Cardiovascular disease in Sub-Saharan African prisons: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: The dual epidemic of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) in Sub-Saharan Africa has increased substantially in recent years, with cardiovascular disease representing a significant contributor to the regional burden of disease. Very little is known about the cardiovascular health of people deprived of their liberty in the region. The purpose of this study was to collate extant literature on the topic. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A scoping review mapped and described what is known about cardiovascular disease in prison populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. A systematic search of empirical literature with no date limitation was conducted in English. Sixteen studies representing six Sub-Saharan African countries (Cameroon, Nigeria, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Ethiopia) were charted, categorised and thematically analysed. FINDINGS: Seven key themes were identified: custodial deaths and autopsy; cardiorespiratory fitness and exercise; cardiovascular disease and elderly people in prison; cardiovascular disease and women in prison; dietary deficiencies; influence of sleep patterns on cardiovascular disease; and other associated risk factors. Most natural deaths at autopsy of custodial deaths were due to cardiovascular disease. Cardiorespiratory fitness was low in prisons, and poor sleep patterns and dietary deficiencies are likely contributors to the burden of cardiovascular disease in prisons. The needs of elderly and female prison populations are ill-considered. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first known attempt to scope extant literature on cardiovascular disease in Sub-Saharan African prisons. A strategic focus on the cardiovascular health of people in prison is warranted. Routine monitoring and expansion of existing prison health-care services and integration of NCD services with infectious disease (HIV and tuberculosis) programmes in prisons are required.

Does the cost of cancer care for people in prison differ from those in the general population? Analysis of matched English cancer registry and hospital records.

Background: People in prison experience poorer mental and physical health compared to their peers in the general population. The causes are multi-dimensional ranging from lifestyle factors to poorer access to healthcare. Little is known about cancer in people in prison or how the cost of their care compares to the general population. Methods: Data on people diagnosed with cancer while in English prisons were identified in National Cancer Registration dataset and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for the years 2012-2017. General population matched patients were identified using a 1-5 ratio, based on age, gender, year of diagnosis, cancer type and disease stage. Outpatient and inpatient HES data up to six-months from diagnosis were costed using NHS Reference costs and inflated to 2017/2018 costs. Findings: 879 prison and 4326 general population cancer diagnoses were identified in HES. The adjusted six-month cost of cancer care was significantly lower for people in prison (-£1216.95% confidence interval (CI) -1638 to -795), driven by fewer outpatient attendances. However, people diagnosed in prison had higher emergency care costs (£497.95% CI 375-619). Security escorts further increased the total cost of care. Interpretation: Following a cancer diagnosis, people in English prisons have significantly lower planned care costs, but higher emergency care costs and an overall higher cost due to security escorts. Further work is required to identify ways of improving cancer care for people in prisons to ensure it is equivalent to that received by the general population. Funding: National Institute for Health and Social Care Research 16/52/53.

Cancer in prison: barriers and enablers to diagnosis and treatment.

Background: Approximately 82,000 people are in prison annually in England and Wales. Limited research has investigated cancer in this population and none has explored experiences of imprisoned people with cancer. This study aimed to address this gap. Methods: We conducted 55 semi-structured, qualitative, audio-recorded interviews with: imprisoned people with cancer (n = 24), custodial staff (n = 6), prison healthcare staff (n = 16) and oncology specialists (n = 9). Data were collected 07/10/2019-20/03/2020. Patients were recruited by prison healthcare staff and interviews were conducted face-to-face. Professionals were recruited via professional networks and interviews were conducted face-to-face or via telephone. Transcribed interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We also analysed relevant National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NCPES) questions for those diagnosed in prison (n = 78) and in the general population (n = 390). Findings: Our findings highlight the complexities of cancer care for imprisoned people. We identified three core themes: control and choice, communication, and care and custody. Whilst people in prison follow a similar diagnostic pathway to those in the community, additional barriers to diagnosis exist including health literacy, the General Practitioner appointment booking system and communication between prison and oncology staff. Tensions between control and choice in prison impacted aspects of cancer care experience such as symptom management and accessing cancer information. NCPES results supported the qualitative findings and showed people in prison reported significantly poorer experiences than in the general population. Interpretation: Our findings demonstrate the complexity of cancer care in custodial settings, identifying barriers and enablers to equitable cancer care provision and offering insights on how to improve care for this population. Funding: National Institute for Health and Social Care Research Delivery Research Programme 16/52/53 and Strategic Priorities Fund 2019/20 Research England via University of Surrey.

