The feasibility of following up prisoners, with mental health problems, after release: a pilot trial employing an innovative system, for engagement and retention in research, with a harder-to-engage population

Evaluation of a complex intervention for prisoners with common mental health problems, near to and after release: the Engager randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many male prisoners have significant mental health problems, including anxiety and depression. High proportions struggle with homelessness and substance misuse.

AIMS

This study aims to evaluate whether the Engager intervention improves mental health outcomes following release.

METHOD

The design is a parallel randomised superiority trial that was conducted in the North West and South West of England (ISRCTN11707331). Men serving a prison sentence of 2 years or less were individually allocated 1:1 to either the intervention (Engager plus usual care) or usual care alone. Engager included psychological and practical support in prison, on release and for 3-5 months in the community. The primary outcome was the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), 6 months after release. Primary analysis compared groups based on intention-to-treat (ITT).

RESULTS

In total, 280 men were randomised out of the 396 who were potentially eligible and agreed to participate; 105 did not meet the mental health inclusion criteria. There was no mean difference in the ITT complete case analysis between groups (92 in each arm) for change in the CORE-OM score (1.1, 95% CI -1.1 to 3.2, P = 0.325) or secondary analyses. There were no consistent clinically significant between-group differences for secondary outcomes. Full delivery was not achieved, with 77% (108/140) receiving community-based contact.

CONCLUSIONS

Engager is the first trial of a collaborative care intervention adapted for prison leavers. The intervention was not shown to be effective using standard outcome measures. Further testing of different support strategies for prison with mental health problems is needed.

Sex differences in suicide, suicidal ideation, and self-harm after release from incarceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

People released from incarceration are at increased risk of suicide compared to the general population. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the incidence of and sex differences in suicide, suicidal ideation, and self-harm after release from incarceration.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and PubMed between 1 January 1970 and 14 October 2021 for suicide, suicidal ideation, and self-harm after release from incarceration (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020208885). We calculated pooled crude mortality rates (CMRs) and standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) for suicide, overall and by sex, using random-effects models. We calculated a pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) comparing rates of suicide by sex.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included. The pooled suicide CMR per 100,000 person years was 114.5 (95%CI 97.0, 132.0, I² = 99.2%) for non-sex stratified samples, 139.5 (95% CI 91.3, 187.8, I² = 88.6%) for women, and 121.8 (95% CI 82.4, 161.2, I² = 99.1%) for men. The suicide SMR was 7.4 (95% CI 5.4, 9.4, I² = 98.3%) for non-sex stratified samples, 14.9 for women (95% CI 6.7, 23.1, I² = 88.3%), and 4.6 for men (95% CI 1.3, 7.8, I² = 98.8%). The pooled suicide IRR comparing women to men was 1.1 (95% CI 0.9, 1.4, I² = 82.2%). No studies reporting self-harm or suicidal ideation after incarceration reported sex differences.

CONCLUSION

People released from incarceration are greater than seven times more likely to die by suicide than the general population. The rate of suicide is higher after release than during incarceration, with the elevation in suicide risk (compared with the general population) three times higher for women than for men. Greater effort to prevent suicide after incarceration, particularly among women, is urgently needed.

Economic evaluation of a complex intervention (Engager) for prisoners with common mental health problems, near to and after release: a cost-utility and cost-consequences analysis

BACKGROUND

People in prison experience a range of physical and mental health problems. Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of prison-based interventions presents a number of methodological challenges. We present a case study of an economic evaluation of a prison-based intervention ("Engager") to address common mental health problems.

METHODS

Two hundred and eighty people were recruited from prisons in England and randomised to Engager plus usual care or usual care. Participants were followed up for 12 months following release from prison. The primary analysis is the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of Engager compared to usual care from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective with QALYs calculated using the CORE 6 Dimension. A cost-consequences analysis evaluated cross-sectoral costs and a range of outcomes.

RESULTS

From an NHS perspective, Engager cost an additional £2737 per participant (95% of iterations between £1029 and £4718) with a mean QALY difference of - 0.014 (95% of iterations between - 0.045 and 0.017). For the cost-consequences, there was evidence of improved access to substance misuse services 12 months post-release (odds ratio 2.244, 95% confidence Interval 1.304-3.861).

CONCLUSION

Engager provides a rare example of a cost-utility analysis conducted in prisons and the community using patient-completed measures. Although the results from this trial show no evidence that Engager is cost-effective, the results of the cost-consequences analysis suggest that follow-up beyond 12 months post-release using routine data may provide additional insights into the effectiveness of the intervention and the importance of including a wide range of costs and outcomes in prison-based economic evaluations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(ISRCTN11707331).

Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials of Complex Interventions in Prisons: A Sisyphean Task?

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are the "gold standard" for measuring the effectiveness of an intervention. However, they have their limitations and are especially complex in prison settings. Several systematic reviews have highlighted some of the issues, including, institutional constraints e.g., "lock-downs," follow-ups, contamination of allocation conditions and a reliance on self-report measures. In this article, we reflect on our experiences and will describe two RCTs. People in prison are a significantly disadvantaged and vulnerable group, ensuring equitable and effective interventions is key to reducing inequality and promoting positive outcomes. We ask are RCTs of complex interventions in prisons a sisyphean task? We certainly don't think so, but we propose that current accepted practice and research designs may be limiting our understanding and ability to test complex interventions in the real-world context of prisons. RCTs will always have their place, but designs need to be flexible and adaptive, with the development of other rigorous methods for evaluating impact of interventions e.g., non-randomized studies, including pre-post implementation studies. With robust research we can deliver quality evidence-based healthcare in prisons - after all the degree of civilization in a society is revealed by entering its prisons.

Supporting prisoners with mental health needs in the transition to RESETtle in the community: the RESET study

BACKGROUND

Homelessness is linked to poor mental health and an increased likelihood of offending. People often lose accommodation when they enter prison and struggle to find accommodation upon release leading to an increased likelihood of relapse and reoffending. The RESET intervention was developed to support prisoners with mental health needs for 12 weeks after release to coordinate their transition into the community and obtaining secure housing.

METHODS

The primary objective of the study was to assess the participants housing situation. A prospective cohort design followed up 62 prisoners with mental health needs for 9 months post-release. Data were collected at three time points regarding accommodation, reoffending and contact and engagement with services. Inferential statistics using Chi-squared tests and t tests were used to examine differences in scores between the two groups at each time point.

RESULTS

The RESET group was significantly more likely to have secure housing at all three time points being housed for approximately twice as many days than the comparison group (244 vs 129 days at 9 months: p ≤ 0.01). The RESET group also had a significantly greater level of contact with GPs and significantly more received benefits at all three time points.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to focus on reducing homeless for recently released prisoners with mental health needs. The RESET intervention was successful in achieving its main objective; accommodating participants in permanent housing and reducing homelessness. There was also an association between receiving the intervention and greater engagement with other services. This supports the view that secure housing is important in ensuring a positive transition from prison to the community for prisoners with mental health needs.

Retaining participants in community-based health research: a case example on standardized planning and reporting

Background

Effective strategies for participant retention are critical in health research to ensure validity, generalizability and efficient use of resources. Yet standardized guidelines for planning and reporting on retention efforts have been lacking. As with randomized controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review (SR) protocols, retention protocols are an opportunity to improve transparency and rigor. An RCT being conducted in British Columbia (BC), Canada provides a case example for developing a priori retention frameworks for use in protocol planning and reporting.

Methods

The BC Healthy Connections Project RCT is examining the effectiveness of a nurse home-visiting program in improving child and maternal outcomes compared with existing services. Participants (N = 739) were girls and young women preparing to parent for the first time and experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Quantitative data were collected upon trial entry during pregnancy and during five follow-up interviews until participants’ children reached age 2 years. A framework was developed to guide retention of this study population throughout the RCT. We reviewed relevant literature and mapped essential retention activities across the study planning, recruitment and maintenance phases. Interview completion rates were tracked.

Results

Results from 3302 follow-up interviews (in-person/telephone) conducted over 4 years indicate high completion rates: 90% (n = 667) at 34 weeks gestation; and 91% (n = 676), 85% (n = 626), 80% (n = 594) and 83% (n = 613) at 2, 10, 18 and 24 months postpartum, respectively. Almost all participants (99%, n = 732) provided ongoing consent to access administrative health data. These results provide preliminary data on the success of the framework.

Conclusions

Our retention results are encouraging given that participants were experiencing considerable socioeconomic disadvantage. Standardized retention planning and reporting may therefore be feasible for health research in general, using the framework we have developed. Use of standardized retention protocols should be encouraged in research to promote consistency across diverse studies, as now happens with RCT and SR protocols. Beyond this, successful retention approaches may help inform health policy-makers and practitioners who also need to better reach, engage and retain underserved populations.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01672060. Registered on 24 August 2012.

Retention in clinical trials after prison release: results from a clinical trial with incarcerated men with HIV and opioid dependence in Malaysia

Background: Study retention is a major challenge in HIV clinical trials conducted with persons recruited from correctional facilities. Objective: To examine study retention in a trial of within-prison methadone initiation and a behavioral intervention among incarcerated men with HIV and opioid dependence in Malaysia. Methods: In this 2x2 factorial trial, 296 incarcerated men with HIV and opioid dependence were allocated to (1) an HIV risk reduction intervention, the Holistic Health Recovery Program for Malaysia (HHRP-M), (2) pre-release methadone initiation, (3) both interventions, or (4) standard care (NCT02396979). Here we estimate effects of these interventions on linkage to the study after prison release and completion of post-release study visits. Results: Most participants (68.9%) completed at least one post-release study visit but few (18.6%) completed all 12. HHRP-M was associated with a 13.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8%, 23.2%) increased probability of completing at least one post-release study visit. Although not associated with initial linkage, methadone treatment was associated with an 11% (95% CI: 2.0%, 20.6%) increased probability of completing all twelve post-release study visits. Being subject to forced relocation outside Kuala Lumpur after prison release decreased retention by 43.3% (95% CI: -51.9%, -34.8%). Conclusion: Retaining study participants in HIV clinical trials following prison release is challenging and potentially related to the broader challenges that participants experience during community reentry. Researchers conducting clinical trials with this population may want to consider methadone and HHRP as means to improve post-release retention, even in clinical trials where these interventions are not being directly evaluated.