
ad
vi
so
ry
gr
ou
p
C
om
m
un
ity
co
lla
bo
ra
tiv
e
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
ac
tio
n
re
se
ar
ch
PL
iP
s
Fo
rt
y-
th
re
e
A
bo
rig
in
al
w
om
en
U
rb
an
an
d
re
gi
on
al
pr
is
on
s
in
N
SW
N
o
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
9
M
ar
tin
,
A
da
m
so
n
et
al
.;
M
ar
tin
et
al
.,
20
13
C
an
ad
a
To
ev
al
ua
te
th
e
pi
lo
t
of
a
fit
ne
ss
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
To
de
si
gn
,l
ea
d
&
ev
al
ua
te
PA
R
–
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
re
se
ar
ch
te
am
le
d
by
pr
is
on
er
PL
iP
s
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
,
fe
m
al
e
Fe
m
al
e,
m
in
/
m
ed
iu
m
se
cu
rit
y
pr
is
on
N
o
(i)
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
w
or
ki
ng
in
co
m
m
un
ity
on
re
la
te
d
w
or
k,
po
st
-r
el
ea
se
;(
ii)
re
su
lta
nt
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
de
si
gn
ed
&
im
-
pl
em
en
te
d
by
pr
is
on
er
s,
a
st
re
ng
th
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
10
M
ar
tin
,
Ko
rc
hi
ns
ki
et
al
.;
M
ar
tin
et
al
.,
20
17
;
C
an
ad
a
Te
am
re
fle
ct
io
n
on
pr
is
on
er
pa
rt
ic
ip
a-
tio
n
PP
Ii
nv
ol
ve
d
co
lla
bo
ra
-t
io
n
ac
ro
ss
th
e
w
ho
le
pr
oj
ec
t
PA
R
–
re
se
ar
ch
te
am
pr
is
on
er
-
le
d
PL
iP
s
&
PF
Li
Ps
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
Fe
m
al
e
pr
ov
in
ci
al
pr
is
on
Ye
s,
re
fle
ct
io
n
(i)
he
al
in
g/
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
iv
e,
gi
vi
ng
ba
ck
;c
on
tin
ue
d
w
ith
in
te
rv
en
tio
ns
po
st
-r
el
ea
se
;
(ii
)
ch
an
ge
ca
n
ha
pp
en
w
he
n
co
lla
bo
ra
te
;a
lte
re
d
pe
rs
on
al
ly
&
pr
of
es
si
on
al
ly
;
ne
w
kn
ow
le
dg
e
&
re
la
tio
n-
sh
ip
s;
m
ut
ua
ll
ea
rn
in
g;
in
tr
o-
du
ce
d
sp
iri
tu
al
he
al
th
as
a
(i)
re
se
ar
ch
en
de
d
w
he
n
pr
is
on
w
ar
de
n
re
tir
ed
;(
ii)
ne
ed
fo
r
se
ni
or
st
af
f
bu
y-
in
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 7 of 21
Ta
b
le
2
St
ud
y
fe
at
ur
es
(C
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
N
o
A
ut
ho
r;
Y
ea
r;
C
ou
nt
ry
St
ud
y
ai
m
PP
Ia
im
or
PP
Ip
ap
er
ai
m
PP
It
yp
e
Ty
p
e
of
p
ri
so
ne
r
Sa
m
p
le
si
ze
&
ty
p
e
Pr
is
on
ty
p
e
Ev
al
ua
ti
on
&
ty
p
e
O
ut
co
m
es
(i)
Pr
is
on
er
s
(ii
)
Re
se
ar
ch
(e
rs
)
(i)
O
b
st
ac
le
s
&
(ii
)
re
co
m
m
en
d
at
io
ns
fa
ct
or
;
11
M
ar
tin
,
M
ur
ph
y,
C
ha
n
et
al
.;
M
ar
tin
,
M
ur
ph
y,
C
ha
n,
et
al
.,
20
09
;
C
an
ad
a
To
ex
pl
or
e
pr
is
on
er
s’
he
al
th
is
su
es
Fe
as
ib
ili
ty
of
do
in
g
PA
R
in
pr
is
on
;
re
se
ar
ch
de
si
gn
&
co
nd
uc
t
C
BP
R
&
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
iv
e
ac
tio
n
re
se
ar
ch
te
am
PL
iP
s
n
=
12
0
at
a
gr
ou
p
ev
en
t,
fe
m
al
e
Fe
m
al
e,
m
in
/
m
ed
iu
m
se
cu
rit
y
pr
is
on
N
o
(i&
ii)
au
th
or
s
re
po
rt
ed
it
w
as
he
al
in
g
&
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
iv
e
fo
r
al
l;
(ii
)
fe
as
ib
le
fo
r
pr
is
on
er
s
to
do
re
se
ar
ch
;m
ut
ua
l
le
ar
ni
ng
;m
an
y
qu
es
tio
ns
an
d
po
ss
ib
le
in
te
rv
en
tio
ns
su
gg
es
te
d,
pr
is
on
el
de
rs
ca
n
‘c
on
tr
ol
’g
ro
up
s
be
tt
er
(i)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
tr
ai
ni
ng
in
tr
an
sc
rip
tio
n;
im
po
rt
an
ce
of
w
ar
de
n
su
pp
or
t
12
M
ar
tin
,
M
ur
ph
y,
H
an
so
n,
et
al
.,
20
09
;
C
an
ad
a
To
ex
pl
or
e
pr
is
on
er
’s
he
al
th
is
su
es
&
go
al
s
D
es
cr
ip
tio
n
of
a
PA
R
pr
oc
es
s;
de
si
gn
&
de
ve
lo
p
re
se
ar
ch
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
ac
tio
n
re
se
ar
ch
te
am
PL
iP
s
&
PF
Li
Ps
n
=
19
0
ac
ro
ss
th
e
pr
oj
ec
t
lif
e
sp
an
,f
em
al
e
Fe
m
al
e,
m
in
/
m
ed
iu
m
se
cu
rit
y
pr
ov
in
ci
al
pr
is
on
Ye
s,
re
fle
ct
-
io
n
&
qu
al
i-
ta
tiv
e
an
al
ys
is
(i)
m
ea
ni
ng
fu
l,
su
pp
or
tiv
e;
in
cr
ea
se
d
ho
pe
,c
on
fid
en
ce
,
co
m
m
un
ic
at
io
n
&
tr
an
sf
er
ab
le
sk
ill
s;
al
te
re
d
pe
rs
pe
ct
iv
e;
(ii
)
pr
is
on
as
a
go
od
pl
ac
e
to
do
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
w
or
k;
ch
al
le
ng
ed
re
du
ct
io
ni
st
co
nc
ep
tio
ns
of
he
al
th
–
m
or
e
ho
lis
tic
,i
de
as
la
rg
er
in
sc
op
e;
le
ar
n
pr
oc
es
s
by
do
in
g
(i)
la
ck
of
st
af
f
bu
y-
in
;l
ac
k
of
fu
nd
in
g;
pr
is
on
er
tu
rn
-
ov
er
;(
ii)
tr
ai
ne
d
to
tr
an
-
sc
rib
e;
em
ph
as
is
e
va
lu
es
an
d
ta
rg
et
s
in
co
m
m
on
be
-
tw
ee
n
st
af
f
an
d
re
se
ar
ch
–
es
pe
ci
al
ly
se
ni
or
;h
el
pf
ul
to
ha
ve
a
re
se
ar
ch
as
si
st
an
t
su
st
ai
n
fo
cu
s
in
m
id
st
of
pr
is
on
er
ch
an
ge
s
13
M
ar
tin
,
Tu
rn
er
et
al
.;
M
ar
tin
et
al
.,
20
18
;
C
an
ad
a
Th
e
fe
as
ib
ili
ty
of
im
pl
em
en
tin
g
H
IV
pr
ev
en
tio
n
in
pr
is
on
Fe
as
ib
ili
ty
of
re
se
ar
ch
;V
ie
w
s
on
fu
tu
re
pr
oj
ec
ts
,b
ui
ld
ca
pa
ci
ty
&
pa
rt
ne
rs
hi
p
C
om
m
un
ity
-
Ba
se
d
Re
se
ar
ch
(C
BR
)
PL
iP
s
&
PF
Li
Ps
n
=
12
;3
A
bo
rig
in
al
,
av
er
ag
e
ag
e
50
ye
ar
s
(ra
ng
e
30
–
65
)
M
al
e,
m
ed
iu
m
se
cu
rit
y
fe
de
ra
lp
ris
on
,
W
es
t
C
an
ad
a
N
o
(i)
in
cr
ea
se
em
pa
th
y
&
sh
ar
in
g,
he
lp
in
g
ot
he
rs
;(
ii)
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
w
or
k
fe
as
ib
le
;
pr
is
on
er
in
vo
lv
em
en
t
in
cr
ea
se
d
up
ta
ke
of
un
po
pu
la
r
se
rv
ic
e
(i)
pr
is
on
er
s
la
ck
tr
us
t;
(ii
)
if
su
bj
ec
t
is
im
po
rt
an
t
en
ou
gh
,m
en
w
ill
en
ga
ge
;
co
m
bi
ni
ng
pr
of
es
si
on
al
an
d
pr
is
on
er
-le
d
se
ss
io
ns
;u
se
of
tu
to
r
w
ith
pe
rs
on
al
ex
pe
ri-
en
ce
of
to
pi
c
14
M
cL
eo
d
et
al
.,
M
cL
eo
d
et
al
.,
20
20
,
C
an
ad
a
D
es
cr
ib
e
a
pe
er
he
al
th
m
en
to
rin
g
pr
og
ra
m
fo
r
re
le
as
ed
w
om
en
C
re
at
e
so
ci
al
ac
tio
n;
im
pr
ov
e
qu
al
ity
of
lif
e
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
he
al
th
re
se
ar
ch
fra
m
ew
or
k
PF
Li
Ps
34
0
w
om
en
C
or
re
ct
io
na
l
Fa
ci
lit
y
fo
r
W
om
en
,
C
an
ad
a
N
o
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
15
M
ey
er
&
Fe
ls
;
M
ey
er
&
Fe
ls
,2
00
9;
C
an
ad
a
To
ex
pl
or
e
pr
is
on
er
he
al
th
is
su
es
Re
fle
ct
io
n
on
th
e
pr
oj
ec
t;
fo
cu
s
on
an
al
ys
is
PA
R
-
te
am
PL
iP
s
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
,
fe
m
al
e
Fe
m
al
e
pr
is
on
N
o
(i)
re
po
rt
ed
ly
em
po
w
er
ed
;
tr
an
sf
er
ab
le
sk
ill
s;
(ii
)
be
tt
er
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
g
to
an
al
ys
is
–
th
at
w
hi
ch
is
no
t
un
de
rs
ta
nd
ab
le
ou
ts
id
e;
im
pa
ct
s
on
ro
le
s
an
d
w
ay
th
ey
re
se
ar
ch
se
e
in
st
itu
tio
ns
;w
om
en
kn
ow
w
ha
t
th
ey
ne
ed
(i)
po
w
er
di
ffe
re
nc
es
;b
ia
s
to
w
ar
ds
re
se
ar
ch
er
in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n;
pr
oj
ec
t
cl
os
ed
w
he
n
w
ar
de
n
le
ft
;(
ii)
su
pp
or
t
of
pr
is
on
w
ar
de
n;
fo
llo
w
pr
is
on
er
s
w
he
n
th
ey
al
te
r
fo
cu
s
–
al
lo
w
to
ch
an
ge
sc
op
e
&
fo
cu
s,
an
d
be
‘o
th
er
’;
lis
te
n;
pr
is
on
st
af
f
to
he
ar
pr
is
on
er
st
or
ie
s;
no
t
ab
ou
t
te
ac
hi
ng
w
om
en
,b
ut
en
ga
gi
ng
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 8 of 21
Ta
b
le
2
St
ud
y
fe
at
ur
es
(C
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
N
o
A
ut
ho
r;
Y
ea
r;
C
ou
nt
ry
St
ud
y
ai
m
PP
Ia
im
or
PP
Ip
ap
er
ai
m
PP
It
yp
e
Ty
p
e
of
p
ri
so
ne
r
Sa
m
p
le
si
ze
&
ty
p
e
Pr
is
on
ty
p
e
Ev
al
ua
ti
on
&
ty
p
e
O
ut
co
m
es
(i)
Pr
is
on
er
s
(ii
)
Re
se
ar
ch
(e
rs
)
(i)
O
b
st
ac
le
s
&
(ii
)
re
co
m
m
en
d
at
io
ns
16
Pe
rr
et
t
et
al
.,
Pe
rr
et
t
&
G
ra
y,
20
20
,
U
K
To
re
po
rt
on
w
or
k
un
de
rt
ak
en
w
ith
PL
iP
s
on
he
al
th
&
w
el
lb
ei
ng
,a
nd
pr
oc
es
s
of
pe
er
re
se
ar
ch
Ex
pl
or
e
fe
as
ib
ili
ty
of
PL
iP
s
as
pe
er
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
as
pa
rt
of
ed
uc
at
io
na
l
in
iti
at
iv
e
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
A
ct
io
n
Re
se
ar
ch
(P
A
R)
PL
iP
s
15
4
m
en
on
th
e
vu
ln
er
ab
le
pr
is
on
er
s
un
it
Lo
ng
st
ay
pr
iv
at
e
pr
is
on
in
W
al
es
,U
K
Ye
s,
re
fle
ct
io
n
fro
m
on
e
pe
er
re
se
ar
ch
er
on
ly
(i)
Es
ta
bl
is
hm
en
t
of
th
e
pr
oj
ec
t,
da
ta
co
lla
tio
n
an
d
di
re
ct
co
m
m
un
ic
at
io
n
w
ith
m
an
ag
em
en
t
em
po
w
er
in
g;
en
ab
le
d
ac
ce
ss
tr
ai
ni
ng
an
d
ed
uc
at
io
n,
le
ar
ni
ng
ne
w
sk
ill
s;
al
te
re
d
po
w
er
ba
la
nc
e;
in
te
re
st
in
g
an
d
m
ot
iv
at
in
g
(ii
)
fin
di
ng
s
m
or
e
re
pr
es
en
ta
tiv
e;
fa
ci
lit
at
ed
al
l-
pr
is
on
ap
pr
oa
ch
to
w
el
l-
be
in
g;
se
ni
or
m
an
ag
em
en
t
m
ad
e
aw
ar
e
of
is
su
es
(i)
pr
oc
es
s
w
as
lo
gi
st
ic
al
ly
co
m
pl
ic
at
ed
;f
oc
us
gr
ou
ps
ne
ga
tiv
el
y
af
fe
ct
ed
by
st
af
fin
g
an
d
re
gi
m
e
ch
an
ge
s
(in
c.
