Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Self-reported health status and access to health services in a sample of prisoners in Italy

  • Carmelo GA Nobile1,
  • Domenico Flotta1,
  • Gaetano Nicotera1,
  • Claudia Pileggi1 and
  • Italo F Angelillo2, 3Email author
BMC Public Health201111:529

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-529

Received: 10 February 2011

Accepted: 4 July 2011

Published: 4 July 2011

Abstract

Background

Self-reported health status in underserved population of prisoners has not been extensively explored. The purposes of this cross-sectional study were to assess self-reported health, quality of life, and access to health services in a sample of male prisoners of Italy.

Methods

A total of 908 prisoners received a self-administered anonymous questionnaire pertaining on demographic and detention characteristics, self-reported health status and quality of life, access to health services, lifestyles, and participation to preventive, social, and rehabilitation programs. A total of 650 prisoners agreed to participate in the study and returned the questionnaire.

Results

Respectively, 31.6% and 43.5% of prisoners reported a poor perceived health status and a poor quality of life, and 60% admitted that their health was worsened or greatly worsened during the prison stay. Older age, lower education, psychiatric disorders, self-reported health problems on prison entry, and suicide attempts within prison were significantly associated with a perceived worse health status. At the time of the questionnaire delivery, 30% of the prisoners self-reported a health problem present on prison entry and 82% present at the time of the survey. Most frequently reported health problems included dental health problems, arthritis or joint pain, eye problems, gastrointestinal diseases, emotional problems, and high blood pressure. On average, prisoners encountered general practitioners six times during the previous year, and the frequency of medical encounters was significantly associated with older age, sentenced prisoners, psychiatric disorders, and self-reported health problems on prison entry.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that prisoners have a perceived poor health status, specific care needs and health promotion programs are seldom offered. Programs for correction of risk behaviour and prevention of long-term effects of incarceration on prisoners' health are strongly needed.

Background

Prisoners' health represent one of the major challenge for public health and they have often the greatest needs since poor socio-economic conditions are associated with multiple health risks and greater morbidity and mortality [13]. Thus, prisoners tend to show high morbidity rate at admission, especially for chronic diseases, mental illnesses, infectious diseases, and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) [48]. These highly vulnerable individuals have generally poor access to health services outside the prison and, once entered into penitentiary centres, most of them will return in the community after a short period of detention [9]. Hence, the prison may represent an opportunity to assist public health in a cost-effective manner, that benefits the society at whole, through prevention and treatment of diseases and correction of risk behaviours in this subgroup [9]. For instance, it has been established that prisoners are at increased risk of death after release from prison, mainly in the first two weeks, and important risk factors that former prisoners face are drug overdose, cardiovascular disease, homicide, and suicide [1012]. The provision of specific interventions aimed at risk reduction while prisoners are in custody may prevent the high rate of recidivism and morbidity and could facilitate their adjustment in the community [10, 11, 13].

Self-rated health is commonly reported as a subjective indicator, as a strong predictor of longer-term morbidity and mortality, and as a method to identify high-risk groups with health needs [14, 15]. Studies assessing self-rated health and chronic conditions in prisoners showed a perceived poor health status and high morbidity, especially in comparison with the general population [2, 8, 9, 16]. Since similar research has not been conducted in Italy, this survey was carried out with the aims of assessing their self-rated health, the utilization of prisons health services, and the role of demographic and selected characteristics related to imprisonment status on the outcomes of interest among a sample of prisoners in Italy.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between February and December 2005 in Calabria, South of Italy, through a self-administered questionnaire on a population of male prisoners. Out of the 10 penal institutions located in the area, that can take into custody 2,347 prisoners [17], four institutions, for 1,085 potential participants including 463 in Catanzaro, 242 in Vibo Valentia, 209 in Rossano, and 171 in Castrovillari, were randomly selected. The whole prisoner population able to read Italian from the selected institutions was invited to participate. A total of 908 prisoners, 83.7% of the total eligible population, were enrolled in the study. Participation in the survey was voluntary, and prisoners' answers were anonymous and confidential.

A pretest was carried out on a convenience sample of 30 prisoners from the target population, in order to evaluate clarity, comprehensiveness, and acceptability of the questionnaire [18]. Feedback was incorporated into the questionnaire prior to the initial delivering.