Cancer incidence, treatment, and survival in the prison population compared with the general population in England: a population-based, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The growing and ageing prison population in England makes accurate cancer data of increasing importance for prison health policies. This study aimed to compare cancer incidence, treatment, and survival between patients diagnosed in prison and the general population. METHODS: In this population-based, matched cohort study, we used cancer registration data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to identify primary invasive cancers and cervical cancers in situ diagnosed in adults (aged ≥18 years) in the prison and general populations between Jan 1, 1998, and Dec 31, 2017. Ministry of Justice and Office for National Statistics population data for England were used to calculate age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) per year and age-standardised incidence rate ratios (ASIRR) for the 20-year period. Patients diagnosed with primary invasive cancers (ie, excluding cervical cancers in situ) in prison between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017 were matched to individuals from the general population and linked to hospital and treatment datasets. Matching was done in a 1:5 ratio according to 5-year age group, gender, diagnosis year, cancer site, and disease stage. Our primary objectives were to compare the incidence of cancer (1998-2017); the receipt of treatment with curative intent (2012-17 matched cohort), using logistic regression adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis; and overall survival following cancer diagnosis (2012-17 matched cohort), using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis, with stratification for the receipt of any treatment with curative intent. FINDINGS: We identified 2015 incident cancers among 1964 adults (1556 [77·2%] men and 459 [22·8%] women) in English prisons in the 20-year period up to Dec 31, 2017. The ASIR for cancer for men in prison was initially lower than for men in the general population (in 1998, ASIR 119·33 per 100 000 person-years [95% CI 48·59-219·16] vs 746·97 per 100 000 person-years [742·31-751·66]), but increased to a similar level towards the end of the study period (in 2017, 856·85 per 100 000 person-years [675·12-1060·44] vs 788·59 per 100 000 person-years [784·62-792·57]). For women, the invasive cancer incidence rate was low and so ASIR was not reported for this group. Over the 20-year period, the incidence of invasive cancer for men in prison increased (incidence rate ratio per year, 1·05 [95% CI 1·04-1·06], during 1999-2017 compared with 1998). ASIRRs showed that over the 20-year period, overall cancer incidence was lower in men in prison than in men in the general population (ASIRR 0·76 [95% CI 0·73-0·80]). The difference was not statistically significant for women (ASIRR 0·83 [0·68-1·00]). Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, patients diagnosed in prison were less likely to undergo curative treatment than matched patients in the general population (274 [32·3%] of 847 patients vs 1728 [41·5%] of 4165; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85]). Being diagnosed in prison was associated with a significantly increased risk of death on adjustment for matching variables (347 deaths during 2021·9 person-years in the prison cohort vs 1626 deaths during 10 944·2 person-years in the general population; adjusted HR 1·16 [95% CI 1·03-1·30]); this association was partly explained by stratification by curative treatment and further adjustment for diagnosis route (adjusted HR 1·05 [0·93-1·18]). INTERPRETATION: Cancer incidence increased in people in prisons in England between 1998 and 2017, with patients in prison less likely to receive curative treatments and having lower overall survival than the general population. The association with survival was partly explained by accounting for differences in receipt of curative treatment and adjustment for diagnosis route. Improved routine cancer surveillance is needed to inform prison cancer policies and decrease inequalities for this under-researched population. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, King's College London, and Strategic Priorities Fund 2019/20 of Research England via the University of Surrey.

