Incarceration, inclusion, and health equity: evidence, perspectives, and future directions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Globally more than 11 million adults are imprisoned on any given day, and at least 410,000 children are held in criminal justice detention. Incarceration is a marker for extreme disadvantage, and exposure to incarceration may compound health inequalities. Complex health needs among people in custody are normative. Given the rapid movement of people between disadvantaged communities and carceral settings, improving the health of people exposed to incarceration is important to reducing health inequalities globally. Health outcomes after incarceration are especially poor, with high rates of preventable mortality, injury, infectious disease, and decompensation of chronic disease documented in a growing number of (mostly high-income) countries. In this workshop we will consider prisons from a public health perspective: as settings through which marginalised and typically unwell members of the community pass, and in which health needs are managed by carceral systems that are rarely fit for purpose. We will summarise the evidence on health outcomes after incarceration, emerging from large cohort studies of adults and children released from incarceration in Australia, Norway, Canada and USA, and from an international consortium examining mortality after incarceration in 13 countries. We will identify key gaps in the evidence base, critically including research in low- and middle-income countries, and mechanisms for routinely monitoring health outcomes in and after incarceration. Informed by these brief presentations, we will facilitate a multi-disciplinary Discussion focussing on the following key questions: 1. Is incarceration a cause of poor health outcomes, a marker of pre-existing health inequalities, or both? Does it matter? 2. What opportunities exist to improve health outcomes before, during, and after incarceration, through: *3.Upstream prevention and diversion; 4. Prison healthcare quality, standards, and monitoring; 5. Transitional support and post-release care coordination. 6. What critical next steps are required to support advocacy and policy reform, specifically for public health agencies, policy makers, clinicians, researchers, advocates, and civil society? At the conclusions of the workshop we will draft a Consensus Statement on Incarceration and Health Inequalities, which will be submitted to key international agencies for potential ratification. Specific workshop Aims: 1. Sensitise a global public health audience to the health-related needs of children and adults who experience incarceration, and the role of incarceration in compounding or mitigating health inequalities at the population level 2. Identify multi-sectoral opportunities to improve the health of people exposed to incarceration through prevention, improved care, and post-release support. 3. Identify critical next steps for advocacy and policy reform. 4. Draft a Consensus Statement on Incarceration and Health Inequalities, which will be submitted to international agencies for potential ratification and published in a leading international journal.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,068 | 0,111 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,029 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».