In order to increase the participation, Prisons Medical Officers, who had been previously trained, were involved in handing out and in collecting self-administered questionnaires and were advised to respond to prisoners' queries only about the procedure and to guarantee the independent completion of the questionnaire.

The questionnaire included an introduction aimed at detailing the objectives of the study and at guaranteeing anonymity and confidentiality of gathered data, and four further sections pertaining demographic and detention characteristics, self-reported health status and access to health services, lifestyles, with special focus on smoking habits and substance abuse, and participation in preventive, social, and rehabilitation programs. The section on demographic and detention characteristics focused on age, marital status, number of children, education attainment, employment status at prison entry, dealing with first incarceration, overall time spent in prison, stage of adjudication, and length of sentence. Self-reported health status and access to health care services were investigated using a set of 11 items appraising self-rated health and quality of life, change in self-reported health status following prison entry, frequency and reasons for accessing to health care services within prison, self-reported health problems at prison entry, self-reported current health problems, concerns about acquiring STDs, experiencing negative feelings, and suicide attempts both outside and inside prison. The response levels for items assessing perceived health and quality of life were arranged using "poor", "good", and "very good", change the perceived current health status compared with the status preceding prison entry was explored using a Likert-like scale with five-point response set ranging from "greatly worsened" to "greatly improved". Access to health care services were explored using a "yes" or "no" format, self-reported current symptoms or diseases and reasons for medical encounters were explored using a half-open item, while five-point ordered-category items ranging from "never" to "very often" were used to detail the frequency of arranging medical encounters with general practitioners and the frequency of experiencing negative feelings; concerns on acquiring STDs were evaluated using a discrete visual analog scale with responses ranging from 1 (perceived low risk) to 10 (perceived high risk). The lifestyle section comprised six items investigating smoking habits and substances addiction: smoking status ("never smoker", "former smoker", and "current smoker"), daily number of cigarettes smoked by current smokers; lifetime history of drugs use, both outside and inside prison, was appraised using items arranged on "yes" or "no" levels, whereas the type of substances was asked using half-open items. The section on preventive programs aimed to elicit prisoners participation to health promotion and rehabilitative programs provided in prison on tobacco smoking, alcohol abuse, STDs, and unhealthy nutrition habit was based on a set of items with "yes" or "no" response levels. Participation in social and rehabilitation programs was investigated by asking prisoners whether they had attended to vocational training programs ("yes" or "no"), and then offenders were asked to deem usefulness of such training programs in facilitating their reintegration into work and social life ("useful", "not useful", and "uncertain") and employment expectation once outside prison ("unemployed", "previous job", "new job", and "uncertain").

Questions on self-rated health and health modification during the period of incarceration were derived mainly from the SF-36 questionnaire, while questions on health service use and other items were drawn out from the literature. Items had been modified, if necessary, by taking into account feedback from the pretest.

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee ("Mater Domini" Hospital of Catanzaro, Italy, study number 2005/47).

Statistical analysis

Two separate multiple stepwise logistic regression with backwards elimination were used to identify major independent predictors to the following primary outcomes of interest: self-rated health status (Model 1) and access to health services within prison (Model 2). For the purposes of analysis, the outcome variables originally consisting of three categories in the logistic analysis were collapsed into two levels. In Model 1, respondents were divided into those who rated as "poor" their health (recoded as 1) versus those who rated their health as "good/very good" (recoded as 0); in Model 2, respondents were divided into those who consulted "sometimes/often/very often" general practitioners (recoded as 1) versus those who consulted them "never/rarely" (recoded as 0). In all models, the independent variables included were the following: age (continuous, in years), marital status (unmarried/separated/divorced/widowed = 0, married = 1), education level (no formal education = 0, compulsory education or more = 1), employment status before entering prison (unemployed = 0, employed = 1), smoking habit (past/never smoker = 0, current smoker = 1), having ever used drugs (no = 0, yes = 1), first time incarceration (no = 0, yes = 1), time served in prison (continuous, in years), detention status (categorical, awaiting trial = 0, awaiting sentence = 1, serving sentence = 2), self-reported health problems at prison entry (no = 0, yes = 1), self-reported current health problems (no = 0, yes = 1), negative mood (never/rarely = 0, sometimes/often/very often = 1), and having ever attempted suicide in prison (no = 0, yes = 1). Before analyzing the data all cases for which there was at least one missing observation were discarded.