ca
nc
el
la
tio
ns
,
ne
ed
fo
r
es
co
rt
s)
;l
im
ite
d
ac
ce
ss
to
IT
ca
us
in
g
lo
ts
of
di
ffi
cu
lty
;
(ii
)
bu
ild
in
im
pa
ct
ev
al
ua
tio
n
fro
m
th
e
st
ar
t;
go
od
pr
is
on
st
af
f-p
ro
je
ct
st
af
f
co
m
m
un
ic
at
io
n
ne
ed
ed
;s
ta
ff
bu
y-
in
ke
y
at
al
ls
ta
ge
s,
es
pe
ci
al
ly
m
an
-
ag
em
en
t
su
pp
or
t
17
Ra
m
sd
en
et
al
.;
Ra
m
sd
en
et
al
.,
20
15
;
C
an
ad
a
To
ex
pl
or
e
w
ay
s
to
im
pr
ov
e
pr
is
on
er
he
al
th
&
w
el
lb
ei
ng
A
n
an
al
ys
is
of
pr
is
on
er
’s
w
rit
in
g
C
BP
R
&
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
iv
e
ac
tio
n
re
se
ar
ch
;p
ee
r
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
-
te
am
-
te
am
PL
iP
s
&
PF
Li
Ps
n
=
20
0
ap
pr
ox
;
39
%
<
30
ye
ar
s
Fe
m
al
e,
m
in
/
m
ed
iu
m
se
cu
rit
y
pr
is
on
Ye
s,
re
fle
ct
-
io
n
(i)
re
po
rt
ed
ly
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
iv
e
&
em
po
w
er
in
g;
tr
an
sf
er
ab
le
sk
ill
s;
se
ns
e
of
pu
rp
os
e;
op
tim
is
tic
;p
la
nn
in
g
fu
tu
re
s;
(ii
)s
ha
re
d
kn
ow
le
dg
e
va
lu
ed
by
pr
is
on
co
m
m
un
ity
&
co
nt
rib
ut
or
s
(i)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
fe
ed
ba
ck
on
re
se
ar
ch
to
pr
is
on
&
co
nt
rib
ut
or
s
–
cr
ea
te
s
re
la
tio
ns
hi
ps
;
in
vo
lv
em
en
t
be
ca
m
e
a
w
or
k
pl
ac
em
en
t,
so
co
ul
d
be
pa
id
;p
ris
on
er
s
al
lo
w
ed
in
te
rn
et
ac
ce
ss
-
co
ul
d
co
nt
rib
ut
e
to
lit
er
at
ur
e
re
vi
ew
s
18
Sh
er
w
oo
d
&
Ke
nd
al
l,
20
13
;
A
us
tr
al
ia
To
ex
pl
or
e
th
e
‘S
oc
ia
l&
C
ul
tu
ra
l
Re
si
lie
nc
e
&
Em
ot
io
na
l
W
el
lb
ei
ng
of
A
bo
rig
in
al
M
ot
he
rs
in
Pr
is
on
’p
ro
je
ct
D
es
cr
ip
tio
n
of
th
e
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
ap
pr
oa
ch
;
fe
ed
ba
ck
on
re
se
ar
ch
m
at
er
ia
l
C
om
m
un
ity
C
ol
la
bo
ra
tiv
e
PA
R
m
od
el
PF
Li
Ps
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
,a
ll
pr
is
on
er
s
A
bo
rig
in
al
n
=
3;
al
l
pr
is
on
s
in
N
ew
So
ut
h
W
al
es
ho
ld
in
g
w
om
en
N
o
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
19
Su
lli
va
n
et
al
.,
20
08
;
U
K
To
ex
pl
or
e
re
la
ps
e
pr
ev
en
tio
n;
ev
al
ua
te
re
la
ps
e
pr
ev
en
tio
n
co
ur
se
Pr
is
on
er
-le
d
ca
m
pa
ig
n,
as
si
st
ed
by
re
se
ar
ch
er
PA
R
–
m
em
be
r
of
ac
tio
n
re
se
ar
ch
gr
ou
p:
Br
ea
ki
ng
th
e
C
ha
in
’
PL
iP
s
n
=
8;
al
lm
al
e,
al
lw
in
g
dr
ug
re
pr
es
en
t-
ta
tiv
es
H
M
P
G
re
nd
on
:
C
at
B
m
al
e
pr
is
on
,w
in
gs
ru
n
as
TC
s
Ye
s,
re
fle
ct
io
n
(i)
en
jo
ye
d
su
cc
es
s
&
pr
oc
es
s;
in
cr
ea
se
d
co
nf
id
en
ce
,c
ar
in
g,
em
po
w
er
m
en
t;
op
in
io
ns
va
lu
ed
;b
ut
,a
ng
er
&
di
si
llu
si
on
m
en
t
w
he
n
st
af
f
no
t
in
te
re
st
ed
in
fin
di
ng
s;
(ii
)
ha
ve
kn
ow
le
dg
e
of
sy
st
em
;j
us
t
a
gr
ou
p
m
em
be
r;
di
ffi
cu
lt
w
he
n
gr
ou
p
an
gr
y,
bu
t
ot
he
r
gr
ou
p
m
em
be
rs
he
lp
ed
gr
ou
p
m
ov
e
on
(i)
po
w
er
di
ffe
re
nc
es
;l
ac
k
of
st
af
f
in
te
re
st
;c
om
pu
te
r
ac
ce
ss
,s
ec
ur
ity
is
su
es
&
un
re
as
on
ab
le
in
te
rn
al
de
ad
lin
es
lim
ite
d
pr
is
on
er
au
th
or
sh
ip
;(
ii)
in
iti
al
ly
ac
ad
em
ic
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
m
ay
ne
ed
to
ta
ke
a
m
or
e
fa
ci
lit
at
iv
e
an
d
ad
m
in
is
tr
at
iv
e
ro
le
;(
ii)
ge
t
st
af
f
bu
y-
in
;n
eg
ot
ia
te
se
cu
r-
ity
&
ac
ce
ss
is
su
es
at
ea
ch
pr
is
on
lo
ca
lly
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 9 of 21
Ta
b
le
2
St
ud
y
fe
at
ur
es
(C
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
N
o
A
ut
ho
r;
Y
ea
r;
C
ou
nt
ry
St
ud
y
ai
m
PP
Ia
im
or
PP
Ip
ap
er
ai
m
PP
It
yp
e
Ty
p
e
of
p
ri
so
ne
r
Sa
m
p
le
si
ze
&
ty
p
e
Pr
is
on
ty
p
e
Ev
al
ua
ti
on
&
ty
p
e
O
ut
co
m
es
(i)
Pr
is
on
er
s
(ii
)
Re
se
ar
ch
(e
rs
)
(i)
O
b
st
ac
le
s
&
(ii
)
re
co
m
m
en
d
at
io
ns
20
To
w
ns
en
d
To
w
ns
en
d,
20
01
;
M
al
ay
si
a
To
ex
pl
or
e
w
ay
s
to
im
pr
ov
e
ca
re
fo
r
pe
op
le
w
ho
ar
e
H
IV
+
To
ge
ne
ra
te
id
ea
s
to
im
pr
ov
e
ca
re
&
su
pp
or
t
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
as
se
ss
m
en
t
pr
oc
es
s,
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
Le
ar
ni
ng
&
A
ct
io
n
to
ol
s
–
fo
rm
ed
gr
ou
ps
PL
iP
s
Pr
is
on
1:
n
=
8;
fe
m
al
e;
Pr
is
on
2:
n
=
12
,m
al
e,
Pr
is
on
3:
n
=
30
,
m
al
e;
al
lH
IV
+
st
at
us
N
=
3;
Pr
is
on
1:
fe
m
al
e
pr
is
on
;
Pr
is
on
s
2
&
3:
m
al
e
pr
is
on
s
N
o
(i)
st
im
ul
at
in
g,
di
ve
rt
in
g,
pr
es
tig
io
us
;(
ii)
tr
us
t,
ra
pp
or
t,
m
ot
iv
at
es
;
re
pr
es
en
ta
tiv
en
es
s
of
pr
is
on
er
s
on
ly
se
m
i-s
o;
gr
ou
p
au
to
no
m
y
im
po
rt
an
t;
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
pr
oc
es
s
ke
y,
bu
t
“a
de
gr
ee
of
m
et
ho
do
-
lo
gi
ca
lc
om
pr
om
is
e
w
ill
pr
ob
ab
ly
be
in
ev
ita
bl
e”
(p
g
10
)
(i)
pr
is
on
ne
ed
s,
ra
th
er
th
an
pr
is
on
er
s’,
di
ct
at
ed
th
e
re
se
ar
ch
;i
nt
er
-
an
d
in
tr
a-
gr
ou
p
dy
na
m
ic
s
ca
n
ne
ga
-
tiv
el
y
im
pa
ct
pr
oc
es
s;
re
-
se
ar
ch
er
ac
ce
ss
lim
ite
d;
bu
re
au
cr
ac
y
lim
its
;(
ii)
de
-
em
ph
as
is
e
go
al
s
of
so
ci
al
ch
an
ge
to
of
fic
ia
ls
;m
an
ag
e
gr
ou
p
dy
na
m
ic
s;
pr
is
on
er
gr
ou
ps
ne
ed
to
be
co
m
e
au
-
to
no
m
ou
s
qu
ic
kl
y;
co
m
pr
es
s
re
se
ar
ch
ac
tiv
ity
as
m
uc
h
as
po
ss
ib
le
;m
an
ag
e
pr
is
on
er
ex
pe
ct
at
io
ns
;d
o
no
t
cu
rt
ai
l
fre
ed
om
s
21
W
ar
d
&
Ba
ile
y,
20
11
;U
K
To
de
ve
lo
p
a
se
lf-
ha
rm
tr
ai
ni
ng
pa
ck
-
ag
e
fo
r
st
af
f
To
id
en
tif
y
st
af
f
tr
ai
ni
ng
ne
ed
s,
an
d
w
ay
s
to
ad
dr
es
s
th
em
PA
R
PL
iP
s
M
ap
pi
ng
(n
=
9)
;
gr
ou
p
(n
=
16
–
20
);
in
te
rv
ie
w
s
(n
=
15
);
su
rv
ey
s
(n
=
50
);
fe
m
al
e;
m
ea
n
ag
e
36
yr
s.
