Challenges Facing the BSP in Conducting Monetary Operations under Excess Liquidity
Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions
-
Upload
sara-wakai -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
3
Transcript of Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions
![Page 1: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Behavioral Sciences and the Law
Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
Published online 10 September 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.894
*Correspondence to: Sara WaServices Research, DepartmenFarmington Ave., Suite 262, FyCorrectional Managed HealthMedicine, Division of Public HyyCorrectional Managed HealthHealth Center.yyyCenter for Correctional MeConnecticut Health Center.
Copyright # 2009 John W
Conducting Research inCorrections: Challengesand Solutions
Sara Wakai, Ph.D.*,Deborah Shelton, Ph.D., R.N., B.C.-N.E.y,Robert L. Trestman, Ph.D., M.D.yy
and Karen Kesten, M.S.yyy
Research in correctional settings has progressed from theexploitation of a vulnerable population in the years prior to1978 to its current overly protective and restrictive state.With the considerable growth in the numbers of inmateswith medical and mental health care needs, developingeffective interventions to serve this population is para-mount. There now appear to be signs of interest in andsupport for research with inmates by correctionalagencies, academia, and health care organizations. Innes(2003) has articulated the following strategies for imple-menting research in prison: (1) gather stakeholders;(2) include one or more experienced research collaborators;(3) consider obtaining technical assistance from a universityor the National Institute of Corrections (NIC); (4) definepotential opportunities/interests that support the institu-tion’s mission; (5) develop a relationship with an IRB;(6) pilot a small proposal that is of interest and potentialvalue to the organization. The authors illustrate the imple-mentation of a study in a correctional system that usesthese strategies. Copyright# 2009 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.
The correctional population has grown to a record seven million people who are
incarcerated, on probation, or on parole (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). Data
on health status and illness prevalence in adult correctional settings (Fazel &
Danesh, 2002) suggest that incarcerated adults are at higher risk than the general
kai, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Center for Correctional Mental Healtht of Medicine-MC6210, University of Connecticut Health Center, 270armington, CT 06032, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected], University of Connecticut, School of Nursing and Department ofealth and Population Sciences.Care, Department of Medicine and Psychiatry, University of Connecticut
ntal Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, University of
iley & Sons, Ltd.
![Page 2: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
744 S. Wakai et al.
population for a number of medical and mental illnesses, including hepatitis C
(Hunt & Saab, 2009), tuberculosis (Bick, 2007), HIV/AIDS (Copenhaver,
Chowdhury, & Altice, 2009), oral health (Walsh, Tickle, Milsom, Buchanan &
Zoitopoulos, 2008), substance abuse problems (Fazel, Bains, & Doll, 2006) and
mental disorders (Baillargeon, Binswanger, Penn, Williams, & Murray, 2009).
Health care providers in correctional facilities are faced with an increased need to
care for this growing population. In order to provide effective, evidence-based care
for inmates, it is essential to conduct research with this population to reflect their
particular circumstances, health histories, and environmental exposures. However,
there is a considerable deficiency in research and research capacity in corrections due
to cumbersome organizational processes and lengthy investigational review
processes. The purpose of this article is to provide background information on
the challenges of conducting research in correctional environments, factors that
facilitate the research process and examples of effective research practices in
corrections.
CHALLENGES OF CONDUCTING RESEARCH INPRISONS
History of Inmates as Research Subjects
The present dearth of research with inmates is due in large part to the necessary
regulatory responses to the exploitation of this vulnerable population primarily
during the second half of the 20th century. In the 1950s and 1960s state and federal
prisons allowed researchers, particularly those from the pharmaceutical industry, to
conduct studies including the introduction of infectious hepatitis, syphilis, or cancer
to otherwise healthy individuals (Hornblum, 1997) with little or no oversight or
meaningful informed consent process. In the early 1970s, the vast majority of drug
toxicity trials and investigational new drug trials were conducted using inmates as
research subjects (Hoffman, 2000; Kalmbach & Lyons, 2003). The Nuremberg
Code, the Tuskegee Study, the Belmont Report and the establishment of the
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research contributed to the federal government essentially banning
research with prisoners in 1978. The much needed restrictions placed on prisoner
research may have led prisoners to become an over-protected group (Moser et al.,
2004).
Institutional Review Boards
In response to the exploitation of human subjects, institutional review boards (IRBs)
were established to ensure that the rights and welfare of all who participate in
research are protected. IRBs have proven to be a necessary but challenging obstacle
for researchers working in corrections. For example, special IRB panels have been
designated to review research that involves inmates as participants and must include
a prisoner representative as a member. Recruiting, training, and retaining someone
for this role can be very time consuming. IRB panels with prisoner representatives do
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl
![Page 3: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions 745
not necessarily meet monthly and full board reviews are standard for studies with
vulnerable populations such as prisoners, thus slowing the review process. In
addition, when collaborating with colleagues at other universities or agencies, the
IRB (or equivalent) at each institution must review and approve the study.