All tests for significance were two-sided and p-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant and the significance level for removal variables from the models was set at p = 0.4. All analyses were conducted using the Stata software program, version 10.1 [19].

Results

Of the 908 eligible male prisoners, 650 agreed to participate in the study by returning the questionnaire for a response rate of 71.6%. Table 1 shows demographic, detection, and lifestyle characteristics of respondent prisoners. The mean age was 39.8 years, more than half were married, one-third had at least one dependent child at home, had not attained compulsory education, and were unemployed at the time of prison entry. Two-thirds were current smokers, one-third had used illicit drugs over the course of their life and 20% of them admitted to having used illicit drugs behind bars. Less than half had been incarcerated for the first time, about two-thirds were permanently condemned, the mean time spent in prison was 6.8 years, and the mean length of sentence was 10 years.
Table 1

Demographic, detention, and lifestyle characteristics of respondent prisoners

Characteristic

No.

%

Age, years (623; 95.8)

39.8 ± 10.5§

Marital status (628; 96.6)

  

   Married

363

57.8

   Other

265

42.2

Having dependent children at home (638; 98.2)

  

   None

436

68.3

   Yes

202

31.7

Educational attainment (631; 97.1)

  

   No compulsory education

202

32

   Compulsory education or some degree

429

68

Occupational status before entering prison (643; 98.9)

  

   Employed

444

69

   Unemployed

199

31

Cigarette smoking status (630; 96.9)

  

   Past/Never smoker

205

32.5

   Current smoker

425

67.5

Daily amount of cigarettes smoked by current smokers (425; 65.4)

21.2 ± 12.3§

First-time incarceration (638; 98.2)

  

   No

343

53.8

   Yes

295

46.2

Time served in prison, years (588; 90.5)

6.8 ± 6.4§

Detention status (621; 95.5)

  

   Awaiting trial

115

18.5

   Awaiting sentence

102

16.4

   Serving sentence

404

65.1

Length of sentence, years (397; 61.1)

10 ± 7.9§

History of lifetime drugs use (619; 95.2)

  

   No

434

70.1

   Yes

185

29.9

Type of drugs used prior to incarceration (173; 26.6)*

  

   Cocaine

132

75.9

   Marijuana/Hashish

122

70.1

   Heroin

61

35.1

   Barbiturates/Tranquillizers

29

16.7

   Amphetamine

25

14.4

   Other

70

34.6

History of drugs use within prison (168; 25.8)

  

   No

133

79.2

   Yes

35

20.8

Type of drugs used within prison (34; 5.2)*

  

   Marijuana/Hashish

18

52.9

   Barbiturates/Tranquillizers

16

47.1

   Cocaine

14

41.2

   Heroin

8

23.5

   Ecstasy

3

8.8

   Other

9

26.5

In brackets the number and percentage of the total sample of 650 prisoners responding to the question

*Multiple responses allowed

§ Mean ± standard deviation

Self-reported health and quality of life

Table 2 shows the prisoners' perceived health status and quality of life. Overall, 31.6% and 43.5% of prisoners rated their health and perceived quality of life "poor". Compared to the time of prison entry, 60% reported that their health had worsened or greatly worsened and 35.1% were "extremely" concerned about their health. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that older prisoners (OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.03-1.08), those with lower education level (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.33-0.88), those experiencing negative feelings more frequently (OR = 4.13; 95% CI = 2.45-6.95), who attempted suicide within prison (OR = 2.48; 95% CI = 1.31-4.69), and who reported health problems on prison entry (OR = 2.54; 95% CI = 1.58-4.08) were significantly more likely to perceive a worse health status (Model 1 in Table 3).
Table 2

Prisoners' perceived health status and quality of life

 

No.

%

In general, would you say your health is? (633; 97.4)

  

   Poor

200

31.6

   Good

339

53.6

   Very good

94

14.8

In general, would you say your quality of life is? (602; 92.6)

  

   Poor

262

43.5

   Good

261

43.4

   Very good

79

13.1

How would you rate, compared to prison entry, your health in general now? (623; 95.8)

  

   Greatly worsened

169

27.1

   Worsened

205

32.9

   Unchanged

218

35

   Improved

19

3.1

   Greatly improved

12

1.9

How much are you concerned about your health? (624; 96)

  

   Extremely

219

35.1

   Moderately

228

36.5

   Not at all

177

28.4

In brackets the number and percentage of the total sample of 650 prisoners responding to the question

