Health outcomes and healthcare access experiences of incarcerated and recently released women in rural areas: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The goal of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize what is known about the health outcomes and healthcare access experiences of women who are currently incarcerated or recently released from prison/jail in rural areas. METHODS: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. The population of interest was adult women or gender-diverse people who are either currently incarcerated or had been released in the prior year. The concepts of interest were health outcomes and health access experiences. The context was rural institutions of incarceration and rural communities in the post-incarceration period. RESULTS: We identified 48 relevant studies conducted in the US, Australia and England, published between 2001 and 2024. Ten studies took place in a rural community up to 1 year post-incarceration, and the remaining 38 took place in a rural prison or jail. The most common outcomes of interest were those related to substance use. CONCLUSION: Women in rural institutions of incarceration experience a general lack of healthcare options and availability, and may have elevated needs related to substance use. Women released into rural communities face barriers to accessing care, often relying on relationships to facilitate access to health care and social services, in lieu of the clinical and transitional services available in urban areas. Gaps in research include evidence on health outcomes not related to substance use, and experiences accessing primary care both while incarcerated and after release.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".