Additionally, the Connecticut Department of Correction (CDOC), in this instance,
has established a research advisory committee (RAC) to review all research being
conducted in its facilities. The RAC review seeks to explore additional issues related
to burden upon the system including costs to their agency. Consequently, once an
institution’s IRB has approved a study, there is an additional authorization process
via the RAC that reviews the study to ensure that it meets CDOC’s requirements. At
this point, IRB authorization agreements are executed to ensure that oversight is
maintained and all human subject protection requirements of the Federal Wide
Assurance are met. Gaining approval from the multiple IRB panels from all
institutions involved can delay the initiation of a project for several months, as any
change at any institution necessitates a subsequent change and review at the other
institutions.
In addition to standard IRB requirements, Federal Regulation Code 46.306(a)
Subpart C mandates supplementary safeguards for prisoners who participate in
research. For example, placebos and control groups with limited benefit are not
allowed. In addition, coercion must be minimized. Therefore, little or no financial
compensation can be offered to inmates who participate in research studies.
Certificates of participation or completion are allowed but often include a disclaimer
such as ‘‘Can not be used in parole review’’ predominantly printed across it
(Trestman, 2005), making recruitment for research studies particularly challenging.
Organizational Structure of Prisons
Correctional facilities traditionally have relied on a bureaucratic, paramilitary
organizational configuration that is, by definition, hierarchical, routinized, risk
averse, and security focused. Historically, this control-oriented model has worked
effectively for prisons; however, it has also greatly limited the inclusion of potentially
beneficial functions such as conducting research. Highly structured organizations,
such as prisons, are by design risk averse and often resistant to change associated with
research. For a department of correction (DOC), safety and security is paramount
and potential risks to prisoner subjects, researchers, custody and medical staff must
be kept to a minimum even at the expense of losing beneficial research findings.
Logistics
The hurdles that a researcher must address while preparing and implementing a
research project in a correctional setting are numerous and unpredictable but not
insurmountable. It is helpful to keep in mind that the hurdles are in place for a
reason: to promote safety and security. For example, just entering the front gates
requires permission from the commissioner and warden, DOC training, a
background check, a search of items being brought into the facility, clearing a
metal detector, and two sources of official identification.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl
![Page 4: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
746 S. Wakai et al.
Risks are presented each time prisoners are moved. Researchers need to plan their
research consenting procedures, recruitment processes, and actual data collection in
ways that minimize the burden to corrections staff and minimize prisoner movement.
Because no two facilities are alike even within our system, the early part of a study is
spent in establishing best practices for recruitment, consent, and data collection
processes. Consideration needs to be given as to whether data collection is in a jail
where prisoners are in detoxification, or in a prison facility.
The timeline for completing a research project in a correctional environment will
be months, if not years, longer than a comparable one conducted in a community
setting (Trestman, 2005). The delays are due in large part to facility related
constraints such as lock-downs, turnover of contact people, shift changes, lack of a
private interview area, and escort status of visitors. Retaining research participants is
always a concern for researchers, but inmates have exceptionally high attrition rates
due to a variety of factors (e.g., transfers, releases, court dates, administrative
segregation, count, meal time, commissary hours, work, school, therapeutic groups),
which are often unexpected and unannounced.
The researcher must consider the burden to the correctional system. Researchers
put additional, although unintended, demands on correctional officers for escorting
researchers, transporting inmates, and providing security. In addition, the
importance of having a contact person who can act as a liaison on behalf of the
researcher cannot be over-emphasized. Assistance with activities such as scheduling
rooms, obtaining inmate lists, and facilitating entry into the facility expedite the
research process and give legitimacy to the project. It is wise to prepare for the fact
that the challenges encountered in the system are on-going and a realistic part of
conducting a research project.
Diverse Missions
The missions of research and corrections are strikingly diverse, which poses
considerable limitations for the convergence of collaborative efforts. Prisons are
designed to incarcerate inmates, to control behavior, and to provide adequate basic
care. As Trestman (2005) has stated, ‘‘. . .from the perspective of the correctional
institution safety always comes first, treatment is second, and research a distant third
(if even considered)’’ (p. 12). Magaletta, Morgan, Reitzel, and Innes (2007) point
out that DOC places very little emphasis on research. In fact, DOC is the only
industry (a $50-billion-a-year industry) that spends ‘‘almost none of its resources on
research and development’’ (Magaletta et al., 2007, p. 935). In contrast, academic
research is more of an entrepreneurial process that stresses the importance of
generating new knowledge. A typical research university has a research budget of
close to $200 million to advance this endeavor (UConn, 2009). Researchers also
have the luxury of writing up results as ‘‘objective findings’’ without concern about
how unfavorable outcomes may be used against the facility in litigation. Universities
(and their affiliates) have their own set of priorities to which researchers must adhere,
such as publish or perish, training students, and grant timelines.
