A Scoping Review of Correctional-Based Interventions for Women Prisoners with Mental Health Problems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, your article provides valuable insights into correctional-based interventions for women prisoners with mental health problems. The study selection process and the summary of the interventions are well-presented, and the findings contribute to the existing literature in this field. However, a few areas need to be improved 

1. Methodological transparency: Provide more details on the search strategy, including the databases searched, search terms used, and any inclusion/exclusion criteria applied. This will help readers assess the search's comprehensiveness and ensure the study's reproducibility.
2. Clarify the rationale for study selection: When discussing the article selection process, provide more information on why certain articles were excluded. For example, specify the reasons for excluding articles after the initial screening, such as not meeting the inclusion criteria or lacking relevant outcome measures. This will improve transparency and strengthen the validity of the review process.
3. Strengthen the discussion and analysis: While the discussion section provides a good overview of the interventions and their outcomes, there is room for a deeper analysis of the findings. Consider discussing the effectiveness of each intervention in addressing specific mental health issues, identifying common themes or patterns across the studies, and comparing the outcomes to existing literature. This will add more depth and insight to the discussion.
4. Consider the limitations: Acknowledge and discuss the limitations of the included studies, such as sample size, study design, or potential biases. Addressing these limitations will help readers interpret the findings appropriately and understand the potential implications for future research and practice.
5. Gender-specific considerations: Given the focus on women prisoners, it is important to highlight gender-specific considerations in the discussion. Discuss how women prisoners' unique experiences, needs, and challenges may influence the effectiveness and implementation of correctional-based interventions. This will enhance the relevance and applicability of the findings for this specific population.
6. Provide practical implications and recommendations: Conclude the article with practical implications and recommendations for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Discuss the potential impact of the findings on policy development, intervention design, and mental health service delivery within correctional settings. Offer suggestions for future research directions to address the identified gaps and improve the quality of care for women prisoners.

Overall, your article provides a valuable contribution to correctional-based interventions for women prisoners with mental health problems.

In more detail:

the abstract:

1. Clarify the specific aim or objective of the study.
2. Provide more context and background on the stressors in prisons that contribute to mental health problems among women prisoners.
3. Expand on the importance and benefits of correctional-based interventions for addressing mental health problems.
4. Explain the rationale for selecting the specific databases used in the search.
5. Improve the clarity of the inclusion criteria, including the rationale for the chosen year range.
6. Enhance the reporting of the results by briefly describing each intervention.
7. Specify the positive outcomes and implications of the findings for addressing mental health problems in women prisoners

 the Introduction :

1. Provide a clear and concise statement of the purpose or objective of the study.
2. Consider restructuring and organizing the information to improve flow and readability.
3. Include more recent references to support the current understanding of mental health issues among prisoners.
4. Expand on the need for gender-specific mental health services and the relevance of trauma-informed techniques in prison settings.
5. Cite additional studies or sources to provide a more comprehensive overview of interventions addressing mental health problems in women prisoners.
6. Ensure consistency in referencing style throughout the section.

the Materials and Methods :

1. Clarify the aim or objective of the study upfront to provide a clear context for the chosen methodology.
2. Provide a brief explanation of the scoping review methodology based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework, highlighting its suitability for addressing the research question.
3. Ensure consistency in referencing style throughout the section.
4. Expand on the rationale for selecting the specific databases and justify their relevance in capturing relevant articles on correctional-based interventions for women prisoners with mental health problems.
5. Specify the search process, including the specific search terms and any limitations or filters applied (e.g., publication date range).
6. Provide a more detailed description of the eligibility criteria, including the rationale for focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the inclusion of articles published between 2000 and 2023.
7. Clarify the data extraction and charting process, including how the authors mapped the data and developed the extraction table.
8. Mention methods to ensure data accuracy and minimize bias, such as independent review and consensus among authors.
9. To enhance the PRISMA flowchart, provide additional information on the number of articles retrieved from each database. Specify the database names and the corresponding number of articles identified in each one. This will provide a clearer picture of the search process and the distribution of articles across databases.

