Exploration of barriers to providing mental health care and factors supporting access to mental health care in Australian prisons
Comben, C.; Burgess, M.; Rutherford, Z.; Meurk, C.; Rivas, L.; John, J.; Diminic, S.
Show abstract
ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand barriers to providing mental health care in Australian prisons and explore factors supporting access to mental health care. MethodsThis qualitative study used focus groups with people with a lived experience of mental illness in prison or caring for someone in prison with mental illness and people involved in providing mental health care in prisons. Focus group transcripts were thematically analysed. ResultsFocus groups were held with eight participants. Identified barriers to providing and accessing mental health care in prison included perceived stigma, insufficient resourcing, logistics driven care, inconsistent standards, and tension between prison- and health-centred systems. Factors supporting access to mental health care in prisons included equivalence of care, individually tailored care, connection, resourcing, and coordinated care. ConclusionsIdentified barriers make providing mental health care in prisons difficult, resulting in unmet needs. Factors that support access highlight mechanisms available to improve outcomes, but their utility depends on addressing all barriers. Implications for Public HealthIdentified barriers and supporting factors can help guide service design to improve access and promote interagency collaboration across justice and health. Identified barriers can also be used to help inform evidence-based policy making, including workforce development and increased funding.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinician perspectives on what constitutes good practice in community services for people with Complex Emotional Needs: A qualitative thematic meta-synthesis 96%
- Capturing the experiences of UK healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structural topic modelling analysis of 7,412 free-text survey responses 95%
- Service user experiences of community services for Complex Emotional Needs: A qualitative thematic synthesis 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Psychological Impact of Torture and State Repression in Türkiye between 2015 and 2018: Reports from Turkish Refugees Seeking Asylum in Germany 94%
- Sources of Stress and Coping Mechanisms: Experiences of Maternal Health Care Providers in Western Kenya 93%
- “ When a man drinks alcohol it’s cool but when a woman drinks she is a hoe ”: A Qualitative Exploration of Alcohol, Gender, Stigma, and Sexual Assault in Moshi, Tanzania 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Service user perspectives of community mental health services for people with complex emotional needs: a co-produced qualitative interview study 97%
- Clinician views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it can be achieved: a qualitative study 97%
- A qualitative meta-synthesis of service users’ and carers’ experiences of assessment and involuntary hospital admissions under mental health legislations: a five-year update 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring High Mortality Rates Among People With Multiple And Complex Needs: A Qualitative Study Using Peer Research Methods 97%
- The psychosocial impact on frontline health and social care professionals in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study 95%
- “You’re just there, alone in your room with your thoughts” A qualitative study about the impact of lockdown among young people during the COVID-19 pandemic 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- ‘I had no life. I was only existing’ . Factors shaping the mental health and wellbeing of people experiencing long Covid: a qualitative study 94%
- Effectiveness, acceptability and potential harms of peer support for self-harm in non-clinical settings: A systematic review 92%
- The mental health of NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-wave cohort study 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.