Table 3

Multiple logistic regression analysis indicating association between several variables and the different outcomes

 

Model 1. Self-rated health as poor

Model 2. Arranging a medical encounter more frequently

 

Log likelihood = -229.73, χ2 = 116.44 (8 df), p <0.0001

470 observations

Log likelihood = -277.58, χ2 = 79.88 (9 df), p <0.0001

468 observations

Variable

OR

95% CI

p

OR

95% CI

p

Age, years

1.06

1.03-1.08

<0.0001

1.02

1.01-1.05

0.02

Marital status

Backward elimination

Backward elimination

Attained compulsory education or more

0.54

0.33-0.88

0.014

Backward elimination

Working before entering prison

Backward elimination

 

1.24

0.79-1.96

0.352

First time incarceration

Backward elimination

 

0.71

0.47-1.07

0.099

Time served in prison, years

0.97

0.93-1.01

0.103

Backward elimination

Detention status

      

   Awaiting trial

1.00§

--

--

1.00§

--

--

   Awaiting sentence

Backward elimination

1.41

0.72-2.75

0.315

   Serving sentence

0.71

0.43-1.16

0.176

1.91

1.11-3.30

0.02

Feeling negative mood

4.13

2.45-6.95

<0.0001

2.00

1.31-3.05

0.001

Having ever attempted suicide within prison

2.48

1.31-4.69

0.005

1.48

0.75-2.92

0.261

Self-reported health problems on prison entry

2.54

1.58-4.08

<0.0001

3.81

2.32-6.25

<0.0001

Current smoker

Backward elimination

0.75

0.49-1.16

0.202

Having ever used drugs

1.26

0.74-2.14

0.393

Backward elimination

§Reference category

Self-reported health problems and access to health services within prison

Table 4 lists prisoners' self-reported current symptoms or diseases and reasons for arranging medical encounter. The rate of prisoners self-reporting health problems increased during the incarceration growing from 30% on prison entry to 82% at the time of questionnaire delivery. The top six health problems are dental health problems, arthritis or joint pain, eye problems, gastrointestinal diseases, emotional problems, and high blood pressure. Suicide was more frequently attempted within (13.6%) than outside the prison (7.9%). Furthermore, prisoners were afraid of possible STDs since over 60% of them rated a score ranging from 7 to 10. Prisoners consulted general practitioners about 6 times in the last year of incarceration while hospital admission was necessary for 11.4%. Consultations with general practitioners were significantly more frequent for older prisoners (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01-1.05), for those serving a sentence (OR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.11-3.30), for those experiencing negative feelings more frequently (OR = 2.00; 95% CI = 1.31-3.05), and for those reporting health problems on prison entry (OR = 3.81; 95% CI = 2.32-6.25) (Model 2 in Table 3).
Table 4

Prisoners' self-reported symptoms or diseases and access to health services

Characteristic

No.

%

Self-reported health problems at prison entry (625; 96.2)

  

   No

439

70.2

   Yes

186

29.8

Self-reported current symptoms or diseases (640; 98.5)

  

   No

116

18.1

   Yes

524

81.9

Category of self-reported current symptoms or diseases (523; 80.5)*

  

   Dental health problems

293

56.1

   Arthritis or rheumatic pain

210

40.2

   Eye problems

199

38.1

   Gastro-intestinal diseases

191

36.5

   Emotional problems (anxiety, depression)

184

35.2

   High blood pressure

129

24.7

   Cancer

98

18.7

   Bone fractures

92

17.6

   Liver diseases

88

16.8

   Heart diseases

87

16.6

   Emphysema or chronic bronchitis

85

16.3

   Diabetes

79

15.1

   Other

54

10.3

Arranging a medical encounter in case of health complaints (625; 96.2)

  

   Never

53

8.5

   Rarely

211

33.8

   Sometimes

156

24.9

   Often

132

21.1

   Very often

73

11.7

Medical examination undergone during last year of incarceration (626; 96.3)

  

   No

87

13.9

   Yes

539

86.1

Reason for medical examination during last year of incarceration (296; 45.5)*

  

   Arthritis or rheumatic pain

50

16.9

   Emotional problems (anxiety, depression)