Additionally, include why articles were discarded at each stage of the selection process. For example, indicate the number of articles removed due to duplication, irrelevance based on title and abstract screening, or not meeting the inclusion criteria. This will provide transparency and enable readers to understand the rationale behind the article selection.

1. Avoid ending a subsection with a table. Instead, after presenting the table summarizing the correctional-based interventions, provide a brief summary or concluding paragraph that highlights the main findings or patterns observed across the studies. This summary should complement the information presented in the table and provide a cohesive narrative of the results.
2. Incorporate a table in your article to effectively present the database search strategy and results. Specifically, we recommend creating a table that outlines the search strategy details for the database used. This table should include the database name, applied filters, and the number of articles retrieved per database.
3. We suggest including a statement in your article regarding the registration of your research protocol (essential) on a publicly accessible platform such as the Open Science Framework (OSF) or any other suitable registry. Registering your research protocol on such platforms promotes transparency and enhances the reproducibility of your study.

The Results 

1. Consider organizing the results more structured, such as creating separate subsections for each intervention, including subheadings for easy navigation.
2. Add a brief introductory paragraph at the beginning of the Results section to provide an overview of the key findings.
3. Provide additional information about the sample characteristics, such as the age range, ethnicity, and any specific criteria used for participant selection.
4. Expand on the results of each intervention, including any statistically significant findings or effect sizes observed.
5. Consider including information on the duration of the interventions, including the number and frequency of sessions, to provide a better understanding of the treatment process.
6. Provide more specific details about the assessment measures used to evaluate the outcomes of the interventions.
7. When discussing the results, consider comparing and contrasting the findings across different interventions and regions to highlight similarities or differences.

By incorporating these suggestions, the Results section will become more organized, informative, and easier to follow for readers.

 the discussion section, 

1. Provide a more comprehensive analysis of the findings: While the discussion provides an overview of the mental health problems identified and the types of interventions used, it could benefit from a deeper analysis of the results. For example, discuss the effectiveness of each intervention in addressing specific mental health issues and highlight any common themes or patterns that emerge across the studies.
2. Consider the limitations of the included studies: Acknowledge the limitations of the studies reviewed, such as small sample sizes, potential biases, or variations in study design. Discuss how these limitations may affect the generalizability and reliability of the findings, and suggest areas for future research to address these limitations.
3. Discuss the implications of the findings: Explore the practical implications of the identified interventions for women prisoners and the potential impact on their mental health outcomes. Consider factors such as feasibility, scalability, and sustainability of implementing these interventions in different correctional settings.
4. Address the need for a multidisciplinary approach: Highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in providing mental health services to women prisoners. Discuss the potential benefits of collaboration between mental health professionals, correctional staff, and other relevant stakeholders to ensure comprehensive and holistic care.
5. Consider the cultural and contextual factors: Acknowledge the influence of cultural and contextual factors on the effectiveness of correctional-based interventions for women prisoners. Discuss how cultural norms, societal attitudes, and the specific context of the prison environment may impact the implementation and outcomes of these interventions.
6. Emphasize the importance of gender-responsive interventions: Given the unique mental health needs and experiences of women prisoners, emphasize the significance of gender-responsive interventions. Discuss the importance of tailoring interventions to address the specific challenges faced by women, such as trauma, gender-based violence, and social inequalities.

Conclusion

1. The section could provide a clearer statement about the implications of the findings. It would be valuable to discuss the potential impact of the identified interventions on the mental health outcomes of women prisoners and how these interventions can contribute to this population’s overall well-being and rehabilitation.
2. Considering the limited number of studies that have explored gender-specific interventions, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of further research in this area. This could involve investigating the effectiveness of gender-responsive programs, evaluating the long-term outcomes of the interventions, and exploring innovative approaches to address the mental health needs of women prisoners.
3. To enhance the practical applicability of the conclusions, it would be beneficial to provide recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and correctional institutions on implementing and integrating the identified interventions into existing mental health services within the prison system. This could help guide decision-making and promote the provision of comprehensive and effective mental health care for women prisoners.
4. Overall, expanding on the implications and recommendations would strengthen the Conclusions section by providing a more actionable and informative summary of the findings, facilitating the translation of research into practice, and fostering further research in this important field.