Implementation of COVID-19 vaccination services in prison in six European countries: translating emergency intervention into routine life-course vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Evidence has shown that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is much higher in prisons than in the community. The release of the COVID-19 vaccine and the recommendation by WHO to include prisons among priority settings have led to the inclusion of prisons in national COVID-19 vaccination strategies. Evidence on prison health and healthcare services provision is limited and often focuses on a single country or institution due to the multiple challenges of conducting research in prison settings. The present study was done in the framework of the EU-founded project RISE-Vac. It aimed to analyse the best practices and challenges applied in implementing COVID-19 universal vaccination services during the pandemic to support future expansion of routine life course vaccination services for people living in prison (PLP). METHODS: Two online cross-sectional surveys were designed and piloted: survey1 on prison characteristics and (non-COVID-19) immunisation practices; survey2 on the implementation and coverage of COVID-19 vaccination with open-ended questions for thematic analysis. Each RISE-Vac project partner distributed the questionnaire to one or two prisons in their country. Answers were collected from eight European prisons' directors or medical directors between November 2021-May 2022. RESULTS: According to our findings, the implementation modalities of COVID-19 vaccination services in the surveyed prisons were effective in improving PLP vaccination coverage. Strategies for optimal management of the vaccination campaign included: periodic time slot for PLP vaccination; new staff recruitment and task shifting; distribution of informational material both to PLP and prison staff. Key challenges included continuity of care after release, immunisation information system, and vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study describing the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination services in European prisons, suggesting that the expansion of vaccination provision in prison is possible. There is no unique solution that will fit every country but commonalities likely to be important in the design and implementation of future vaccination campaigns targeting PLP emerged. Increased availability of vaccination services in prison is not only possible, but feasible and highly desirable, and can contribute to the reduction of health inequalities.

RISE-Vac-Co-production of Vaccine Education Materials with Persons Living in Prison.

Increasing vaccination knowledge is effective in addressing hesitancy and is particularly important in populations deprived of liberty who may not routinely have access to health information, ensuring health equity. RISE-Vac is a European Union-funded project aiming to promote vaccine literacy, offer, and uptake in prisons in Europe. We consulted persons living in prisons in the United Kingdom (through the Prisoner Policy Network), France, and Moldova to determine their vaccination knowledge gaps, the information they would like to receive, and how they would like to receive it. We received 344 responses: 224 from the United Kingdom, 70 from France, and 50 from Moldova. Participants were particularly interested in learning about the effectiveness, side effects, and manufacturing of vaccines. Their responses guided the development of educational materials, including a brochure that will be piloted in prisons in Europe. Persons with experience of imprisonment were involved at every stage of this project.

Involving patients in drug development for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs): A qualitative study exploring and incorporating preferences of patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis into Target Product Profile development.

BACKGROUND: Target Product Profiles (TPPs) are instrumental to help optimise the design and development of therapeutics, vaccines, and diagnostics - these products, in order to achieve the intended impact, should be aligned with users' preferences and needs. However, patients are rarely involved as key stakeholders in building a TPP. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-three cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) patients from Brazil, Colombia, and Austria, infected with New-World Leishmania species, were recruited using a maximum variation approach along geographic, sociodemographic and clinical criteria. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the respective patient's mother tongue. Transcripts, translated into English, were analysed using a framework approach. We matched disease experiences, preferences, and expectations of CL patients to a TPP developed by DNDi (Drug for Neglected Diseases initiative) for CL treatment. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patients' preferences regarding treatments ranged from specific efficacy and safety endpoints to direct and significant indirect costs. Respondents expressed views about trade-offs between efficacy and experienced discomfort/adverse events caused by treatment. Reasons for non-compliance, such as adverse events or geographical and availability barriers, were discussed. Considerations related to accessibility and affordability were relevant from the patients' perspective. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: NTDs affect disadvantaged populations, often with little access to health systems. Engaging patients in designing adapted therapies could significantly contribute to the suitability of an intervention to a specific context and to compliance, by tailoring the product to the end-users' needs. This exploratory study identified preferences in a broad international patient spectrum. It provides methodological guidance on how patients can be meaningfully involved as stakeholders in the construction of a TPP of therapeutics for NTDs. CL is used as an exemplar, but the approach can be adapted for other NTDs.

Vaccination against emerging and reemerging infectious diseases in places of detention: a global multistage scoping review.