49

16.6

   Dental health problems

43

14.5

   Check-up

40

13.5

   Gastro-intestinal diseases

32

10.8

   Heart diseases

29

9.8

   Eye problems

26

8.8

   Bone fractures

24

8.1

   High blood pressure

23

7.8

   Acute respiratory diseases

22

7.4

   Other

98

33.1

Hospital admission during last year of incarceration (599; 92.2)

  

   No

531

88.6

   Yes

68

11.4

Having ever attempted suicide within prison (602; 92.6)

  

   No

520

86.4

   Yes

82

13.6

Having ever attempted suicide outside prison (617; 94.9)

  

   No

568

92.1

   Yes

49

7.9

In brackets the number and percentage of the total sample of 650 prisoners responding to the question

*Multiple responses allowed

Participation to health promotion and social rehabilitative programs

Educational and health promotion programs, oriented towards the adoption of healthy behaviors in relation to alcohol consumption, STDs, smoking, and eating habits, are regularly provided within the prison healthcare system. Although all prisoners are invited to participate in these programs, only 9% were involved in programs smoking cessation/prevention, 8.9% in responsible alcohol consumption, 5.6% for prevention of STDs, and 6% to modify unhealthy eating habits. Moreover, almost half have participated in vocational training programs and 85% of them deemed such training "useful" but only 11.4% believed that it would allow them to find a new job after prison release.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge the present study is the first attempt to assess prisoners' self-reported health status in Italy. The results confirm previous studies that prisoners have a poor self-reported health status, high morbidity rate, and a frequent access to prison health services. It should be noted that we did not test the prison effect in determining the health status, the quality of life, and the access to health services, because we did not expect that structural and organizational differences between the selected prisons can play a role on these outcomes of interest. This is also supported by the results of a previous study conducted by some of us in the same four prisons with no significant differences among centers with regard the oral health status [20].

About 32% of prisoners rated their health as "poor", despite an average age of 40 years. In a study conducted on the Italian males general population, 1.9% of those aged 35-44 and 6.7% of all age groups rated their health as "poor" or "fair" and this percentage rises to 9.7% in Calabria. Moreover, the characteristics of the sample who perceived the worst health status were similar to those of the general population and it has been observed more frequently among those with a lower educational level and older [21]. These data clearly suggest that perceived health status is worse in the most disadvantaged subgroups. These findings are consistent with those reported in Australia where 28% of male prisoners rated their health as either "poor" or "fair" compared with 15% in the community [2]. Another study in the same area found that the perceived health was deemed as "poor" or "fair" by 24% and 30% of aboriginal and non-aboriginal male prisoners, respectively [22]. In the United States, half of newly admitted prisoners rated their health as "good", "fair", or "poor" [9], whereas in another study none of male prisoners rated their health as "poor", 20% as "fair", and 53% as "good" [23]. As expected, our findings that older age is a predictor of self-reported poor health is in accordance with other studies [16, 23, 24]. The finding that young prisoners are prone to evaluate their health more positively than those older is confirmed by Butler et al, who reported that 91% of offenders aged 15-24 in Australia evaluated their health as "excellent", "very good", or "good" [25]. Moreover, psychological conditions are also associated with perceived poor health and these factors are well documented risk factors for both poor health status and incarceration.

The prison system must be considered as a filter that selects and concentrates subjects with certain characteristics and trying to establish a relationship of causality about the effect of incarceration on health of prisoners may be misleading and controlling for confounders is very difficult. Other factors might simultaneously affect both incarceration and health and bias the apparent effect of incarceration. Instead, prison system should be regarded as an ally of public health, as an opportunity for providing treatment and education to individuals at risk and underserved. But prison can have long-term effects on prisoners' health. Schnittker et al [26] suggest that incarceration may have a negative effect on prisoners' health, in particular after release, since in custody they are unable to develop normal credentials and the distance and the time spent in prison negatively affect social integration, especially with their own family.

Self-reported health problems and access to health services

A high prevalence of prisoners' self-reported diseases (82%), whereas lower values have been reported in the general population (13.1%) and in Calabria (15.7%) [21]. The top rated current health issue was dental health problems. This result is supported by the findings of a study, conducted by some of us, with only 2% of examined prisoners having no history of caries [20]. The authors also suggested the need for programs to improve oral health. Improving oral health can improve overall health [27]. Moreover, as expected considering the characteristics and the risk factors of the population surveyed, emotional and gastrointestinal problems were most frequently reported and this is consistent with previous results [2, 9, 16, 28].

