Health and Justice最新文献

Background: Understanding the health conditions of those under carceral control is often made difficult due to lack of access to data. Yet, as has been made clear during the COVID-19 pandemic, is that data is essential to understand the scope of disease and how best to allocate resources. To better understand the needs of criminal legal oriented research and non-profit organizations, we interviewed stakeholders to better understand how they use existing data, what data they lack, and what data they would like to have to optimally assess the health of people who are incarcerated.

Results: Stakeholders reported a lack of trust and data availability as key issues. Many perceived the few institutions that do collect and disseminate data as obfuscating data or having a bias in collection and reporting. Additionally, concerns such as balancing the interest of systems-impacted people with advocacy were described as concerning for participants.

Conclusions: To tackle these issues of transparency and availability, the authors believe that an independent oversight body could be instrumental to ensuring accurate and timely data collection and reporting. As many participants turned to creating their own data, coalition building could be influential as a large network of resources may support capturing the varied experiences of people who are incarcerated.

Background: Youth experiencing homelessness have disproportionate contact with the criminal legal system. This system contact represents a critical inflection point for enhancing risk or opportunities for stabilization; however, the policy and scholarly traditions examining the criminal legal system have not traditionally incorporated housing or other social determinants as a central focus of intervention.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review using PRISMA-ScR guidelines to examine how the research literature is currently addressing housing within the context of youth involvement in the legal system. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, and Academic Search Complete. Google Scholar was used to identify papers not indexed in the academic databases of interest. Database searches were conducted between September and December 2019 and articles were restricted to those published in English between the year 2000 and 2019. Key study components extracted included demographic information regarding each sample, type of article, study methodology, direction of effects of interest, outcome measures and primary findings, as well as theoretical frameworks engaged by the authors.

Results: The search results returned 2154 titles for review. After screening all 2154 titles, 75 met eligibility for inclusion. Abstract reviews were conducted for all 75 papers. 36 abstracts met eligibility criteria and underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 29 articles satisfied eligibility criteria and were included in this scoping review.

Conclusions: Publications are primarily focused on the social epidemiology of risk factors and behaviors determining youth justice contact, but relatively less so on studies of interventions targeting youth delinquency, crime reduction, or recidivism that included housing support. The lack of continuity in theorizing from epidemiology to applied science in this area represents a gap in the literature that is likely reducing the effectiveness of interventions to interrupt patterns of legal system contact for youth. Integrating a public health framework that emphasizes the upstream social determinants leading to contact with the youth justice system would represent a paradigm shift for the field that would have beneficial effects on long term health outcomes for youth.

Background: Internationally, people in prison should receive a standard of healthcare provision equivalent to people living in the community. Yet efforts to assess the quality of healthcare through the use of quality indicators or performance measures have been much more widely reported in the community than in the prison setting. This review aims to provide an overview of research undertaken to develop quality indicators suitable for prison healthcare.

Methods: An international scoping review of articles published in English was conducted between 2004 and 2021. Searches of six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, PsycInfo and Criminal Justice Abstracts) were supplemented with journal searches, author searches and forwards and backwards citation tracking.

Results: Twelve articles were included in the review, all of which were from the United States. Quality indicator selection processes varied in rigour, and there was no evidence of patient involvement in consultation activities. Selected indicators predominantly measured healthcare processes rather than health outcomes or healthcare structure. Difficulties identified in developing performance measures for the prison setting included resource constraints, data system functionality, and the comparability of the prison population to the non-incarcerated population.

Conclusions: Selecting performance measures for healthcare that are evidence-based, relevant to the population and feasible requires rigorous and transparent processes. Balanced sets of indicators for prison healthcare need to reflect prison population trends, be operable within data systems and be aligned with equivalence principles. More effort needs to be made to meaningfully engage people with lived experience in stakeholder consultations on prison healthcare quality. Monitoring healthcare structure, processes and outcomes in prison settings will provide evidence to improve care quality with the aim of reducing health inequalities experienced by people living in prison.