The challenges described above began primarily to provide safety and security for
inmates, custody, and researchers. They now have evolved into barriers that limit the
investigation and implementation of evidence-based practices that are potentially
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl
![Page 5: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions 747
beneficial to inmates, correctional facilities, and correctional systems. An effective
way to mitigate these challenges is to develop a partnership between researcher,
custody, and clinicians and encourage each group to contribute their expertise to the
research process.
STRATEGIES FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH INCORRECTIONS
The challenges of conducting research in corrections have been well documented
(Brewer-Smyth, 2008; Kalmbach & Lyons, 2003; Quina et al., 2007) and the need
for developing a research infrastructure has been duly noted (Magaletta et al., 2007;
Trestman, 2005). Simply documenting the concerns, however, does not bring us any
closer to conducting applied research and implementing evidence-based practices to
provide effective treatment to inmates. Innes (2003) has articulated the following
strategies for implementing research in prison: (1) gather stakeholders; (2) include
one or more experienced research collaborators; (3) consider obtaining technical
assistance from a university or the NIC; (4) define potential opportunities/interests
that support the institution’s mission; (5) develop a relationship with an IRB;
(6) pilot a small proposal that is of interest and potential value to the organization.
The authors are currently conducting a study in a correctional system that illustrates
the use of these strategies.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A RESEARCH PROJECTIN CORRECTIONS
A study funded by the National Institutes of Health Partners in Research Program
(R03) (RFA-OD-07-001) is currently being implemented in Connecticut and
focuses on identifying ways to formalize a collaborative partnership between the
University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC)/Correctional Health Managed
Care (CMHC) researchers and the Connecticut Department of Correction
(CDOC). The purpose of the study is to assess the utility of a newly modified
assessment tool, the Corrections Modified Global Assessment of Functioning (CM-
GAF) (initially modified with funding from Mental Health Research Infrastructure
in Corrections Grant 5R24-MH067030-04), designed to evaluate the psychological,
social, and occupational functioning of inmates. This tool was selected because the
management of mentally ill and behaviorally disturbed offenders is a major public
safety issue involving not just correctional facilities, but the community at large
(Ditton, 1999). Without appropriate screening, inmates may not receive needed
services and treatment, leading to behavioral dyscontrol, safety concerns, manage-
ment crisis, and a failure to integrate successfully into the community on release.
This study builds upon a statewide strategic planning process initiated in 2007
that recognizes the benefits of research, and the uniqueness of conducting research in
correctional settings—that adaptations and accommodations are required for
evidence-based practices to be applied in correctional settings. To this end, a joint
team of UCHC/CMHC and CDOC partners have collaborated to design the
study to investigate procedures that contribute to effective research planning,
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl
![Page 6: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
748 S. Wakai et al.
implementation, and evaluation activities with the mutual goal of addressing the
health and safety of inmates and employees. The aim of the study is to continue work
in refining and validating the CM-GAF as a vehicle to formalize the partnership
between UCHC/CMHC and CDOC that will lead to the institutionalization of on-
going research processes that can facilitate application of research findings that are
potentially beneficial to inmates, correctional facilities, and correctional systems and
will lead to recommendations for system research policies and procedures. The study
will be used as a framework to illustrate the practical application of Innes’ (2003)
research strategies for conducting research in corrections.
Gather Stakeholders
A critical element of this research project is the identification and gathering of
stakeholders, which the investigators defined as individuals who have a stake in the
inmate population, the capacity to affect and facilitate change at a systems level, and
the ability to make a commitment to the process. The investigators divided the
stakeholders into three groups based on their function within the research project.
First, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Director of Health and
Addiction Services, the Executive Director of CMHC, and the principal
investigators comprise the leadership group, which was formed to make policy
decisions, review reports, monitor progress of research project, and function as an
external validity check. The stakeholder group consists of wardens, inmate advocate,
IRB representative, Director of Quality Improvement, Director of Offender
Programs and Victim Services, Statewide Director of Psychiatric Services, Statewide
Director of Mental Health, and Manager, Center for Research, Program Analysis,
and Quality Improvement. The stakeholder group meets on a quarterly basis to
provide feedback on the research activities and help to recruit personnel (clinicians,
MSW, CTOs, and wardens) for focus groups, which are a central data collection
method for the study. The working group consists of the co-principal investigators,
the evaluator, and selected persons from the CDCO and UCHC/CMHC research
offices. The working group meets every two months to manage the grant, conduct
the research, provide logistical support for the leadership group, build relationships
to deal with implementation issues at the departmental level, and address
recommendations made by the stakeholder policy group. The working group
sponsored a ‘‘kick-off’’ meeting and invited members of the stakeholder group and
leadership group for an afternoon to introduce the project and garner support.