Among all demographic characteristics, only age was significantly associated with self-reported use of health services with older prisoners that were more likely to access to these services within prison. Not surprisingly, and according with previous studies, no effect has been found regarding other demographic characteristics [2, 23, 29, 30]. It has been observed that prisoners seek care when ill and they use health services in prison 3 to 4 times more frequently than the general population and this use is linked to the high morbidity rate on entry, but this is not sufficient to explain the difference in health services utilization [31, 32]. This inconsistency is particularly evident in our context in which both prisoners and general population have universal health care access. The high rate of health services use may also be explained by the fact that the therapy with methadone and buprenorphine is given for free to all prisoners with history of substance use as an effective treatment for opiate dependence and, hopefully, to reduce drug-related diseases and recidivism for prisoners.

Participation in health promotion programs was very low and this may reflect the lack of adequate programs offered to prisoners for the correction of unhealthy lifestyles. Newly admitted prisoners are advised by physician during examination, and effective prevention programmes are needed for people passing through the correctional system in Italy.

Limitations

There are several potential limitations in this study. There is the possibility of a selection bias since almost 30% of prisoners did not participate and the mean age of the sample was slightly higher than that of the population of prisoners in the selected prisons, but this should not pose a threat to the generalizability to the overall prisoner population, since the group most prevalent in Italian prisons was between 30 and 39 years [33]. Moreover, caution is required in making cross-country comparisons of perceived health status, mainly because items assessing self-reported health status and quality of life were arranged on different level of responses. However, we believe that our results reflects the actual estimate of self-reported health. In fact, there are many alternative questionnaires assessing people's health and quality of life, each of them using different wording and different set of responses but the answers to the various self-reported health items are highly correlated [14]. Finally, misclassification may have been introduced by the use of self-reported history of health problems.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that prisoners have a poor health status because of specific problems and care needs. However, prison health services are almost equivalent to those provided in the community since physicians act as general practitioners and most health problems are adequately addressed. But, the prison system appears to be a "bad" ally of public health considering that it seldom provides programs aimed at health promotion or facilitating social reintegration. Our findings give a cue for the provision of programs aimed at correcting risk behaviour and preventing the long-term effects of incarceration on prisoners' health.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to the Prison Regional Authority for allowing us to carry out this study. Also we would like to extend our sincere thanks to the Directors and the Staff of the penal institutions for their great support and to all prisoners for their participation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Chair of Hygiene, Medical School, University of Catanzaro "Magna Græcia"
(2)
Department of Experimental Medicine, Second University of Naples
(3)
At the time of this study he was with the Chair of Hygiene, Medical School, University of Catanzaro ''Magna Græcia''

