Back

Identifying mental health service needs of people in Australian prisons

Comben, C.; Burgess, M.; Rutherford, Z.; Meurk, C.; Rivas, L.; John, J.; Diminic, S.

2026-02-19 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.02.18.26346585 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify characteristics that define population need groups with similar mental health service needs within prisons and describe the mix of services required to meet those needs. MethodsMixed methods were used, including three iterative, semi-structured focus groups, followed by an online survey, seeking information on the characteristics that define service needs, how these can identify groups of people who require mental health care in prisons and the services required by each group. Participation was sought from prison health services, prison mental health services, non-government service partners and people with a lived experience. Focus group transcripts and free text survey responses were thematically analysed. Descriptive statistics were generated for online survey responses to Likert Scales to determine the levels of agreement with survey content. ResultsThe characteristics and service needs of four distinct population groups who require mental health care in prisons were defined: indicated prevention, mild, moderate, severe and complex. These groups were delineated using characteristics including presence of a diagnosed mental illness, level of functional impairment, presence of added complexity and service response required. The required service mix varied across need groups, however service types common across all groups included assessments, psychological therapies, peer support, lifestyle interventions and carer support. ConclusionsThe identified need groups and service descriptions will contribute to the evidence required for needs-based planning of mental health care in Australian prisons. This information can be used for planning a responsive, equitable, and needs-based mental health service system within custodial environments.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.4%
2
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
10.0%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.1%
4
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
5
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
6
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.8%
8
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.5%
9
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.3%
10
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
11
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
12
Public Health in Practice
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
16
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
17
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
18
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
19
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
20
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.7%
23
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
24
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
26
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
27
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
28
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%