(ra
ng
e
18
–5
8)
Fe
m
al
e
pr
is
on
,
En
gl
an
d
N
o
(i)
ho
pe
th
er
e
w
er
e
be
ne
fit
s
in
ef
fe
ct
in
g
ch
an
ge
;(
ii)
ke
y
in
id
en
tif
yi
ng
kn
ow
le
dg
e
ga
ps
;P
A
R
im
po
rt
an
t
if
tr
yi
ng
to
ha
ve
an
eq
ui
va
le
nc
e
be
tw
ee
n
he
al
th
ca
re
re
se
ar
ch
in
th
e
co
m
m
un
ity
an
d
pr
is
on
(i)
pr
is
on
er
s
in
vo
lv
ed
m
ay
no
t
be
re
pr
es
en
ta
tiv
e
–
al
th
ou
gh
no
t
a
si
gn
ifi
ca
nt
is
su
es
;(
ii)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
22
W
ar
d
&
Ba
ile
y,
20
12
;U
K
To
de
ve
lo
p
se
lf-
ha
rm
ca
re
pa
th
w
ay
s
Ex
am
in
e
et
hi
ca
l
di
le
m
m
as
of
th
e
re
se
ar
ch
PA
R
PL
iP
s
n
=
2,
fe
m
al
e
Fe
m
al
e
pr
is
on
,
En
gl
an
d
Ye
s.
Re
fle
ct
io
n
(i)
ch
an
ge
sh
ou
ld
di
re
ct
ly
be
ne
fit
;o
pt
im
is
m
,
co
nf
id
en
ce
,i
ns
ig
ht
,g
oo
d
to
he
lp
ot
he
rs
&
sh
ar
e;
co
nc
er
ns
re
pr
iv
ac
y
al
la
ye
d;
em
po
w
er
in
g,
gi
ve
s
ag
en
cy
;
(ii
)
po
si
tiv
e
ex
pe
rie
nc
e;
PA
R
as
go
od
w
ay
to
de
ve
lo
p
se
rv
ic
es
(i)
bu
re
au
cr
ac
y
af
fe
ct
s
ac
ce
ss
;p
ot
en
tia
lf
or
‘v
ic
ar
io
us
’t
ra
um
a;
co
er
ci
on
pr
ob
le
m
at
ic
;d
ile
m
m
a
of
pa
ym
en
t;
ca
n’
t
of
fe
r
fu
ll
co
nf
id
en
tia
lit
y;
bu
dg
et
cu
ts
de
-p
rio
rit
is
ed
re
se
ar
ch
;(
ii)
ge
t
un
es
co
rt
ed
pr
is
on
er
ac
-
ce
ss
;s
up
er
vi
si
on
&
oc
cu
pa
-
tio
na
lh
ea
lth
ac
ce
ss
;b
al
an
ce
ne
ed
s
&
co
m
pr
om
is
e
–
pi
ck
ba
tt
le
s
th
at
ar
e
m
os
t
im
-
po
rt
an
t
to
pr
is
on
er
s
an
d
st
af
f;
ta
ke
tim
e
w
ith
in
-
fo
rm
ed
co
ns
en
t;
tr
an
sp
ar
-
en
cy
in
re
po
rt
in
g
23
W
ar
d
&
Ba
ile
y,
20
13
;U
K
To
de
ve
lo
p
se
lf-
ha
rm
ca
re
pa
th
w
ay
s
To
id
en
tif
y
se
rv
ic
e
ga
ps
&
st
af
f
tr
ai
ni
ng
ne
ed
s
PA
R
PL
iP
s
M
ap
pi
ng
(n
=
9)
;
gr
ou
p
(n
=
16
–
20
);
in
te
rv
ie
w
s
(n
=
15
);
qu
es
tio
nn
ai
re
s
(n
=
50
);
fe
m
al
e;
m
ea
n
ag
e
36
Fe
m
al
e
pr
is
on
,
En
gl
an
d
N
o
(i)
re
po
rt
ed
ly
em
po
w
er
in
g;
(ii
)
pr
is
on
er
s
ta
ke
a
m
or
e
ho
lis
tic
ap
pr
oa
ch
;P
A
R
ca
n
cr
ea
te
ch
an
ge
an
d
w
or
k
as
w
el
la
s
in
th
e
co
m
m
un
ity
,
de
sp
ite
la
ck
of
po
lic
y
su
pp
or
t
(i)
po
w
er
di
ffe
re
nc
es
le
d
to
no
t
tr
ai
ni
ng
pr
is
on
er
s
as
re
se
ar
ch
er
s;
(ii
)
fin
d
ot
he
r
w
ay
s
to
in
vo
lv
e
pr
is
on
er
s
th
an
tr
ai
ne
d
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 10 of 21
Ta
b
le
2
St
ud
y
fe
at
ur
es
(C
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
N
o
A
ut
ho
r;
Y
ea
r;
C
ou
nt
ry
St
ud
y
ai
m
PP
Ia
im
or
PP
Ip
ap
er
ai
m
PP
It
yp
e
Ty
p
e
of
p
ri
so
ne
r
Sa
m
p
le
si
ze
&
ty
p
e
Pr
is
on
ty
p
e
Ev
al
ua
ti
on
&
ty
p
e
O
ut
co
m
es
(i)
Pr
is
on
er
s
(ii
)
Re
se
ar
ch
(e
rs
)
(i)
O
b
st
ac
le
s
&
(ii
)
re
co
m
m
en
d
at
io
ns
ye
ar
s
(ra
ng
e
18
–
58
)
24
W
ar
d,
Ba
ile
y
&
Bo
yd
;W
ar
d
&
Ba
ile
y,
20
12
;U
K
To
im
pr
ov
e
ou
tc
om
es
fo
r
pe
op
le
w
ho
se
lf-
ha
rm
To
id
en
tif
y
ne
ed
s
re
ga
rd
in
g
st
af
f
tr
ai
ni
ng
PA
R
PL
iP
s
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
,
fe
m
al
e
Fe
m
al
e
pr
is
on
,
En
gl
an
d
Ye
s,
on
e
pr
is
on
er
s’
re
fle
ct
io
ns
(i)
in
cr
ea
se
d
co
nf
id
en
ce
,
in
si
gh
t;
al
te
re
d
st
af
f
be
ha
vi
ou
r
po
si
tiv
el
y;
po
si
tiv
e
to
se
e
ch
an
ge
s,
bl
ur
re
d
pr
is
on
er
-s
ta
ff
di
vi
de
;
(ii
)
PA
R
po
ss
ib
ly
be
ne
fic
ia
l
to
st
af
f
&
pr
is
on
er
s
(i)
po
w
er
di
ffe
re
nc
es
;a
nd
co
nc
er
ns
ab
ou
t
‘te
ac
hi
ng
’
st
af
f
as
a
po
te
nt
ia
lp
ro
bl
em
;
(ii
)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
(ii
)
O
th
er
ap
pr
oa
ch
es
25
A
nt
on
io
u
et
al
.,
A
nt
on
io
u
et
al
.,
20
19
,
C
an
ad
a
To
id
en
tif
y
th
e
m
ai
n
ba
rr
ie
rs
to
en
ga
gi
ng
w
ith
H
IV
-r
el
at
ed
m
ed
ic
al
&
so
ci
al
ca
re
po
st
-r
el
ea
se
To
in
fo
rm
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
de
si
gn
,a
nd
gi
ve
pe
op
le
a
vo
ic
e
in
re
se
ar
ch
an
d
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
C
on
ce
pt
m
ap
pi
ng
PF
Li
Ps
w
ith
H
IV
39
pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
n/
a
N
o
(i)
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
(ii
)
A
na
ly
si
s
oc
cu
rr
ed
in
re
al
-
tim
e
w
ith
co
nc
re
te
re
co
m
-
m
en
da
tio
ns
ra
th
er
th
an
la
te
r
an
d
re
se
ar
ch
er
on
ly
;
fin
di
ng
s
in
fo
rm
ed
de
ve
lo
p-
m
en
t
of
a
pr
og
ra
m
m
e
fo
r
fo
rm
er
ly
in
ca
rc
er
at
ed
pe
op
le
w
ith
H
IV
.
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
26
A
pa
et
al
.;
A
pa
et
al
.,
20
12
;
U
SA
To
ex
pl
or
e
ris
k
fa
ct
or
s
fo
r
sp
re
ad
of
st
ap
h
in
fe
ct
io
n
To
ge
t
fe
ed
ba
ck
&
in
cr
ea
se
su
pp
or
t
fo
r
th
e
st
ud
y
N
o
ap
pr
oa
ch
re
po
rt
ed
PL
iP
s
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
n
=
2,
m
ax
se
cu
rit
y,
fe
m
al
e
&
m
al
e
N
o
(i)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
co
lla
bo
ra
tio
n
w
ith
pr
is
on
er
gr
ou
ps
ca
n
in
cr
ea
se
st
ud
y
su
pp
or
t
(i)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
us
ef
ul
to
w
or
k
w
ith
gr
ou
ps
th
at
re
pr
es
en
t
pr
is
on
er
s
in
pr
is
on
27
A
w
en
at
et
al
.;
A
w
en
at
et
al
.,
20
17
;
U
K
RC
T
of
su
ic
id
e
pr
ev
en
tio
n
th
er
ap
y
To
ex
am
in
e
pr
is
on
er
s’
ex
pe
rie
nc
e;
to
im
pr
ov
e
st
ud
y’
s
‘e
co
lo
gi
ca
l
va
lid
ity
’
Ba
se
d
on
IN
VO
LV
E
m
od
el
;
m
on
th
ly
Se
rv
ic
e
U
se
r
Re
se
ar
ch
G
ro
up
(S
U
RG
)
m
ee
tin
gs
PF
Li
Ps
n
=
4;
2
m
al
e,
2
fe
m
al
e;
“m
ix
ed
et
hn
ic
ity
”;
ag
e
ra
ng
e
40
–6
0
ye
ar
s
M
al
e
pr
is
on
s
–
ov
er
al
ls
tu
dy
Ye
s.