References

  1. Galea S, Vlahov D: Social determinants and the health of drug users: socioeconomic status, homelessness, and incarceration. Public Health Rep. 2002, 117: S135-S45.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler T, Kariminia A, Levy M, Murphy M: The self-reported health status of prisoners in New South Wales. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2004, 28: 344-50. 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2004.tb00442.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Greenberg GA, Rosenheck RA: Jail incarceration, homelessness, and mental health: a national study. Psychiatr Serv. 2008, 59: 170-7. 10.1176/appi.ps.59.2.170.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Macalino GE, Dhawan D, Rich JD: A missed opportunity: hepatitis C screening of prisoners. Am J Public Health. 2005, 95: 1739-40. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.056291.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Aerts A, Hauer B, Wanlin M, Veen J: Tuberculosis and tuberculosis control in European prisons. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2006, 10: 1215-23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Thomas JC, Levandowski BA, Isler MR, Torrone E, Wilson G: Incarceration and sexually transmitted infections: a neighborhood perspective. J Urban Health. 2008, 85: 90-9. 10.1007/s11524-007-9231-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gupta S, Altice FL: Hepatitis B virus infection in US correctional facilities: a review of diagnosis, management, and public health implications. J Urban Health. 2009, 86: 263-79. 10.1007/s11524-008-9338-z.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Wilper AP, Woolhandler S, Boyd JW, Lasser KE, McCormick D, Bor DH, Himmelstein DU: The health and health care of US prisoners: results of a nationwide survey. Am J Public Health. 2009, 99: 666-72. 10.2105/AJPH.2008.144279.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Conklin TJ, Lincoln T, Tuthill RW: Self-reported health and prior health behaviors of newly admitted correctional inmates. Am J Public Health. 2000, 90: 1939-41. 10.2105/AJPH.90.12.1939.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Pratt D, Piper M, Appleby L, Webb R, Shaw J: Suicide in recently released prisoners: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2006, 368: 119-23. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69002-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Binswanger IA, Stern MF, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Cheadle A, Elmore JG, Koepsell TD: Release from prison - A high risk of death for former inmates. N Engl J Med. 2007, 356: 157-65. 10.1056/NEJMsa064115.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosen DL, Schoenbach VJ, Wohl DA: All-cause and cause-specific mortality among men released from state prison, 1980-2005. Am J Public Health. 2008, 98: 2278-84. 10.2105/AJPH.2007.121855.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Anasseril ED: Care of the mentally ill in prisons: challenges and solutions. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007, 35: 406-10.Google Scholar
  14. Fayers PM, Sprangers MA: Understanding self-rated health. Lancet. 2002, 359: 187-8. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07466-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, He J, Muntner P: Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. A meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2006, 21: 267-75. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00291.x.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Fazel S, Hope T, O'Donnell I, Piper M, Jacoby R: Health of elderly male prisoners: worse than the general population, worse than younger prisoners. Age Ageing. 2001, 30: 403-7. 10.1093/ageing/30.5.403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, ISTAT 2006. Annuario statistico italiano 2006. Accessed on April 20, 2011, [http://www.istat.it/dati/catalogo/asi2006]
  18. Rea LM, Parker RA: Designing & conducting survey research: a comprehensive guide. 2005, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint, 30-2. ThirdGoogle Scholar
  19. Stata Corporation: Stata Reference Manual Release 10: 2007, College Station, TX, USA
  20. Nobile CGA, Fortunato L, Pavia M, Angelillo IF: Oral health status of male prisoners in Italy. Int Dent J. 2007, 57: 27-35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, ISTAT: 2007. Condizioni di salute, fattori di rischio e ricorso ai servizi sanitari. Accessed on February 10, 2010, [http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_609_allegato.pdf]
  22. Kariminia A, Butler T, Levy M: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal health differentials in Australian prisoners. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007, 31: 366-71. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00089.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindquist CH, Lindquist CA: Health behind bars: utilization and evaluation of medical care among jail inmate. J Community Health. 1999, 24: 285-303. 10.1023/A:1018794305843.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Colsher PL, Wallace RB, Loeffelholz PL, Sales M: Health status of older male prisoners: a comprehensive survey. Am J Public Health. 1992, 82: 881-4. 10.2105/AJPH.82.6.881.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Butler T, Belcher JM, Champion U, Kenny D, Allerton M, Fasher M: The physical health status of young Australian offenders. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008, 32: 73-80. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00169.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Schnittker J, John A: Enduring stigma: the long-term effects of incarceration on health. J Health Soc Behav. 2007, 48: 115-30. 10.1177/002214650704800202.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Treadwell HM, Formicola AJ: Improving the oral health of prisoners to improve overall health and well-being. Am J Public Health. 2005, 95: 1677-8. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.073924.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Kariminia A, Law MG, Butler TG, Levy MH, Corben SP, Kaldor JM, Grant L: Suicide risk among recently released prisoners in New South Wales, Australia. MJA. 2007, 187: 387-90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Alexopoulos EC, Geitona M: Self-rated health: inequalities and potential determinants. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009, 6: 2456-69. 10.3390/ijerph6092456.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Leukefeld CG, Staton M, Hiller ML, Logan TK, Warner B, Shaw K, Purvis RT: A descriptive profile of health problems, health services utilization, and HIV serostatus among incarcerated male drug abusers. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2002, 29: 167-75. 10.1007/BF02287703.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall T, Simpson S, Stevens A: Use of health services by prison inmates: comparisons with the community. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001, 55: 364-5. 10.1136/jech.55.5.364.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Feron JM, Paulus D, Tonglet R, Lorant V, Pestiaux D: Substantial use of primary health care by prisoners: epidemiological description and possible explanations. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005, 59: 651-5. 10.1136/jech.2004.022269.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Ministero della Giustizia: Detenuti per classi di età. Anni 2005-2010. Accessed on April 26, 2011, [http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_14_1.wp?facetNode_1=1_5_2&previsiousPage=mg_1_14&contentId=SST613888]
  34. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/529/prepub

Copyright

© Nobile et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.