The overall level of English in the article is good. The language is clear and generally well-structured, allowing for easy understanding of the content. However, there are a few areas where improvement could be made:

1. Sentence structure: Some sentences could be rephrased or simplified to improve clarity and readability. Paying attention to sentence length and avoiding overly complex structures enhance the overall flow of the text.
2. Word choice: In some instances, certain words or phrases may not be the most appropriate or precise choice. Reviewing the text for any instances where alternative words or expressions could be used to convey the intended meaning more accurately would be beneficial.
3. Grammar and punctuation: While grammar and punctuation are generally sound, it's important to proofread the article for minor errors or inconsistencies carefully. This can help ensure the accuracy and professionalism of the writing.

Overall, with minor revisions and attention to detail, the article’s English level can be further improved, enhancing the overall quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article addresses an important topic worthy of publication but I believe the following issues need to be address before the paper can be considered for publication:

-       1)   It is stated on page 1, line 5-6, that women are at a high risk of experiencing stress, anxiety and other mental health problems “because stressors in prisons cause a high prevalence of mental health problems in women prisoners”. While I agree that this is the case, it is also important to recognize that women come into prison already experiencing high levels of mental health problems.

-      2)    The author(s) also needl to explain what is meant by ‘mental health problems’. For instance, are the author(s) referring to general mental health or a diagnosed mental health condition?

-     3)     In the introduction of the paper, it would be useful to explain why women are more likely to report mental health issues compared to males, as the preceding paragraph seemed to talk about why people in prison may be more likely to have mental health issues rather than explaining why imprisoned women are more likely than imprisoned men to report mental health problems. While trauma is mentioned, as well as the distinctiveness of female prisoners, what this distinctiveness is and how it increases mental health problems is not explained and neither is the types of trauma women might be more likely to experience or how this trauma may impact on their mental health.

-       4)   Similarly, it is not really explained how the length of imprisonment and other variables mentioned by the author(s) on page 2, lines 51-53, can worsen women’s mental health problems in prison.

-        5)  The relevance of the paragraph on page 2, lines 61-75, to the aims of this paper is unclear. This paragraph appears to talk about interventions aimed at recidivism rather than interventions intended to address mental health problems and their effectiveness.

-      6)    More generally, in the introduction of the paper, no argument is presented for the need to conduct a scoping review or what gap in knowledge this paper aims to address or contribution to new knowledge it will make.  

-        7)  How were the databases chosen on which to conduct the scoping review? For instance, why was Web of Science not included as a database?

-     8)     A justification for the search terms used in the search strategy should be provided, as well as a rationale for the use of the eligibility criteria.

-      9)    I also think the discussion and conclusion could be rewritten to focus on drawing out key themes emerging from the scoping review. For instance, are there any patterns evident in why certain interventions were successful (e.g. length, resources, consistency, theoretical approach to addressing mental health problems)? What conclusions can be drawn about the use of RCT to evaluate mental health interventions in prison? At times, the author(s) seem to be drawing conclusions about mental health treatment more generally based on their results, while forgetting that their eligibility criteria specifically excluded non-RCTs. Due to the challenges associated with conducting RCTs in prisons, most mental health interventions delivered in prison do not use RCTs.

-    10)      I also identified some minor typos in the text which I have listed below:

o   On page 1, line 9, include the year for Arksey and O’Malley’s framework.

o   On page 1, line 25, replace ‘Study’ with ‘Studies’.

o   One page 1, line 28, replace ‘less diagnosed’ with ‘not diagnosed’?

o   Explain all abbreviations when they are first used in Table 1.

o   Table 1 could be reformatted to make it clearer which intervention the results apply to as they do not always directly align, potentially confusing the reader.

o   On page 5, line 139, change ‘dependent’ to ‘dependence’.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I want to extend my heartfelt thanks for accepting my comments and considering them for revision in your manuscript, and I look forward to seeing the final version of your paper.

Best Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe the changes to the paper are sufficient to address my key concerns. However, I do not think the response to authors document provided a good description of what amendments had been made to the paper to address the concerns I had raised in my previous review.