Q
ua
li-
ta
tiv
e;
in
te
r-
vi
ew
s,
IP
A
an
al
ys
is
(i)
po
si
tiv
e
to
ef
fe
ct
ch
an
ge
,
sh
ar
e
id
ea
s;
m
ut
ua
lr
es
pe
ct
,
fe
lt
va
lu
ed
,m
ak
e
go
od
of
ba
d
&
gi
ve
ba
ck
,p
os
iti
ve
ch
an
ge
in
se
lf-
pe
rc
ep
tio
n
&
pe
rc
ep
tio
n
by
ot
he
rs
;i
m
-
pa
ct
ed
de
si
st
an
ce
;o
ne
m
em
be
r
re
po
rt
ed
lit
tle
im
-
pa
ct
;(
ii)
gu
id
ed
st
ud
y
am
en
dm
en
ts
–
im
pr
ov
ed
qu
al
ity
;m
ay
be
m
or
e
im
-
po
rt
an
t
fo
r
ex
-p
ris
on
er
s
be
-
ca
us
e
of
st
ig
m
at
is
ed
id
en
tit
ie
s
(i)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
tr
ai
ni
ng
–
si
x-
da
y
M
as
te
r’s
le
ve
lr
es
ea
rc
h
m
od
ul
e;
ho
n-
or
ar
y
un
iv
er
si
ty
co
nt
ra
ct
s
an
d
st
af
f
ca
rd
s;
po
si
tiv
e
re
la
-
tio
ns
hi
ps
w
ith
ac
ad
em
ic
re
-
se
ar
ch
er
ke
y;
op
en
fe
el
in
g
to
m
ee
tin
gs
so
fre
e
to
sh
ar
e
vi
ew
s
28
By
ng
et
al
.;
By
ng
et
al
.,
20
12
;
U
K
To
ex
pl
or
e
co
nt
in
ui
ty
of
ca
re
,&
im
pr
ov
em
en
ts
To
in
cr
ea
se
ac
ce
ss
to
pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
,
m
ak
e
re
se
ar
ch
&
m
at
er
ia
ls
m
or
e
le
gi
bl
e
N
o
ap
pr
oa
ch
re
po
rt
ed
;p
ee
r
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
-
O
ffe
nd
er
Re
se
ar
ch
G
ro
up
PF
Li
Ps
n
=
13
;p
ai
d
Va
rio
us
-n
ot
re
po
rt
ed
Ye
s,
cr
iti
ca
l
re
fle
ct
io
n
(i)
so
m
e
fe
lt
va
lu
ed
,m
or
e
co
nf
id
en
t
&
op
tim
is
tic
,l
es
s
is
ol
at
ed
;t
ra
in
in
g
le
d
to
co
nf
id
en
ce
;(
ii)
st
re
ng
th
en
ed
pr
oc
es
s
–
“s
ub
tle
fu
si
on
of
id
ea
s
th
ro
ug
ho
ut
”
(p
g
18
8)
(i)
di
ffi
cu
lti
es
se
tt
in
g
up
re
se
ar
ch
gr
ou
ps
in
pr
is
on
;
un
iv
er
si
ty
bu
re
au
cr
ac
y
in
hi
rin
g
ex
-p
ris
on
er
s
le
d
to
so
m
e
dr
op
pi
ng
ou
t;
di
ffi
-
cu
lty
m
an
ag
in
g
gr
ou
p
dy
-
na
m
ic
s;
(ii
)
al
lo
ca
te
en
ou
gh
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 11 of 21
Ta
b
le
2
St
ud
y
fe
at
ur
es
(C
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
N
o
A
ut
ho
r;
Y
ea
r;
C
ou
nt
ry
St
ud
y
ai
m
PP
Ia
im
or
PP
Ip
ap
er
ai
m
PP
It
yp
e
Ty
p
e
of
p
ri
so
ne
r
Sa
m
p
le
si
ze
&
ty
p
e
Pr
is
on
ty
p
e
Ev
al
ua
ti
on
&
ty
p
e
O
ut
co
m
es
(i)
Pr
is
on
er
s
(ii
)
Re
se
ar
ch
(e
rs
)
(i)
O
b
st
ac
le
s
&
(ii
)
re
co
m
m
en
d
at
io
ns
tim
e;
pa
y
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
&
ha
ve
a
le
ad
;t
ra
in
in
g
29
C
or
ni
sh
et
al
.,
20
16
;
U
K
To
ex
am
in
e
ol
de
r
pr
is
on
er
ex
pe
rie
nc
es
of
re
le
as
e
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
N
o
ap
pr
oa
ch
re
po
rt
ed
–
O
ld
er
pr
is
on
er
us
er
s’
gr
ou
p
PF
Li
Ps
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
n
=
5
N
o
(i)
no
t
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
pr
is
on
er
s
ex
pe
rie
nc
es
he
lp
fu
li
n
ex
pl
or
in
g
th
e
ex
pe
rie
nc
es
of
pe
er
s
(i)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
tr
ai
ni
ng
to
co
nd
uc
t
in
te
rv
ie
w
s
30
Ed
ge
et
al
.,
Ed
ge
et
al
.,
20
20
,
U
K
To
de
ve
lo
p
an
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
g
of
eq
ui
va
le
nc
e
vi
a
ac
co
un
ts
of
PL
iP
s
se
co
nd
ar
y
(h
os
pi
ta
l)
ca
re
ex
pe
rie
nc
e
To
en
su
re
m
et
ho
ds
ar
e
ac
ce
pt
ab
le
;t
o
cl
ar
ify
te
rm
in
ol
og
y
Pe
er
-le
d
re
se
ar
ch
(a
pp
ro
ac
h
no
t
de
fin
ed
)
PF
Li
Ps
fro
m
a
pr
is
on
ch
ar
ity
N
-4
5.
Fo
cu
s
gr
ou
ps
(n
=
5)
an
d
1:
1
in
te
rv
ie
w
s
(n
=
17
)
Fi
ve
En
gl
is
h
pr
is
on
s
–
m
al
e
&
fe
m
al
e.
N
o
(i)
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
(ii
)
Be
lie
ve
d
pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
m
or
e
em
po
w
er
ed
&
ga
ve
m
or
e
ho
ne
st
ac
co
un
ts
;
te
rm
in
ol
og
y
cl
ar
ifi
ed
;
en
su
re
d
m
et
ho
ds
ac
ce
pt
ab
le
.B
ut
,l
ac
k
of
ex
pe
rie
nc
e
an
d
us
e
of
ow
n
ex
pe
rie
nc
es
m
ay
‘le
ad
’
pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
31
Fo
rs
yt
h
et
al
.,
20
17
;
U
K
To
st
ud
y
th
e
ef
fe
ct
iv
e-
ne
ss
of
a
he
al
th
&
so
ci
al
ca
re
as
se
ss
m
en
t
&
pl
an
-
ni
ng
to
ol
fo
r
ol
de
r
pr
is
on
er
s
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
N
o
ap
pr
oa
ch
re
po
rt
ed
.
A
ct
io
n
le
ar
ni
ng
gr
ou
p;
ex
-
pr
is
on
er
co
-
ap
pl
ic
an
t;
tr
ia
l
st
ee
rin
g
co
m
-
m
itt
ee
m
em
be
rs
PL
iP
s
in
gr
ou
p;
PF
Li
Ps
on
co
m
m
itt
ee
&
co
-
ap
pl
ic
an
t
G
ro
up
=
un
re
po
rt
ed
;c
o-
ap
pl
ic
an
t=
1;
co
m
m
itt
ee
m
em
be
r=
2
G
ro
up
,n
=
1;
n
=
10
in
ov
er
al
ls
tu
dy
-
fro
m
op
en
to
tr
ai
ni
ng
to
hi
gh
se
cu
rit
y
N
o
(i)
re
po
rt
ed
ly
va
lu
ed
co
nt
rib
ut
in
g
to
ch
an
ge
;(
ii)
va
lu
ed
by
te
am
ac
ro
ss
th
e
st
ud
y
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
32
Fo
rs
yt
h
et
al
.,
Fo
rs
yt
h
et
al
.,
20
20
,
U
K
To
es
ta
bl
is
h
pr
ev
al
en
ce
of
de
m
en
tia
an
d
m
ild
co
gn
iti
ve
im
pa
irm
en
t
in
pr
is
on
er
s
in
En
gl
an
d
an
d
W
al
es
an
d
th
ei
r
he
al
th
an
d
so
ci
al
ca
re
ne
ed
s
To
gi
ve
in
pu
t
to
st
ud
y
pr
op
os
al
,a
nd
ad
vi
ce
th
ro
ug
ho
ut
;
en
su
re
co
ns
id
er
ne
ed
s
of
ol
de
r
pe
op
le
PP
I
PF
Li
Ps
O
ne
PF
Li
P
w
as
a
co
-a
pp
lic
an
t;
w
ith
a
fu
rt
he
r
re
-
se
ar
ch
gr
ou
p
of
fo
ur
PF
Li
Ps
in
vo
lv
ed
77
pr
is
on
s
in
En
gl
an
d
an
d
W
al
es
–
m
ix
ed
es
ta
bl
is
hm
en
ts
N
o
(i)
PF
Li
Ps
re
po
rt
ed
ly
w
el
co
m
ed
re
se
ar
ch
,
be
lie
vi
ng
it
to
fe
ll
a
ga
p
an
d
he
lp
w
ith
se
rv
ic
e
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t
(ii
)
In
pu
t
to
re
se
ar
ch
de
si
gn
w
as
us
ef
ul
;i
np
ut
to
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t
of
tr
ai
ni
ng
an
d
in
te
rv
en
tio
n
co
ns
id
er
ed
m
ea
ni
ng
fu
l
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
33
H
as
sa
n
et
al
.,
20
14
;
U
K
To
ex
pl
or
e
pr
ev
al
en
ce
&
ac
ce
pt
-a
bi
lit
y
of
ps
yc
ho
-t
ro
pi
c
m
ed
i-
ca
tio
n
pr
es
cr
ib
in
g
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
N
o
ap
pr
oa
ch
re
po
rt
ed
.
M
on
th
ly
re
se
ar
ch
ad
vi
so
ry
gr
ou
p
PF
Li
Ps
N
=
7
re
gu
la
r
m
em
be
r;
m
al
e
&
fe
m
al
e;
al
lu
se
d
pr
is
on
he
al
th
ca
re
n-
11
in
st
ud
y;
m
al
e
&
fe
m
al
e
N
o
(i)
im
pr
ov
ed
co
nf
id
en
ce
,
co
m
m
un
ic
at
io
n
&
ne
tw
or
ks
;
ac
ce
ss
ed
tr
ai
ni
ng
;(
ii)
‘P
ro
ve
d’
po
ss
ib
le
to
ha
ve
a
gr
ou
p
of
ex
-p
ris
on
er
s
w
or
k
ac
ro
ss
th
e
lif
es
pa
n
of
a
st
ud
y
ad
vi
ce
on
sy
st
em
&
re
cr
ui
tm
en
t
in
va
lu
ab
le
;
m
ad
e
re
se
ar
ch
m
or
e
ef
fe
ct
iv
e
(i)
di
ffi
cu
lti
es
re
cr
ui
tin
g
le
d
to
de
la
ys
in
pr
oj
ec
t;
te
am
ch
an
ge
s;
sk
ill
m
ix
;(
ii)
ac
ce
ss
to
tr
ai
ni
ng
;c
ol
la
bo
ra
tin
g
w
ith
de
pa
rt
m
en
ts
w
ith
PP
I
ex
pe
rie
nc
e
he
lp
ed
re
cr
ui
tm
en
t;
ha
ve
gr
ou
p
te
rm
s
of
re
fe
re
nc
e
&
co
de
s
of
co
nd
uc
t;
ex
pl
ai
n
&
cl
ar
ify
ev
er
yt
hi
ng
as
di
ffe
rin
g
sk
ill
s;
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 12 of 21
Ta
b
le
2
St
ud
y
fe
at
ur
es
(C
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
N
o
A
ut
ho
r;
Y
ea
r;
C
ou
nt
ry
St
ud
y
ai
m
PP
Ia
im
or
PP
Ip
ap
er
ai
m
PP
It
yp
e
Ty
p
e
of
p
ri
so
ne
r
Sa
m
p
le
si
ze
&
ty
p
e
Pr
is
on
ty
p
e
Ev
al
ua
ti
on
&
ty
p
e
O
ut
co
m
es
(i)
Pr
is
on
er
s
(ii
)
Re
se
ar
ch
(e
rs
)
(i)
O
b
st
ac
le
s
&
(ii
)
re
co
m
m
en
d
at
io
ns
al
lo
ca
te
en
ou
gh
tim
e
&
re
so
ur
ce
s;
ha
ve
ad
m
in
is
tr
at
iv
e
he
lp
34
H
ow
er
to
n
et
al
.,
20
09
;
U
K
To
ex
am
in
e
in
flu
en
ce
s
on
pr
is
on
er
s
se
ek
in
g
he
lp
fo
r
m
en
ta
l
he
al
th
pr
ob
le
m
s
on
re
le
as
e
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
N
o
ap
pr
oa
ch
re
po
rt
ed
.
