Exploring concepts of health with male prisoners in three category-C English prisons

Abstract

Lay understandings of health and illness have a well established track record and a plethora of research now exists which has examined these issues. However, there is a dearth of research which has examined the perspectives of those who are imprisoned. This paper attempts to address this research gap. The paper is timely given that calls have been made to examine lay perspectives in different geographical locations and a need to re-examine health promotion approaches in prison settings.Qualitative data from thirty-six male sentenced prisoners from three prisons in England were collected. The data was analysed in accordance with Attride-Stirling's (2001) thematic network approach. Although the men's perceptions of health were broadly similar to the general population, some interesting findings emerged which were directly related to prison life and its associated structures. These included access to the outdoors and time out of their prison cell as well as maintaining relationships with family members through visits. The paper proposes that prisoners' lay views should be given higher priority given that prison health has traditionally been associated with medical treatment and the bio-medical paradigm more generally. It also suggests that in order to fulfil the World Health Organization's (WHO) vision of viewing prisons as health promoting settings, lay views should be recognised to shape future health promotion policy and practice.

Moving prison health promotion along: towards an integrative framework for action to develop health promotion and tackle the social determinants of health

“…Indeed, Robertson (2006) suggests that lay perceptions have been influential in supporting a cultural shift away from a biomedical perspective towards a more holistic and integrated understanding of health and well-being. Whilst research on prisoners' lay health views is scanty, it does demonstrate that factors such as access to the outdoors and social relationships, especially contact with family members, were intimately intertwined with prisoners' ideas around being healthy (Woodall, 2010b). Bosworth et al(2005) have noted that it can be difficult, without serving a sentence, to know what prison life is like; yet, this understanding is vital if we are to address 'health' in a meaningful way.…”

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

“…Coercion risk at recruitment was explicitly discussed by some authors (Earle, 2011; O’Grady et al, 2015; Woodall, Dixey, Green, & Newell, 2009), including regarding monetary incentives (Howerton et al, 2007; Moe & Ferraro, 2006) and exclusion of participants with mental health vulnerabilities. Careful informed consent was emphasized by some authors (Guin, 2009; Kuo et al, 2014; Woodall, 2010). A well-articulated strategy used to decrease coercion risk and increase the reliability of informed consent was to require that a period, such as a day or a week, should elapse between the researchers providing detailed participant information and actual recruitment (Garrett, 2010; Howerton et al, 2007; Plugge, Douglas, & Fitzpatrick, 2008).…”

“…Reflections on the effects of interviewers or researchers on the research or on relationships with participants usually related to independence from the prison (Bourke, Ward, & Rose, 2012; Bowen, Rogers, & Shaw, 2009; Giertsen et al, 2015; Plugge et al, 2008). Some authors who were embedded within the prison in ethnographic studies emphasized the ways they were independent from the prison and why that was important (de Viggiani, 2007; Woodall, 2010). Some reflected on how their role as a clinician or program director currently or previously working in the prison system affected the research (Harner & Riley, 2013; Kennedy, 2014; O’Grady et al, 2015; Shalihu et al, 2014).…”

“…(2009);Blagden et al (2014);Condon et al (2007);Decorte (2007);Giertsen, Nylander, Frank, Kolind, and Tourunen (2015);Kenning et al (2010);Topp et al (2016);Tzvetkova et al (2016); andWoodall (2010) Random or quasi-random 6Cobb and Farrants (2014); DeHart(2008); Einat (2009); Fogel et al (2014); Rahmah et al (2014); and Topp et al (2016) Unclear 7 Recruitment strategies (excluding self-response to advertisement) Researcher presented to group (including meetings for other purposes) 8 Aday, Krabill, and Deaton-Owens (2014); Harawa et al (2010); Harner and Riley (2013); Lewin and Farkas (2012); Saraiva et al (2011); Staton-Tindall et al (2007); and Woodall, Dixey, Green, and Newell (2009) Individual invitation by researchers (including researchers in dual roles) 22 Alves et al (2016); A. N. Chambers (2009); Earle (2011); Fogel et al (2014); Gilham (2012); Haley et al (2014); Howerton et al (2007); Kennedy (2014); Khaw et al (2007); Mjaland (2015); Pedlar, Yuen, and Fortune (2008); Plugge et al (2008); Reading and Bowen (2014); Schneider and Feltey (2009); and Treloar, McCredie, and Lloyd (2016) Health-care provider invitation/facilitation 16 Baker et al (2013); Carlson et al (2011); Castro Madariaga, Gó mez Garcés, Carrasco Parra, and Foster (2017); Einat and Rabinovitz (2013); Elisha, Idisis, and Ronel (2012); Guin (2009); Hassan et al (2013); Havnes et al (2014); Lee et al (2006); Mangnall and Yurkovich (2010); Ritter and Elger (2013); Soffer and Ajzenstadt (2010); and Yap et al (2014) Prison program leader/worker invitation 7 Billington et al (2016); Borrill et al (2005); Kerley and Copes (2009); O'Grady et al (2015); and Sondhi et al (2016) Prison staff invitation/facilitation 11 Decorte (2007); Harner and Riley (2013); Havnes et al (2014); Muessig et al (2016); Oliver and Hairston (2008); Ralphs et al (2017); Todrys and Amon (2011); Tzvetkova et al (2016); Yap et al (2014); and Zamani et al , Martell, Pyne, and Keenan (2016); Hatton et al (2006); Howerton et al (2007); Lewin and Farkas (2012); and Smirnova and Owens (2017) Refreshments/cosmetics/clothes 5 Fogel et al (2014); Oliver and Hairston (2008); Plugge et al (2008); Schonberg et al (2015); and Zamani et al (2016); Alves et al (2016); Enders et al (2005); Facchin and Margola (2016); and Harner et al (2011) Not stated 84…”

Striving for a “good” family visit: the facilitative role of a prison visitors’ centre

“…Prisoners consistently emphasise the importance of family connections in order to remain healthy 'inside' (Woodall, 2010b). Family connections can be fostered in a myriad of ways, such as letters and phone calls, but more intimately through regular face-to-face prison visitation.…”