Prevalence of mental illness, substance use disorder, and dual diagnosis among adults in custody
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of mental illness, substance use disorders, and their dual diagnosis is disproportionately high among people in prisons compared to the community. Accurate prevalence estimates are required to inform resourcing of prison health services and reduce the risk of harm to people experiencing these conditions. Existing estimates, where available, often rely on only one data source. METHOD: We used three data sources - self-reported history of diagnoses, in-prison medical records, and administrative data to estimate the prevalence of mental illness, substance use disorder, and dual diagnosis among two large cohorts of non-Indigenous and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australian prisons. We calculated population-weighted proportions of the samples with each condition. Inter-rater reliability metrics inform data source agreement. RESULTS: The prevalence of mental illness only, substance use disorder only, and dual diagnosis was 17.0% (95%CI 12.0-24.5), 14.8% (95%CI 9.6-18.1), and 44.2% (95%CI 33.2-54.7), respectively, for incarcerated, non-Indigenous adults. For incarcerated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults, our corresponding estimates were 7.0% (95%CI 4.3-11.5), 26.8% (95%CI 18.9-33.5), and 40.9% (95%CI 30.1-48.2). These estimates differed significantly from those derived from singular data sources. Individual data sources' agreement was weakest for substance use disorder diagnoses and strongest for dual diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Individual data sources likely have high specificity and low sensitivity, thus under-ascertaining diagnoses. We recommend using multiple data sources to estimate prevalence to ensure adequate ascertainment of these conditions among people in prison and to ensure in-prison and transitional health services are appropriately resourced.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".