C
ol
la
bo
ra
te
d
w
ith
an
N
G
O
’s
us
er
gr
ou
p
PF
Li
Ps
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
M
al
e,
C
at
B
pr
is
on
,S
ou
th
En
gl
an
d
N
o
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
35
So
ut
h
et
al
.,
20
14
;
U
K
To
sy
st
em
at
ic
al
ly
re
vi
ew
pr
is
on
er
pe
er
he
al
th
pr
og
-
ra
m
m
es
O
pp
or
tu
ni
ty
fo
r
di
al
og
ue
,&
ap
pl
ic
at
io
n
of
fin
di
ng
s
PP
I–
ex
pe
rt
sy
m
po
si
um
(la
y
ex
pe
rt
s)
,&
lis
te
ni
ng
ex
er
ci
se
s
PF
Li
Ps
:
sy
m
po
si
um
&
lis
te
ni
ng
ex
er
ci
se
;
PL
iP
s:
lis
te
ni
ng
ex
er
ci
se
Sy
m
po
si
um
:
un
re
po
rt
ed
;
Li
st
en
in
g
ex
er
ci
se
s
=
8
pe
r
pr
is
on
ap
pr
ox
.;
al
lp
ee
rs
or
pe
er
su
pp
or
te
d
n
=
3:
C
at
B
lo
ca
l,
hi
gh
se
cu
rit
y
&
fe
m
al
e
pr
is
on
;
in
N
W
En
gl
an
d
N
o
(i)
no
t
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
PP
Ia
s
in
te
gr
al
;s
ym
po
si
um
ad
de
d
co
nt
ex
t,
le
d
to
a
va
rie
ty
of
gr
ey
lit
er
at
ur
e
&
in
te
rv
en
tio
n
ty
pe
s
(i)
un
ab
le
to
ha
ve
se
rv
in
g
pr
is
on
er
s
at
pu
bl
ic
m
ee
tin
gs
,s
o
ex
cl
ud
ed
fro
m
sy
m
po
si
um
;q
ue
st
io
ns
ar
ou
nd
re
pr
es
en
ta
tiv
en
es
s
w
he
n
pr
is
on
er
s
se
le
ct
ed
by
st
af
f;
(ii
)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
36
Ta
yl
or
et
al
.,
20
18
;
U
K
RC
T
fo
r
a
m
en
ta
l
he
al
th
in
te
rv
en
tio
n
To
pr
es
en
t
w
ay
s
pr
is
on
er
s
in
vo
lv
ed
;t
o
co
nt
rib
ut
e
to
de
si
gn
&
de
liv
er
y
PP
I–
pe
er
re
se
ar
ch
er
s;
fo
rt
ni
gh
t
gr
ou
p
PF
Li
Ps
n
=
8
–
ro
lli
ng
m
em
be
r-
sh
ip
;
m
al
e;
ag
ed
25
–
56
ye
ar
s,
pa
id
n/
a
Ye
s,
re
fle
ct
-
io
n
(i)
in
cr
ea
se
d
co
nf
id
en
ce
to
m
ak
e
ch
an
ge
–
ai
de
d
re
co
ve
ry
,s
ki
lls
&
kn
ow
le
dg
e;
di
d
no
t
fe
el
ju
dg
ed
;c
ar
ed
fo
r,
va
lu
ed
,p
ur
po
se
fu
l,
m
ak
in
g
go
od
of
ba
d;
(ii
)
ex
-
pr
is
on
er
s
ca
n
do
&
de
ve
lo
p
re
se
ar
ch
,i
nt
er
ve
nt
io
ns
&
th
eo
ry
;f
oc
us
gr
ou
ps
–
m
or
e
en
ga
ge
d;
an
al
ys
is
–
m
or
e
de
pt
h;
in
te
rv
en
tio
n
m
or
e
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
;h
el
pe
d
ex
pl
ai
n
pu
rp
os
e
be
tt
er
;d
es
k-
ba
se
d
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
ha
d
co
nt
ac
t
w
ith
st
ud
y
po
pu
la
tio
n;
em
ph
as
is
ed
im
po
rt
an
ce
of
fa
m
ily
–
an
d
so
ne
w
as
pe
ct
to
st
ud
y
(i)
co
nf
lic
t
ov
er
na
m
e/
im
ag
e
us
e
w
he
n
di
ss
em
in
at
in
g
–
ac
kn
ow
le
dg
em
en
t
v
fu
tu
re
di
ffi
cu
lti
es
;(
ii)
co
m
m
itt
ed
,
sk
ill
ed
te
am
;f
un
di
ng
,s
ta
ff
&
sy
st
em
to
pa
y
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
in
ca
sh
;s
ta
ff
to
m
ai
nt
ai
n
te
am
co
nt
ac
t
in
cl
ud
in
g
re
tu
rn
s
to
pr
is
on
;m
ee
tin
gs
in
ne
ut
ra
l
pl
ac
e,
re
la
xe
d,
in
cl
us
iv
e
an
d
re
gu
la
r
–
in
te
ns
iv
e
bu
rs
ts
;
ro
lli
ng
m
em
be
rs
hi
p;
en
d
da
te
cl
ea
r;
ce
le
br
at
e
su
cc
es
s
&
in
vi
te
fa
m
ily
in
;c
on
tin
ua
l
fe
ed
ba
ck
;u
se
a
pe
er
re
se
ar
ch
er
la
be
lo
n
m
at
er
ia
ls
;c
om
pr
om
is
e
on
na
m
e/
im
ag
e
us
e;
su
pp
or
t
pr
is
on
er
s’
pl
an
s;
un
de
rs
ta
nd
ro
le
of
pe
er
re
se
ar
ch
er
s
to
ch
al
le
ng
e.
37
Tr
ea
cy
et
al
.,
20
19
;
U
K
To
ev
al
ua
te
de
m
en
tia
fri
en
dl
y
co
m
m
un
ity
ap
pr
oa
ch
To
as
se
ss
ne
ed
fo
r
de
m
en
tia
in
iti
at
iv
es
;
m
at
er
ia
l
al
te
ra
tio
ns
PP
I
PL
iP
s
n
=
46
(p
ris
on
A
=
16
;p
ris
on
B
=
30
);
al
lm
al
e
n
=
2,
;C
at
C
se
x
of
f-e
nd
er
&
lo
ca
l
pr
is
on
s,
m
al
e
N
o
(i)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
pr
is
on
er
in
pu
t
in
va
lu
ab
le
in
in
vo
lv
ed
st
ud
y
ta
sk
s
(i)
di
ffi
cu
lti
es
in
vo
lv
in
g
pr
is
on
er
s
liv
in
g
w
ith
de
m
en
tia
;(
ii)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
38
U
se
r
Vo
ic
e;
,
20
16
;U
K
To
ex
pl
or
e
ex
te
nt
of
‘sp
ic
e’
us
e
&
lin
ke
d
pr
ob
le
m
s
Th
e
st
ud
y
w
as
m
an
ag
ed
an
d
le
d
by
a
pe
er
-
le
d
Pe
er
-le
d
re
se
ar
ch
,s
o
no
ap
pr
oa
ch
as
su
ch
PF
Li
Ps
m
os
tly
;
PL
iP
s
fo
r
so
m
e
ta
sk
s
n
=
9;
C
at
C
pr
is
on
er
s,
En
gl
an
d;
ge
og
ra
ph
y-
ic
al
ly
n/
a
N
o
(i)
no
t
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
m
or
e
lik
el
y
to
in
cr
ea
se
tr
us
t,
ra
pp
or
t
&
in
si
gh
ts
fro
m
pr
is
on
er
s
if
sp
ea
ki
ng
to
N
on
e
re
po
rt
ed
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 13 of 21
Ta
b
le
2
St
ud
y
fe
at
ur
es
(C
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
N
o
A
ut
ho
r;
Y
ea
r;
C
ou
nt
ry
St
ud
y
ai
m
PP
Ia
im
or
PP
Ip
ap
er
ai
m
PP
It
yp
e
Ty
p
e
of
p
ri
so
ne
r
Sa
m
p
le
si
ze
&
ty
p
e
Pr
is
on
ty
p
e
Ev
al
ua
ti
on
&
ty
p
e
O
ut
co
m
es
(i)
Pr
is
on
er
s
(ii
)
Re
se
ar
ch
(e
rs
)
(i)
O
b
st
ac
le
s
&
(ii
)
re
co
m
m
en
d
at
io
ns
or
ga
ni
sa
tio
n
re
pr
es
en
t-
at
iv
e
so
m
eo
ne
fro
m
a
si
m
ila
r
ba
ck
gr
ou
nd
(ii
i)
Re
vi
ew
39
Sa
m
el
e
et
al
.,
20
08
;
U
K
A
re
vi
ew
of
pr
is
on
er
in
vo
lv
em
en
t
in
m
en
ta
lh
ea
lth
re
se
ar
ch
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
N
ot
re
po
rt
ed
n/
a
n/
a
(i)
no
ne
re
po
rt
ed
;(
ii)
Es
se
nt
ia
lly
,t
he
re
w
er
e
no
ex
am
pl
es
of
se
rv
ic
e
us
er
in
vo
lv
em
en
t
in
m
en
ta
l
he
al
th
re
se
ar
ch
in
pr
is
on
s,
la
gg
in
g
be
hi
nd
co
m
m
un
ity
re
se
ar
ch
(i)
po
ss
ib
le
bi
as
of
st
af
f
se
le
ct
in
g
pr
is
on
er
s;
bu
re
au
cr
ac
y
af
fe
ct
s
av
ai
la
bi
lit
y;
pa
ym
en
t
is
co
nt
en
tio
us
;p
ow
er
di
ffe
re
nc
es
;p
ris
on
&
re
se
ar
ch
bu
re
au
cr
ac
y;
(ii
)
co
ns
ul
tin
g
fo
re
ns
ic
in
vo
lv
em
en
t
pr
oj
ec
ts
,a
nd
pr
is
on
er
co
un
ci
ls
&
se
rv
ic
e
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t
pr
oj
ec
ts
fo
r
gu
id
an
ce
;n
ee
d
tim
e
&
re
so
ur
ce
s;
st
af
f
bu
y-
in
an
d
lia
is
on
pe
rs
on
;n
eg
ot
ia
te
ar
ou
nd
pr
is
on
er
se
le
ct
io
n;
no
t
to
ra
is
e
ex
pe
ct
at
io
ns
;
su
pp
or
t
to
be
in
vo
lv
ed
;a
d-
dr
es
s
is
su
es
of
co
nf
id
en
tia
l-
ity
;p
ro
vi
de
tr
ai
ni
ng
–
sh
ou
ld
le
ad
to
sk
ill
s
an
d
qu
al
ifi
ca
tio
ns
;a
gr
ee
ro
le
s;
ed
uc
at
e
pr
is
on
st
af
f
A
bb
re
vi
at
io
ns
:P
Li
P=
Pe
op
le
Li
vi
ng
in
Pr
is
on
;P
FL
iP
=
Pe
op
le
w
ho
Fo
rm
er
ly
Li
ve
d
in
Pr
is
on
;C
BP
R
=
C
om
m
un
ity
-B
as
ed
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
Re
se
ar
ch
;P
A
R
=
Pa
rt
ic
ip
at
or
y
A
ct
io
n
Re
se
ar
ch
;T
C
=
Th
er
ap
eu
tic
C
om
m
un
ity
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 14 of 21
designing or feeding back on research materials (n = 24,
papers 1–6,8,11-19,28-30,33,34,36–38), with some stud-
ies also reporting involvement in overall research design
(n = 16, papers 3–5,7-11,16,18,19,27,28,32,33,35). The
majority of papers also involved PLiPs or PFLiP in
undertaking research (n = 25) largely in collecting ques-
tionnaires (n = 10, papers 1,9-11,13,14,16,17,19,38) or
conducting or co-conducting interviews and focus
groups (n = 14, papers 1–3,5-7,10,16,19,28-30,36,38);
and, in dissemination (n = 27) with PLiPs or PFLiPs
authoring or co-authoring papers (n = 22, papers 1–
3,5,9-12,14-17,19,22,24,28,29,31-33,36,38), and present-
ing or co-presenting findings (n = 13, papers 3, 5,6,10-
12,15-17,19,27,33,36). A number of studies (n = 22) also
involved individuals in feeding back views on prelimin-
ary findings, or in the interpretation and analysis of
qualitative data, with involvement in quantitative
analysis explicitly reported by only two studies, one of
which was led by PFLiPs (papers 19,38). This was despite
the majority of papers employing a mixed methodology (n =
22; papers 1,3,4,6,9,12-14,16,18-21,23,24,28,31,32,34,36–38),
and a further two using a quantitative approach (papers
26,33). The remaining papers used a qualitative methodology
or were a review. A large number of studies also involved
PLiPs or PFLiPs feeding into, planning or implementing
resultant prison programmes or service changes (n = 23).
PLiPs and PFLiPs were less involved in funding or
commissioning applications (n = 9), with only three
papers reporting PLiPs or PFLiPs as co-authoring, or co-
applying for funding applications (papers 12,31,36), and
two PLiP and PFLiP-led research teams were commis-
sioned to undertake research (papers 19,38). In addition,
only ten papers described involvement in research ad-
ministration or management which mostly included tak-
ing responsibility for the functioning of the research
team (papers 4,6,12,15,17,36,38), but also in training re-
search staff (paper 36), and interviewing prospective aca-
demic researchers (paper 28). Lastly, there were only
thirteen papers that detailed the involvement of PLiPs or
PFLiPs in project evaluations, which is described further
in Research Question Three.
Research question three: was prisoner involvement
evaluated, and how? What were the main findings?
The majority of the papers presented no evaluation of
PLiP or PFLiP involvement (n = 26), and indeed the
included literature review on prison mental health re-
search found no studies that evaluated the involve-
ment of PLiPs or PFLiPs in the research process
(paper 39). Of the twelve papers that did present
some evaluative detail, this mostly took the form of
PLiP or PFLiP (critical) reflections (papers
Fig. 2 Types of involvement of people living in prison
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 15 of 21
3,5,10,12,16,17,19,22,24,27,28,36); one paper subjected
the reflections to a qualitative analysis (paper 12), and
another paper involved interviewing PLiPs and analys-
ing the data qualitatively (paper 27).
The findings of the papers’ ‘evaluations’ were broken
down into impact of involvement on (i) the PLiPs and
PFLiPs and (ii) the research and researchers. It is of
note, that whilst a number of the papers did not present
evaluative or reflective detail, some papers did include
authors’ observations on impact, which will also be in-
cluded here. Regarding (i) impact on PLiPs and PFLiPs,
the papers mostly reported positive findings in relation
to emotional effects – with increased confidence, opti-
mism and empowerment (n = 12, papers 5,12,15-
17,19,22-24,28,33,36), healing, compassion and giving
back (n = 9, papers 5,10,11,13,17,19,22,27,36), and un-
derstanding and developing a more positive perspective
on themselves (n = 7, papers 3,5,9,10,20,27,29). It was
also reported that PLiPs and PFLiPs found the work
meaningful and purposeful (n = 6, papers
12,16,17,19,20,36), emancipatory (n = 3, papers 3,5,27),
that they felt valued and respected (n = 6, papers
3,5,19,27,28,36), and that they appreciated the transfer-
able skills and knowledge that they learned (n = 6, papers
12,15-17,33,36), and the opportunity to be involved in
service change and future research work (n = 8, papers
3,5,9,10,20,27,29,32). One paper also suggested that in-
volvement had also increased desistance (paper 27).
There were very few negative findings reported, with
one paper each respectively reporting: frustration at not
being listened to (paper 19), concerns about personal
privacy (paper 22), and – more neutrally – that the in-
volvement work had had little impact (paper 27).
The impact of PLiP and PFLiP involvement on (ii) the
research process and/or the researchers, largely focused
on the process. There were reports that involvement in-
creased understanding and knowledge with PLiP or
PFLiPs offering new or more ‘holistic’ insights (n = 10,
papers 5,6,10-12,15,16,19,21,23), and enhancing the val-
idity, quality or applicability of the research (n = 12, pa-
pers 4,9,16,25,27,28,30,32,33,35,36,38). In addition, seven
papers stated that PLiP work contributed to the success
of the research (papers 6,10,13,20,22,26,28), co-created
service change (n = 8, papers 5,10,13,16,21,23,25,32), and
six papers reported that involving PLiP in the research
process was feasible (papers 11,13,16,24,33,36). Some of
the researchers also reflected on the mutual learning
that took place during the process (n = 3, papers
3,10,11), the personal transformative impact on them
and their perspectives (n = 4, papers 3,10,11,22), and the
impact on them professionally (n = 4, papers 3,5,10,15),
including reflecting on their role and purpose, and of
the sometimes negative impact of institutions and norms
(which they are part of) on the lives of PLiP. There were
only four less positive reflections made on the process:
that group dynamics were difficult to manage (n = 2, pa-
pers 19,28); that conflict arose around using PLiP names
and images in project materials – with project staff con-
cerned about how being identified as a PLiP or PFLiP
could have a negative impact in future (paper 36); that
peer researchers’ lack of experience or use of personal
experience may ‘lead’ study participants (paper 30); and
that involving PLiPs and PFLiPs in a prison context will
always involve methodological compromise (paper 20).
Research question four: what were the main obstacles
and solutions for overcoming them?
A number of obstacles to PLiP or PFLiP involvement in
research were described. The most frequently reported
was that power differences between PLiPs or PFLiPs and
academic researchers – amplified when within a hier-
archical prison system – meant that the equality inher-
ent in participatory approaches was even more difficult
to attain (n = 9, papers 1,3-5,15,19,20,23,24). The impact
of prison bureaucracy was also described as a barrier in
terms of PLiP availability (n = 6, papers: 1,3,5,16,19,20),
lack of computer/internet access limiting types of in-
volvement and communication (n = 3, papers 3,16,19),
room availability and interruptions (n = 3, papers:
3,5,16), and limiting researcher access to PLiPs (n = 2,
papers 20,22). There were also reported barriers to in-
volvement arising from (ex-)PLiP turnover (n = 3, papers
4,12,33), lack of funding and resources (n = 3, papers:
4,12,22), and a lack of staff belief in the process or re-
search (n = 3, papers: 12,16,19). Three papers also specif-
ically detailed the impossibility of involving PLiPs in
their research, so much so that they only involved
PFLiPs (n = 3, papers19,28,35). In addition, researchers
described dilemmas in conducting research involving
PLiPs around voluntariness (papers 5,22), payment
(paper 22) and confidentiality (paper 22), as well as uni-
versity bureaucracy negatively impacting recruitment
(paper 28).
In addition, a number of recommendations for the in-
volvement of PLiP and PFLiPs were also made, which
included:
– Emphasise staff buy-in (especially senior staff and
overall prison governor or warden), common values
and goals.
– Ensure adequate funds for the research and staff
time to conduct it.
– Designating an administrative worker for the study.
– Training PLiPs for the role and responsibilities
expected of them (e.g. facilitating focus groups).
– Not being overly prescriptive about process where
PLiP or PFLiPs lead.
– Regularly share feedback of findings and news.
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 16 of 21
– Paying researchers for their work (e.g. PLiP
involvement could become a work placement to
enable this.
– Building evaluation into the research design from
the beginning.
Discussion
Summary of findings
Most of the included papers used ‘participatory’
approaches, which are typically bottom-up,
community-generated and sometimes explicitly polit-
ical ways of working, alongside the more apolitical,
top-down PPI-type approaches. This was broadly
consistent with findings in community studies
(Hoekstra et al., 2020), although were more defined
in the prison literature (Mockford et al., 2012). PLiP
involvement was more collaborative than PLiP-led as
opposed to PPI in the community studies (Ocloo &
Matthews, 2016), with PLiPs and PFLiPs involved in
most aspects of the research process, although with
less involvement in higher-level operations such as
funding applications or commissioned projects, and
project administration or management. Very few of
the studies included an evaluation. Of those that did,
these were largely a presentation of PLiP or PFLiP
or researcher reflections not subject to any formal
analysis, with mostly positive impacts on PLiPs and
PFLiPs, the research process, and the team reported.
There were very few negative reports – as with
community-based studies (Aubin et al., 2019; Ball
et al., 2019; Brett et al., 2012; Cook et al., 2019;
Mockford et al., 2012). In terms of the barriers, a
number of studies discussed similar issues around
involvement activities as those carried out in the
community but possibly magnified by the prison set-
ting. These included more entrenched power differ-
ences, prison bureaucracy, lack of funding and
resources, staff attitudes and ethical concerns. It
would appear that these issues, which besiege prison
research more generally (Charles et al., 2016; James,
2013; Matfin, 2000), present very particular issues
for PLiP and PFLiP involvement in the research
process that need careful consideration.
Addressing research question five: the feasibility of
undertaking a systematic review of the involvement of
people in prison?
With a lack of robust evaluations, there is obviously a
high risk of bias in the articles included in this review
and, consistent with reviews of public involvement in
the community, this makes it difficult to draw any con-
clusions from the evidence presented. Given the lack of
evidence available or found for this review, this would
suggest that conducting a full systematic review of the
literature may not be feasible until the evidence base is
somewhat stronger than it currently is.
Review limitations
There were a number of aspects of this review that could
limit the extent to which the findings can be applied,
which derive from: (i) the papers included, and (ii) the
way the review was conducted.
(i) The papers included
The majority of papers included were from high
income countries. Whilst this may reflect the languages
spoken by the review team members, it is also reflective
of the “northern epistemic hegemony” (Aas, 2012)
apparent in much research. Given that at least some par-
ticipatory approaches have their roots in the work of
Freire (1970) and more emancipatory, anticolonial and
political struggles in low and middle-income countries
(Glassman & Erdem, 2014; Macauley, 2017), it is likely
that at least some prison participatory work is happening
that is either unpublished or not captured within the re-
view’s search strategy due to language barriers.
In addition, a number of the papers were drawn from
a research group in Canada, who appeared to run a
number of linked research projects funded over a longer
period of time which would benefit robust relationship
building and involvement activities (Buchanan et al.,
2011; Kendall et al., 2020; Martin et al., Martin, Murphy,
Chan, et al., 2009, Martin et al., 2013, Martin et al.,
2017, Martin et al., 2018; Ramsden et al., 2015). Obvi-
ously, this may be different for the more short-term
funded studies and timeframes that that many prison
projects are conducted within, and therefore not be
readily generalisable as they may not be reflective of the
type and extent of involvement and relationships pos-
sible to develop within that shorter timeframe, which
may skew some of the findings of the review. That said,
there were some shorter-term studies included, and it is
hoped that the findings and recommendations of both
the shorter and longer-term projects will be useful.
(ii) The review process
None of the review team were PLiPs or PFLiPs and, as
such, this may limit the analysis. This review was
intended as a scoping of the available evidence to assess
the feasibility of conducting a full systematic review.
Whilst at the present time this would be considered un-
feasible, at a later date when the evidence base is more
populated, it would be a firm recommendation of this
review that the review team would be broadened to in-
clude or indeed be led by someone (or team of people)
who lives or has lived in prison.
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 17 of 21
This review also provided no assessment of study qual-
ity. Given that there was a lack of evaluations that could
be assessed for quality in a more ‘traditional’ sense, this
was justified. However, there appears to be a need for
some form of specific standard assessment of quality of
public involvement, both in the community and in
prisons, which does not currently exist (Brett et al.,
2010). It may be that using a tool such as GRIPP2 (Sta-
niszewska et al., 2017) to record the ways that PLiP or
PFLiP involvement is defined and reported, alongside
charting the issues raised in the Public Involvement Im-
pact Assessment Framework (Popay, Collins et al., 2014)
in a well-described, systematic way, may be useful.
