The State of Mental Health Services for Incarcerated Adults in Ontario: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with mental illness are significantly overrepresented in the Canadian justice system. Given the high rate of mental illness among individuals who are incarcerated, correctional facilities must implement accessible and effective mental health resources. This not only improves their health and well-being but also contributes to their rehabilitation efforts. However, evidence suggests that the care provided in prisons is inadequate. This scoping review asks, “What is known about the access and quality of mental health care services for adults who are incarcerated in Ontario?” Mental health care services included non-acute interventions and care that is provided in the institution. This scoping review followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews methodology. Databases searched include MedLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and the grey literature. The search yielded 354 titles and abstracts of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Conducted from 2010-2022, the 16 studies included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Common themes that were identified related to segregation, mental health assessments, medication prescribing and access, opioid agonist therapy, psychiatric service access, systemic and institutional barriers, mental health perception, and the need for collaboration. Despite the significant demand for mental health care in Ontario correctional facilities, limitations to quality care are evident. Such limitations intersect and are then exacerbated, resulting in poor mental health care provision among the incarcerated population. More research is warranted regarding the access, quality, and efficiency of mental health care in Ontario prisons, and how factors including ethnicity, gender, and prison classification (provincial vs. federal) may influence mental health care and its outcomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".