Background: Despite the elevated risks of infection transmission, people in prisons frequently encounter significant barriers in accessing essential healthcare services in many countries. The present scoping review aimed to evaluate the state of availability and model of delivery of vaccination services within correctional facilities across the globe. Methods: Following the methodological framework for scoping reviews and adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews criteria, we conducted a systematic search across four peer-reviewed literature databases (Medline via PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and EBSCO), as well as 14 sources of grey literature. Two researchers meticulously examined the identified papers independently to extract pertinent data published between 2012 and 2022. The quality of the selected publications was assessed using established quality assessment tools. Results: Of the 11,281 identified papers 52 met the inclusion criteria. With the exception of one, all the included publications presented data from high-income countries, predominantly originating from the United States. Across the world, the most prevalent vaccines available in prison settings were COVID-19 and HBV vaccines, typically distributed in response to health crises such as pandemics, epidemics, and local outbreaks. Vaccine coverage and uptake rates within correctional facilities displayed noteworthy disparities among various countries and regions. Besides, individual and organizational barriers and facilitating factors of vaccination in prison settings emerged and discussed in the text. Discussion: The lack of vaccination services combined with low rates of vaccination coverage and uptake among people living and working in correctional facilities represents a cause for concern. Prisons are not isolated from the broader community, therefore, efforts to increase vaccine uptake among people who live and work in prisons will yield broader public health benefits.

What are the factors of parental incarceration that may increase risk of poor emotional and mental health in children of prisoners?

PURPOSE: Globally millions of children have a parent who is imprisoned. Research suggests that this has an adverse impact on the child and imprisonment of a parent is considered to be an adverse childhood experience (ACE). Parental incarceration will not only affect the child but the entire household and may result in further ACEs such as household dysfunction and parental separation making this group of children particularly vulnerable. This scoping review aims to adopt an international perspective to comprehensively examine the extent range and nature of literature both published and grey relating to parental incarceration and the potential impact on children's emotional and mental health. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: In this scoping review, the five stages identified by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) were used including identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting data, collating, summarising and reporting results. In addition, the included studies were appraised for quality using methodology-specific tools. A critical narrative synthesis was adopted to present findings and discussion. FINDINGS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, eight were retrieved from peer-reviewed journals and one from grey literature searching. Five categories with subcategories were identified affecting children's mental health: 1) Relationships: parent and incarcerated child relationship; facilitators and barriers to maintaining contact; 2) Family structure; maternal or paternal incarceration; living arrangements during parental incarceration; 3) Children's emotions: emotional recognition and regulation; resilience; 4) Prison stigma: social stigma; shame and secrecy; 5) Structural disadvantages: poverty; race/ethnicity. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This scoping review has highlighted how the imprisonment of a parent negatively affects their children's emotional and mental health. Factors negatively impacting children's emotional and mental health are interrelated and complex. Further research is required, including differences between paternal and maternal incarceration; impact of gender and age of child; poverty as an ACE and prison exacerbating this; and effects of ethnicity and race. An important policy direction is in developing an effective way of capturing the parental status of a prisoner to ensure that the child and family receive needed support.

Interventions to increase vaccine uptake among people who live and work in prisons: A global multistage scoping review.

The objective of this study is to examine interventions implemented to increase vaccine uptake among people who live and work in prisons around the world. Peer-reviewed and gray literature databases were searched systematically to identify relevant information published from 2012 to 2022. Publications were evaluated by two researchers independently and underwent quality assessment through established tools. Of the 11,281 publications identified through peer-reviewed (2607) and gray literature (8674) search, 17 met the inclusion criteria. In light of limited data, the identified interventions were categorized into two categories of educational and organizational interventions, and are discussed in the text. The lack of availability of vaccination services and interventions to increase vaccine uptake among people who live and work in prisons, worldwide, is a serious public health concern. These interventions reported in this review can be adapted and adopted to mitigate the burden of infectious diseases among people who live and work in prisons.

The mental wellbeing of prison staff in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.