Recommendations
Further recommendations, aside from those arising from
the review limitations, also arose from the combination
of difficulties in public involvement generally and its ap-
plication in a prison setting more specifically. These are:
– Whilst prison staff buy-in is very important in a
prison context and may indeed need some local, re-
gional or national government prison policy support,
as no research can successfully occur in prisons
without addressing these ‘gate-keepers’ (Matfin,
2000), researcher buy-in is equally important. There
is a lack of understanding amongst some researchers
of the potentially positive impact of public involve-
ment especially for research quality improvement;
hence, education and training at all career stages
may be useful (Biggane et al., 2019; Johnson et al.,
2018).
– Research in prisons can take a long time to set-up
and conduct (Hayes & Senior, 2007), and involving
public in research can take even more time and re-
sources, particularly where PLiPs or PFLiPs need
additional training (Domecq et al., 2014). Therefore,
it is important that this is adequately accounted for
in the commissioning and funding of research, and
in making funding applications, as it is possible that
PLiP involvement could be marginalized.
– Whilst the issues of payment of PLiPs for their
involvement may be controversial, it has been
possible to include it as a work or education
placement in one of the included papers (Fields
et al., 2008). This could indeed be possible in prisons
in England and Wales but it would need more
centralized government support to facilitate it and,
similarly, local, regional or national government
support in other jurisdictions;
– Evaluations – some researchers have highlighted the
complexity of disentangling the relative
contributions of patient and professional researchers
(Aubin et al., 2019), whilst others have suggested
that this is over-complicating the issue (Boivin et al.,
2018). Given the embryonic nature of PLiP involve-
ment in the ‘research evidence journey’ (Nutley,
Powell & Davies, Nutley et al., 2013), conducting a
variety of studies to populate the evidence base ran-
ging from more quantitative and qualitative explora-
tory studies to more robust evaluations would help
to gain a greater understanding of impact, ‘what
works’ and ‘what does not work’ in this specific con-
text, and develop solutions to barriers regarding
power differences, bureaucracy, cultural issues and
ethical concerns.
Conclusions
A number of the findings of this review are consistent
with those of reviews undertaken of patient and public
involvement in health and social care research in the
community – particularly the lack of evaluations, and
therefore lack of evidence of effectiveness. There were
also similar barriers to implementation, although some-
what amplified by the hierarchical structure of the
prison setting. Importantly, this review highlights that
there are a number of studies of PLiP or PFLiP involve-
ment across most aspects of the research cycle. How-
ever, there is a lack of involvement in higher-level
research operations, and indeed PLiP or PFLiP-led re-
search. It is important that this work is more robustly
evaluated in order to not only provide evidence of effect-
iveness, but to more meaningfully explore challenges to
PLiP or PFLiP prisoner involvement and to develop
practice in the field. The health and social care needs of
PLiPs are manifold, and governments are reluctant to
grant early release, even to those in very ill health. It is
therefore imperative that this particularly vulnerable and
disempowered group of people are given voice in health
and social care research in order to potentially improve
their situation.
Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40352-021-00154-6.
Additional file 1: Appendix 1. PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist_09.08.21.
Additional file 2: Appendix 2. Example Search Strategy (initial search).
Acknowledgements
We would like to especially thank Barney Eden, Anna Haggith, Nuwan
Wickramasinghe and Veronica Phillips for their very valuable contributions to
this review.
Authors’ contributions
ST was the lead researcher and conceptualised, designed, searched, analysed
and interpreted data, and led on writing the manuscript. SM and NS were
involved in screening and extracting data as well as reviewing and editing
various versions of the manuscript. TVB was the Principle Investigator/Study
Lead, contributed towards conceptualisation, design, data quality control,
manuscript reviewing and editing, and supervising all aspects of the study.
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 18 of 21
ST and TVB carried out the manuscript revisions. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This is a summary of research funded by the National Institute for Health
Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East of England. Additional
sponsorship, as part of the wider prison care programme, was also received
from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT).
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of
the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Availability of data and materials
All data and materials used in this review are included in this article and its
appendices.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author details
1Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
2Cambridge Public Health, Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical
Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 3Leicester School of
Allied Health Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.
Received: 3 June 2021 Accepted: 31 August 2021
References
Aas, K. F. (2012). ‘The earth is one, but the world is not’: Criminological theory
and its geopolitical divisions. Theoretical Criminology, 16(1), 5–20. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362480611433433.
Antoniou, T., Mishra, S., Matheson, F., Smith-Merrill, D., Challacombe, L., Rowe, J.,
… Strike, C. (2019). Using concept mapping to inform the development of a
transitional reintegration intervention program for formerly incarcerated
people with HIV. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 761. https://doi.org/1
0.1186/s12913-019-4595-y.
Apa, Z. L., Bai, R., Mukherejee, D. V., Herzig, C. T., Koenigsmann, C., Lowy, F. D., &
Larson, E. L. (2012). Challenges and strategies for research in prisons. Public
Health Nursing, 29(5), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2012.01027.x.
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological
framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.
Aubin, D., Hebert, M., & Eurich, D. (2019). The importance of measuring the
impact of patient-oriented research. Canadian Medical Association Journal,
191(31), E860–E864. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.190237.
Awenat, Y. F., Moore, C., Gooding, P. A., Ulph, F., Mirza, A., & Pratt, D. (2017).
Improving the quality of prison research: A qualitative study of ex-offender
service user involvement in prison suicide prevention research. Health
Expectations, 21(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12590.
Ball, S., Harshfield, A., Carpenter, A., Bertscher, A., & Marjanovic, S. (2019). Patient
and public involvement and engagement in research: Enabling meaningful
contribution. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_
reports/RR2678.html. , DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2678.
Beresford, P. (2002). User involvement in research and evaluation: Liberation or
regulation? Social Policy and Society, 1(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S14
74746402000222.
Biggane, A. M., Olsen, M., & Williamson, P. R. (2019). PPI in research: A reflection
from early stage researchers. Research Involvement and Engagement, 5(1), 35.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0170-2.
Boivin, A., Richards, T., Forsythe, L., Grégoire, A., L’Espérance, A., Abelson, A., &
Carman, K. L. (2018). Evaluating patient and public involvement in research.
British Medical Journal, 363, k5147. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5147.
Brennan, P. K. (2020). Responses taken to mitigate COVID-19 in prisons in
England and Wales. Victims & Offenders, 15(7–8), 1215–1233. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/15564886.2020.1832027.
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron-Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., &
Suleman, R. (2012). Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement
on health and social care research: A systematic review. Health Expectations,
17(5), 637–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Seers, K., Herron-Marx, S., & Bayliss, H.
(2010). The PIRICOM study: A systematic review of the conceptualisation,
measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in
health and social care research. United Kingdom Clinical Research
Collaboration. https://www.ukcrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Piricom+
Review+Final+2010.pdf. .
Buchanan, M., Murphy, K., Martin, M. S., Korchinski, M., Buxton, J., Granger-Brown,
A., … Martin, R. E. (2011). Understanding incarcerated women's perspectives
on substance use: Catalysts, reasons for use, consequences, and desire for
change. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(2), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1
080/10509674.2011.546232.
Byng, R., Quinn, C., Sheaff, R., Samele, C., Duggan, S., Harrison, D., Owens, C.,
Smithson, P., Wright, C., Annison, J., Brown, C., Taylor, R., Henley, W., Qureshi, A.,
Shenton, D., Porter, I., Warrington, C., & Campbell, J. (2012). COCOA: Care for
Offenders, Continuity of Access. Final Report. National Institute for Health Research.
https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr/081713210/#/. .
Care Act UK, 2014. London: The Stationary Office. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/2014/23/contents/enacted. .
Charles, A., Rid, A., Davies, H., & Draper, H. (2016). Prisoners as research
participants: Current practice and attitudes in the UK. Journal of Medical
Ethics, 42(4), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-101059.
Clarke, P. (2020). 1 June 2020: Statement from HM chief inspector of prisons,
Peter Clarke, on our next steps. HM Inspectorate of Prisons. https://www.
justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/06/
PC-statement-010620.pdf. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Cook, N., Siddiqi, N., Twiddy, M., & Kenyon, R. (2019). Patient and public
involvement in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review. BMJ
Open, 9(5), e026514. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026514.
Cornish, N., Edgar, K., Hewson, A., & Ware, S. (2016). Social care or systematic
neglect? Prison Reform Trust: Older people on release from prison http://
www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Older-prisoner-
resettlement.pdf. .
Crabtree, J. L., Ohm, D., Wall, J. M., & Ray, J. (2016). Evaluation of a prison
occupational therapy informal education program: A pilot study.
Occupational Therapy International, 23(4), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/
oti.1442.
Crabtree, J. L., Wall, J. M., & Ohm, D. (2016). Critical reflections on participatory
action research in a prison setting: Toward occupational justice. OTJR:
Occupation, Participation and Health, 36(4), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1
539449216669132.
Crewe, B. (2011). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment.
Punishment & Society, 13(5), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474
511422172.
Curd, P. R., Winter, S. J., & Connell, A. (2007). Participative planning to enhance
inmate wellness: Preliminary report of a correctional wellness program.
Journal of Correctional Health Care, 13(4), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1
078345807306754.
Department of Health (1999). The future organisation of prison health care.
Department of Health. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110504
020423/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/
@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4106031.pdf. Accessed 04 August
2021.
Domecq, J. P., Prutsky, G., Elraiyah, T., Wang, Z., Nabhan, M., Shippee, N., … m
Dabrh, A. M. A., & Murad, M. H. (2014). Patient engagement in research: A
systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 14(1), 89. https://doi.org/1
0.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
Edge, C., Stockley, R., Swabey, L., King, E., Decodts, F., Hard, J., & Black, G. (2020).
Secondary care clinicians and staff have a key role in delivering equivalence
of care for prisoners: A qualitative study of prisoners’ experiences.
EClinicalMedicine, 24, 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100416.
Fields, J., González, I., Hentz, K., Rhee, M., & White, C. (2008). Learning from and
with incarcerated women: Emerging lessons from a participatory action
study of sexuality education. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 5(2), 71–84.
https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.2.71.
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 19 of 21
Forsyth, K., Archer-Power, L., Senior, J., Meacock, R., Webb, R., Emsley, R., … Shaw,
J. (2017). The effectiveness of the older prisoner health and social Care
assessment and plan (OHSCAP): A randomised controlled trial. Health Services
and Delivery Research, 5(31), 31–186. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr05310.
Forsyth, K., Heathcote, L., Senior, J., Malik, B., Meacock, R., Perryman, K., … Shaw, J.
(2020). Dementia and mild cognitive impairment in prisoners aged over 50
years in England and Wales: A mixed-methods study. Health Services and
Delivery Research, 8(27), 27–116. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08270.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin.
Glassman, M., & Erdem, G. (2014). Participatory action research and its meanings:
Vivencia, praxis, conscientization. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(3), 206–221.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074171361452366.
Hassan, L., Frisher, M., Senior, J., Tully, M., Webb, R., While, D., & Shaw, J. (2014). A
cross-sectional prevalence survey of psychotropic medication prescribing
patterns in prisons in England. Health Services and Delivery Research, 2(33), 1–
82. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr02330.
Hatton, D. C., & Fisher, A. A. (2011). Using participatory methods to examine
policy and women prisoners' health. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 12(2),
119–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527154411412384.
Hatton, D. C., Kleffel, D., & Fisher, A. A. (2006). prisoners' perspectives of health
problems and healthcare in a US women's jail. Women & Health, 44(1), 119–
136. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v44n01_07.
Hayes, A., & Senior, J. [Eds] (2007). Researchers’ handbook: A guide for researchers
in prison health. 3rd Edition. Prison Health Research Network. http://www.
ohrn.nhs.uk/toolkit/Handbook3rdEd.pdf. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Hayes, A. J., Burns, A., Turnbull, P., & Shaw, J. J. (2012). The health and social care
needs of older male prisoners. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry,
27(11), 1155–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.3761.
