Moving prison health promotion along: Toward an integrative framework for action to develop health promotion and tackle the social determinants of health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of prisoners originate in deprived circumstances with a range of health and social needs. The current focus within ‘prison health’ does not, and cannot, given its predominant medical model, adequately address the current health and wellbeing needs of offenders. Adopting a social model of health is more likely to address the wide range of health issues faced by offenders and thus lead to better rehabilitation outcomes. At the same time, broader action at governmental level is required to address the social determinants of health (poverty, unemployment, drug use) that marginalise populations and increase the likelihood of criminal activities. Within prison, there is more that can be done to promote prisoners’ health if a move away from a solely curative, medical model was facilitated, towards a preventive perspective designed to promote positive health. Here we use the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion to frame public health and health promotion within prisons and to set out a challenging agenda that would make health a priority for everyone, not just ‘health’ staff, within the prison setting. A series of outcomes under each of the five action areas of the Charter offers a plan of action, showing how each can improve health. We also go further than the Ottawa Charter, to comment on how the values of emancipatory health promotion need to permeate prison health discourse, along with the concept of salutogenesis.
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 | 0.052 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".