Background: COVID-19 is likely to have had an impact on the mental wellbeing of prison staff because of the high risk for infectious disease outbreaks in prisons and the pre-existing high burden of mental health issues among staff. Methods: A cross-sectional study of staff within 26 prisons in England was carried out between 20th July 2020 and 2nd October 2020. Mental wellbeing was measured using the Short-version of Warwick-Edinburgh Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS). Staff wellbeing was compared to that of the English population using indirectly standardised data from the Health Survey for England 2010-13 and a one-sample t-test. Multivariate linear regression modelling explored associations with mental wellbeing score. Results: Two thousand five hundred and thirty-four individuals were included (response rate 22.2%). The mean age was 44 years, 53% were female, and 93% were white. The sample mean SWEMWBS score was 23.84 and the standardised population mean score was 23.57. The difference in means was statistically significant (95% CI 0.09-0.46), but not of a clinically meaningful level. The multivariate linear regression model was adjusted for age category, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, occupation, and prison service region. Higher wellbeing was significantly associated with older age, male sex, Black/Black British ethnicity, never having smoked, working within the health staff team, and working in certain prison regions. Interpretation: Unexpectedly, prison staff wellbeing as measured by SWEMWBS was similar to that of the general population. Reasons for this are unclear but could include the reduction in violence within prisons since the start of the pandemic. Qualitative research across a diverse sample of prison settings would enrich understanding of staff wellbeing within the pandemic.

Continuity of opioid substitution treatment between prison and community in Southeast Asia: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Criminalisation of drug use and compulsory detention has largely characterised the Southeast Asia region's response to people who use drugs. Whilst access to and provision of healthcare for people living in prison are mandated by international human rights standards, many opioid dependent people living in prison continue to lack access to opioid substitution treatment (OST) during incarceration, and face uncertainties of continuity of care beyond the prison gate. METHODS: A scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework mapped what is currently known about the continuity of OST post-release in Southeast Asia, with a focus on the three countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam) that provide OST in at least one prison. A multi-lingual systematic search (English, Malay, Indonesian, Vietnamese) on Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library collected and reviewed extant relevant published empirical and grey literature including government reports between 2011 and 2021. Of the 365 records found, 18 were eligible for inclusion following removal of duplicates and application of exclusion criteria. These records were charted and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Three main themes were generated: Facilitators of post release continuity of care, Barriers to post release continuity of care and Therapeutic considerations supporting post release continuity of care. When individual and structural gaps exist, disruptions to continuity of OST care post release are observed. Adequate methadone dosage of >80mg/day appears significantly associated with retention in post-release OST. CONCLUSIONS: The review highlights the facilitators, barriers and therapeutic considerations of continuity of care of OST between prison and community for people living in prisons from Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. Improving community services with family support are key to supporting continued OST adherence post release along with reducing societal stigma towards people who use drugs and those entering or leaving prison. Further efforts are warranted to ensure parity, quality and continuity of OST care post release.

Testing for COVID-19 during an outbreak within a large UK prison: an evaluation of mass testing to inform outbreak control.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper was to describe the results of mass asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 in a male prison in England following the declaration of an outbreak. It provides novel data on the implementation of a mass testing regime within a prison during the pandemic. METHODS: The paper is an observational evaluation of the mass testing conducted for 6 months following the declaration of a COVID-19 outbreak within a prison. It investigated the incidence of positive cases in both staff and residents using polymerase chain reaction testing. RESULTS: Data from October 2020 until March 2021 was included. A total of 2170 tests were performed by 851 residents and 182 staff members; uptake was 48.3% for people living in prison and 30.4% for staff. Overall test positivity was 11.6% (14.3% for residents, 3.0% for staff), with around one-quarter of these reporting symptoms. The prison wing handling new admissions reported the second-lowest positivity rate (9.4%) of the eight wings. CONCLUSION: Mass testing for COVID-19 over a short space of time can lead to rapid identification of additional cases, particularly asymptomatic cases. Testing that relies on residents and staff reporting symptoms will underestimate the true extent of transmission and will likely lead to a prolonged outbreak.

COVID-19 vaccine for people who live and work in prisons worldwide: A scoping review.