Health and Social Care Committee (2018). Prison health: Twelfth report of session
2017–19. House of Commons. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm20171
9/cmselect/cmhealth/963/963.pdf. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Health Research Authority (2017). UK policy framework for health and social care
research. Health Research Authority. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-
improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-
social-care-research/. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (2020). COVID-19 operational guidance –
exceptional regime & service delivery. Version 3.0. Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation
Service. https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1.-Exceptional-
regime-and-service-delivery-27.03.20_Redacted.pdf. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Hoekstra, F., Mrklas, K. J., Khan, M., McKay, R. C., Vis-Dunbar, M., Sibley, K. M., …
Gainforth, H. L. (2020). A review of reviews on principles, strategies,
outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: A first step in
synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Research Policy and
Systems, 18(51), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9.
Howerton, A., Burnett, R., Byng, R., & Campbell, J. (2009). The consolations of
going back to prison: What 'revolving door' prisoners think of their
prospects. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(5), 439–461. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/10509670902979710.
INVOLVE (2012). Briefing note two: What is public involvement in research?
INVOLVE. https://www.invo.org.uk/posttyperesource/what-is-public-
involvement-in-research/. .
Jacobs, L., Komashie, A., Lombardo, C., & Clarke, G. (2017). Patient and public
involvement (PPI) in research handbook. Collaboration for Leadership in
Applied Health Research and Care East of England. https://www.clahrc-eoe.
nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CLAHRC-EoE-PPI-IN-Research-Ha
ndbook_December-2017.pdf. Accessed 04 August 2021.
James, N. (2013). Research on the ‘inside’: The challenges of conducting research
with young offenders. Sociological Research Online, 18(4), 138–147. https://doi.
org/10.5153/sro.3129.
Johnson, M. E., Brems, C., Mills, M. E., & Eldridge, G. D. (2018). Involving
incarcerated individuals in the research process: Perspective of key
stakeholders. Action Research, 16(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/147675031
6661397.
Kendall, S., Lighton, S., Sherwood, J., Baldry, E., & Sullivan, E. A. (2020). Incarcerated
Aboriginal women’s experiences of accessing healthcare and the limitations
of the ‘equal treatment’ principle. International Journal for Equity in Health,
19(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-1155-3.
Lander, J., Langhof, H., & Dierks, M. (2019). Involving patients and the public in
medical and health care research studies: An exploratory survey on participant
recruiting and representativeness from the perspective of study authors. PLoS
One, 14(1), e0204187. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204187.
Lee C, Haggith A, Mann N, Kuhn I, Cater F, Eden B, Van Bortel T (2016) Older
prisoners and the Care Act 2014: An examination of policy, practice and
models of social care delivery. Prison Service Journal, 224, 35-41. ISSN 2046-
4215.
Lee C, Treacy S, Haggith A, Wickramasinghe ND, Cater F, Kuhn I, Van Bortel T.
(2019). A systematic integrative review of programmes addressing the social
care needs of older prisoners. Health Justice, 7(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4
0352-019-0090-0. PMID: 31134392; PMCID: PMC6717991.
Macauley, A. C. (2017). Participatory research: What is the history? Has the
purpose changed? Family Practice, 34(3), 256–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/fa
mpra/cmw117.
Madden, M., & Speed, E. (2017). Beware zombies and unicorns: Toward critical
patient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context.
Frontiers in Sociology, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00007.
Marjanovic, S., Harshfield, A., Carpenter, A., Bertscher, A., Punch, D., & Ball, S.
(2019). Involving patients and the public in research. THIS Institute. https://
www.thisinstitute.cam.ac.uk/research-articles/involving-patients-public-resea
rch/. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Martin, R. E., Adamson, S., Korchinski, M., Granger-Brown, A., Ramsden, V. R.,
Buxton, J. A., … Hislop, T. G. (2013). Incarcerated women develop a nutrition
and fitness program: Participatory research. International Journal of Prisoner
Health, 9(3), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-03-2013-0015.
Martin, R. E., Korchinski, M., Fels, L., & Leggo, C. (2017). Arresting hope: Women
taking action in prison health inside out. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 4(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2017.1352156.
Martin, R. E., Murphy, K., Chan, R., Ramsden, V. R., Granger-Brown, A., Macaulay, A.
C., … Hislop, T. G. (2009). Primary health care: Applying the principles within
a community-based participatory health research project that began in a
Canadian women's prison. Global Health Promotion, 16(4), 43–53. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1757975909348114.
Martin, R. E., Murphy, K., Hanson, D., Hemingway, C., Ramsden, V., Buxton, J., …
Hislop, T. G. (2009). The development of participatory health research among
incarcerated women in a Canadian prison. International Journal of Prisoner
Health, 5(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449200902884021.
Martin, R. E., Turner, R., Howett, L., Howard, T., Hanberg, D., Buxton, J. A., … Oliffe,
J. L. (2018). Twelve committed men: The feasibility of a community-based
participatory HIV-prevention intervention within a Canadian men's
correctional facility. Global Health Promotion, 25(3), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.11
77/1757975916659045.
Matfin, C. (2000). Doing research in a prison setting. In V. Jupp, P. Davoes, & P.
Francis (Eds.), Doing criminological research, (pp. 215–233). London: Sage.
McLeod, K. E., Korchinski, M., Young, P., Milkovich, T., Hemingway, C., DeGroot, M.,
… Martin, R. E. (2020). Supporting women leaving prison through peer
health mentoring: A participatory health research study. CMAJ Open, 8(1), E1–
E8. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20190106.
Meyer, K., & Fels, L. (2009). Breaking out: Learning research from ‘the women in
prison’ project. International Review of Qualitative Research, 2(2), 269–290.
https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2009.2.2.269.
Mockford, C., Staniszewska, S., Griffiths, F., & Herron-Marx, S. (2012). The impact of
patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: A systematic review.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 24(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/1
0.1093/intqhc/mzr066.
Morgan, K. (2016). Patient and public involvement in research, why not? McPin
Foundation. https://mcpin.org/wp-content/uploads/talking-point-paper-2.pdf.
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E.
(2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when
choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical
Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.
Nutley, S., Powell, A., & Davies, H. (2013). What counts as good evidence?
Provocation paper for the Alliance for useful. Evidence: St Andrews University
https://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/What-Counts-as-Good-
Evidence-WEB.pdf. .
Ocloo, J., & Matthews, R. (2016). From tokenism to empowerment: Progressing
patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Quality and
Safety, 25(8), 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839.
Perrett, S. E., Gray, B. J., L. G., D. E., & Brooks, N. J. (2020). Exploring health and
wellbeing in prison: A peer research approach. International Journal of
Prisoner Health, 16(1), 78–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-03-2019-0019.
Popay, J., Collins, M., & with the PiiAF Study Group (2014). PiiAF: The public
involvement impact assessment framework. Liverpool & Exeter: Universities of
Lancaster http://piiaf.org.uk/documents/piiaf-guidance-jan14.pdf. .
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 20 of 21
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., … Duffy, S.
(2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A
product from the ESRC methods programme. Lancaster University https://
www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/
fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf. .
Prison Reform Trust (2020). How prisons are responding to Covid-19: Briefing 1 –
Families and communications. Prison Reform Trust. http://www.
prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/CAPPTIVE_families_webfinal.
pdf. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Ramsden, V., Martin, R., McMillan, J., Granger-Brown, A., & Tole, B. (2015).
Participatory health research within a prison setting: A qualitative analysis of
'Paragraphs of Passion'. Global Health Promotion, 22(4), 48–55. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1757975914547922.
Revolving Doors Agency (2016). Improving your prisoner involvement systems: A
toolkit for staff. Revolving Doors Agency. http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/
file/1863/download?token=1cQMWr1W. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. A. (1995). The well-
built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP journal Club,
123, A12–A13. Doi:0.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12.
Russell, J., Greenhalgh, T., & Taylor, M. (2019). Patient and public involvement
in NIHR research 2006–2019: Policy intentions, progress and themes.
National Institute for Health Research. https://oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/NIHR-and-PPI-report-Feb_2019.pdf. Accessed 04
August 2021.
Rutter, D., Francis, J., Coren, E., & Fisher, M. (2010). SCIE systematic research
reviews: Guidelines. Social Care Institute of Excellence. https://www.scie.org.
uk/publications/researchresources/rr01.asp. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Samele, C., Thomas, S., Keil, J., Sherlock, J., & Durcan, G. (2008). A review of service
user involvement in prison mental health research. Sainsbury Centre for
Mental Health.
Sherwood, J., & Kendall, S. (2013). Reframing spaces by building relationships:
Community collaborative participatory action research with Aboriginal
mothers in prison. Contemporary Nurse, 46(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.5172/
conu.2013.46.1.83.
Senior J, Forsyth K, Walsh E, O'Hara K, Stevenson C, Hayes A, et al. (2013). Health
and social care services for older male adults in prison: the identification
ofcurrent service provision and piloting of an assessment and care planning
model. Health Services and Delivery Research, 1(5). https://doi.org/10.3310/
hsdr01050.
South, J., Bagnall, A., Hulme, C., Woodall, J., Longo, R., Dixey, R., … Wright, J.
(2014). A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of
peer-based interventions to maintain and improve offender health in prison
settings. Health Services Delivery Research, 2(35), 1–218. https://doi.org/10.331
0/hsdr02350.
Staley, K. (2009). Exploring impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and
social care research. National Institute for Health Research. http://www.invo.
org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Involve_Exploring_Impactfinal28.10.09.
pdf. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., … Tysall, C.
(2017). GRIPP2 reporting checklists: Tools to improve reporting of patient and
public involvement in research. British Medical Journal, 358, j3453. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmj.j3453.
Sturge, G. (2020). UK prison population statistics. House of Commons Library.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04334/. Accessed
04 August 2021.
Sullivan, E., Hassal, P., & Rowlands, D. (2008). Breaking the chain: A prison-based
participatory action research project. British Journal of Forensic Practice, 10(3),
13–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636646200800015.
Taylor, C., Gill, L., Gibson, A., Byng, R., & Quinn, C. (2018). Engaging “seldom
heard” groups in research and intervention development: Offender mental
health. Health Expectations, 21(6), 1104–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12
807.
Townsend, D. (2001). Prisoners with HIV/AIDS: A participatory learning and action
initiative in Malaysia. Tropical Doctor, 31(1), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/004
947550103100103.
Treacy, S., Haggith, A., Wickramasinghe, N. D., & Van Bortel, T. (2019). Dementia-
friendly prisons: A mixed-methods evaluation of the application of dementia-
friendly community principles to two prisons in England. BMJ Open, 9(8),
e030087. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030087.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. (2018).
PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and
explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.
7326/M18-0850.
User Voice. (2016). Spice: The bird killer - what prisoners think about the use of
spice and other legal highs in prison. User Voice. https://www.uservoice.org/
wp-content/uploads/2020/07/User-Voice-Spice-The-Bird-Killer-Report-
compressed.pdf. Accessed 04 August 2021.
Ward, J., & Bailey, D. (2011). At arms length: The development of a self-injury
training package for prison staff through service user involvement. The
Journal of Mental Health Training, Education, and Practice, 6(4), 175–185.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17556221111194518.
Ward, J., & Bailey, D. (2012). Consent, confidentiality and the ethics of PAR in the
context of prison research. Studies in Qualitative Methodology, 12, 149–169.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1042-3192(2012)0000012011.
Ward, J., & Bailey, D. (2013). A participatory action research methodology in the
management of self-harm in prison. Journal of Mental Health, 22(4), 306–316.
https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2012.734645.
Ward, J., Bailey, D., & Boyd, S. (2012). Participatory action research in the
development and delivery of self-harm awareness sessions in prison: Involving
service users in staff development. Prison Service Journal, 202, 20–25.
Williams, B. A., Stern, M. F., Mellow, J., Safer, M., & Greifinger, R. B. (2012). Aging in
correctional custody: Setting a policy agenda for older prisoner health care.
American Journal of Public Health, 102(8), 1475–1481. https://doi.org/10.21
05/AJPH.2012.300704.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Treacy et al. Health and Justice            (2021) 9:30 Page 21 of 21