‘Low-Level’ Social Care Needs of Adults in Prison (LOSCIP): A Scoping Review of the UK Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I found it to be very strong. The research is very up to date and deals with an issue of increasing importance. I found this paper to be well written, well structured and well researched. It was also clearly presented and this made for an easy read. I have no suggestions / reviews to this paper only that the authors should at the following:

p. 11 para 3.2.2. There are some formatting issues here in the text / font

p. 13 para 4.3 formatting  in the text font

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I was grateful to see the authors undertake a scoping review regarding the conceptualization of social care and low-level assessments among persons incarcerated in men's prisons in the UK. The manuscript was organized, easy to read, and revealed what was likely anticipated--definitions are wide and hardly uniform--and this carries with it several important policy and practice implications. Overall, it was a pleasant read. I have very few recommendations and would consider this a minor revision.

 

The authors note in line 73 of the need to explore the gap in assessment; however, the authors offer only a cursory note of assessment approaches in the table rather than within the narrative. I believe the addition of a paragraph that details the assessment approaches used to identify low level social care needs is meaningful despite the wide variety of conceptualizations offered. Operationalization is a necessary touchpoint in declaring thresholds and subthresholds--should some measures be considered best practice? Should they be completed yearly? More often? 

 

The authors add that the use of ‘personal officers’ may help prevent or delay the need for social care so long as training is adequate—do we have any evidence of the training levels of officers in these roles? If not, say so.

 

In at least two places, the desire for independence is noted among those requiring social care—on line 349, the authors remark that stigma may interrupt the provision of social care. I believe it important for the authors to describe—even briefly—that this issue permeates social care among older persons and persons with life-limiting disease in community settings. This is developmentally appropriate and also points to psychosocial considerations with ageing. 

 

I would not agree that the findings in this review would be pertinent to similar prison systems—on line 382, the authors remark that there is likely overlap with parallel regimes. I believe that the Care Act sets these institutions apart in a way that is dramatically different from the US. No parallel protections or resources exist for those requiring such supports – however; the authors do not need to feel compelled to generalize their findings elsewhere. Perhaps it would be worth noting the dramatic strength that this Act carries—despite its limitations—and how it may serve as a model for other jurisdictions.

 

Scoping reviews are challenging in that the approach (and product) are often so broad that it is difficult to articulate just what was uncovered. The authors end by summarizing on line 398 that a need for agreement in how social care is defined and operationalized is critical. I suggest the authors either 1) offer one or 2) point to at least one specific organization or agency who could take on the task.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This scoping review addresses a neglected issue of the 'low-level' social care needs of adults in UK male prisons. The article focuses on the nature, extent, and conceptualization of these needs, along with strategies for prevention and the promotion of independence. By analyzing 31 studies, the review underscores the importance of preventative care and fostering independence to enhance well-being and prevent the escalation of unmet needs. Additionally, it identifies gaps in understanding and systemic challenges that hinder rehabilitation efforts. In this regard, the article contributes to increasing our awareness and knowledge of this issue.

However, several significant shortcomings, particularly in the introductory chapter, should be addressed to improve the scientific rigor of the article, as outlined below:

Introduction:

First, the discussion of how the absence of support for low-level social care needs impedes prisoners' independence and rehabilitation options—both during incarceration and after release—remains underdeveloped. While the author(s) make a general statement linking these needs to improved mental well-being, this assertion lacks sufficient evidence. Incorporating research-based findings to substantiate these claims would significantly strengthen the argument.

Another key limitation is the lack of a theoretical framework anchoring the article. The absence of a clear theoretical rationale, such as concepts like social capital or self-efficacy, weakens the study’s foundation. The inclusion of a theoretical framework would provide a more structured and coherent context for understanding and addressing low-level social care needs.

Discussion:

 

In the discussion section, these gaps should be addressed and integrated with the strategies proposed in the article to prevent the deterioration and escalation of prisoners' social care needs. For instance, the discussion could explore how initiatives such as encouraging productive activities, fostering social connections, maintaining family ties, addressing mental health issues, preventing substance use, and collaborating with third-sector organizations align with a theoretical framework. Integrating these elements would not only enhance the article's coherence but also add substantial practical and academic value.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf