Access to healthcare services during incarceration among female inmates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Incarcerated women have a disproportionate burden of infectious and chronic disease, in addition to substance use disorder and mental health illness, when compared to the general population ( Binswanger et al., 2009 ; Fazel et al., 2006 ; Fuentes, 2013; Kouyoumdjian et al., 2012 ). Women often enter the correctional system in poor health, making incarceration an opportunity to address health issues. The purpose of this paper is to explore the barriers to accessing health services that female inmates face during incarceration, the consequences to their health, and implications for correctional health services delivery. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups were conducted in Canadian correctional center with female inmates. Focus groups explored women's experiences with accessing health services while incarcerated; the impact of access to health services on health during incarceration and in the community; and recommendations for improving access to health services. Thematic analysis was completed using N-vivo 10. Findings The women described multiple barriers to accessing health services that resulted in negative consequences to their health: treatment interruption; health disempowerment; poor mental and physical health; and recidivism into addiction and crime upon release. Women made three important recommendations for correctional health service delivery: provision of comprehensive health entry and exit assessments; improvement of health literacy; and establishment of health support networks. The recommendations were organized into an "Accessing Health Services Resource Manual" for incarcerated women. Originality/value There is a paucity of existing literature examining provision of health services for female inmates. These findings have relevancy for correctional and community health care providers and organizations that provide health services for this vulnerable population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".