Overcrowding, poor conditions, and high population turnover make prisons highly susceptible to COVID-19. Vaccination is key to controlling COVID-19, yet there is disagreement regarding whether people who live and work in prisons should be prioritised in national vaccination programmes. To help resolve this, we critically examine the extent, nature, and quality of extant literature regarding prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccinations for people who live and work in prisons. Using a scoping review as our methodological framework, we conducted a systematic literature search of 17 databases. From 2,307 potentially eligible articles, we removed duplicates and screened titles and abstracts to retain 45 articles for review and quality appraisal. Findings indicated that while most countries recognise that prisons are at risk of high levels of COVID-19 transmission, only a minority have explicitly prioritised people who live and work in prisons for COVID-19 vaccination. Even among those that have, prioritisation criteria vary considerably. This is set against a backdrop of political barriers, such as politicians questioning the moral deservingness of people in prison; policy barriers, such as the absence of a unified international framework of how vaccine prioritisation should proceed in prisons; logistical barriers regarding vaccine administration in prisons; and behavioural barriers including vaccine hesitancy. We outline five strategies to prioritise people who live and work in prisons in COVID-19 vaccination plans: (1) improving data collection on COVID-19 vaccination, (2) reducing the number of people imprisoned, (3) tackling vaccine populism through advocacy, (4) challenging arbitrary prioritisation processes via legal processes, and (5) conducting more empirical research on COVID-19 vaccination planning, delivery, and acceptability. Implementing these strategies would help to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on the prison population, prevent community transmission, improve vaccine uptake in prisons beyond the current pandemic, foster political accountability, and inform future decision-making.

A human rights assessment of menopausal women's access to age- and gender-sensitive nondiscriminatory health care in prison.

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE: Women represent about 6% of the global prison population of 11 million. The female prison population has increased significantly in the past decade. Where attention is devoted to women's unique sexual and reproductive health needs in prison, this is largely focused on menstruation management and ante/postnatal care. There is no explicit guidance regarding imprisoned menopausal women's health care in the United Nations normative standards of detention (Mandela Rules, Bangkok Rules). A human rights assessment of menopausal women's access to age- and gender-sensitive nondiscriminatory health care in prison since 2010 was conducted. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology was adhered to. A systematic search was conducted using detailed MeSH terms on CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest Central, PsycInfo, Scopus, and the Web of Science. All published materials in the English language in the time frame of 2010-2022 were collated (n = 268). Fourteen duplicates were removed. Two hundred thirty-four were excluded after title and abstract screening, with five records remaining. Hand searching yielded an additional 11 records. Sixteen records were charted and analyzed thematically using a human rights lens. Themes were the following: environmental conditions and menopausal sequelae, gender-sensitive nondiscriminatory free health care, evidence-based age/gender-sensitive prison health policies, and medical insensitivity and incompetencies in menopausal care. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Menopausal women have the right to the underlying environmental determinants of health in prison and rights to nondiscrimination and equivalence of care, essential medicines, medical care and treatment, preventive health services, and participation in the generation of prison policies and support initiatives. The lack of visibility regarding their health needs in policies and healthcare provisions is reflected in the realities of life in prison, with glaring gaps in the practical medical and lifestyle supports of menopause. Further research is warranted to inform evidence-based prison reforms to improve the quality of life of older women in prison.

Dental education and prison health: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: There is a huge oral disease burden among imprisoned people. Comprehensive guidelines are available on prison dentistry. Prison dental education is important to increase the quality and quantity of the dental workforce in prisons. It improves student perceptions about imprisoned people and gives students a sense of social responsibility and accountability. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the scoping review was to determine what is known in the literature about teaching pre-doctoral dental students about prison health. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on seven databases accessed through the Public Health England knowledge and library services. These databases were AMED, Embase, Emcare, Medline, Social Care Institute for Excellence, Web of Science, and Social Care Online. Appraisal of quality was done for included studies. RESULTS: Eleven papers were included in the review, all of which are based in the USA. Two articles looked at dental students as one group engaged in prison health education while five considered imprisoned people as one of the vulnerable populations focused on dental education. Only four articles solely looked at prison dental education. Program design with a collaborative approach between prisons and teaching institutions, and the positive impact of prison health education on dental students emerged as important. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests prison dental education to be important in reducing the high burden of oral diseases among the incarcerated by influencing the present and future prison dental workforce. It also improves students' understanding of social determinants of health. Further studies are needed to determine the most effective teaching methods and models.