Twelve representatives attended, provided valuable feedback on the research design
and implementation, and offered support.
Include One or More Experienced Research Collaborators
The research collaboration for this study began with conversations between the
principal investigator (PI) and co-principal investigator (co-PI) about ways to further
develop the research infrastructure in CDOC. The conversations led to a grant
proposal and subsequent study that has brought together professionals who have
worked in corrections or conducted research in corrections and are committed to
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl
![Page 7: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions 749
formalizing a research partnership. The work group for the grant includes the PI,
who holds a joint appointment at the School of Nursing and Department of
Medicine and is the Director for Research and Evaluation for Correctional Managed
Health Care; the co-PI is the Director of Organizational Development for CDOC;
the evaluator holds an academic appointment in the Center for Correctional Health
Services Research; and the CDOC representative is a counselor supervisor. Their
combined professional experience provides a rich resource for research collabor-
ation.
It is within this group that the majority of the work has taken place. Many co-
teaching and policy drafts have been developed to assist the CDOC to articulate and
streamline its research processes. Outcomes have led to a monthly statewide research
meeting that reaches across multiple public–academic CDOC partnerships and sets
the foundation for developing a research network and reduction of burden upon
CDOC.
Obtain Technical Assistance from a University or NIC
Technical assistance (TA) has been described as the transmission of specific
technical or content knowledge from an expert to an individual or group who has
identified a need (Hunter et al., 2009). TA is a critical component of collaborative or
community-based research since it helps to bridge the gap between evaluation and
improvement by placing stakeholders in the central role of designing the study,
interpreting the results, and improving a program or procedure. In order for the
current study to effectively reach its goals, a collaborative organizational structure
was designed, which resulted in a multi-directional TA process. For instance, the
stakeholder groups have individuals who represent IRB, the National Alliance of
Mental Illness (NAMI), clinicians, wardens, and researchers. Each of the
stakeholders brings expertise, insight, and perspective that contribute to the group.
Define Opportunities and Interests that Support the Institution’sMission
In the early stages of preparing the grant, the researchers met with representatives
from CDOC and CMHC to identify correctional health care needs that would
benefit the inmates and support the missions of these entities. A primary concern for
mental health professionals and custody staff was assessing and monitoring mental
illness in corrections. Without appropriate screening, indicators for a need of clinical
care or behavioral management may be missed. A second concern, unique to the
correction environment, is related to unit placement based upon the prisoner’s
mental health risk score or rating score. A standard tool for monitoring behavior and
functioning is The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), which is included as
Axis V in theDiagnostic and StatisticalManual, Fourth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-
IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Designed to assess an individual’s
overall ‘‘psychological, social and occupational functioning on a hypothetical
continuum of mental health–illness,’’ it is used extensively in research and clinical
settings (Basco, Krebaum, & Rush, 1997).
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl
![Page 8: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
750 S. Wakai et al.
Although certain inmate behaviors appear to be highly dysfunctional from a
community perspective, they actually can serve a survival function in prison (Foster,
1982). The Corrections Modified Global Assessment of Functioning, which was
developed under a previous grant (Mental Health Research Infrastructure in
Corrections Grant 5R24-MH067030-04), needed to be validated with inmates. The
assessment became the conduit for formalizing a research partnership since it
supported the mission of conducting research that can be applied to benefit inmates,
custody staff, and mental health professionals by improving mental health treatment,
treatment planning, and security.
Develop relationship with IRB
The research team has had a ten-year productive relationship with the institution’s
IRB. Working with an IRB that is accredited by the AAHRPP (Association for the
Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs) has provided the research
team with an exceptional knowledge base of regulatory requirements. Educational
sessions are offered to research groups when new studies are approved. In addition to
maintaining the required Human Subjects and HIPAA certifications, research
coordinators and staff attend training and workshops to enhance skills, keep abreast
of current information, and ensure adherence to research guidelines. Shortly after
the grant notification letter arrived for this project, the research team met with IRB
representatives and the chair of the IRB prisoner panel to discuss the design of the
project, issues of confidentiality during the focus groups, and data collection
procedures. These informational sessions were extremely helpful in this initial phase
of the project and aided in the further refinement of the protocol. The IRB
representatives suggested re-structuring the study into two phases. Although this will
require submitting an IRB modification to begin phase II, it has helped to clarify the
dual purposes of the grant (e.g., building a research infrastructure and validating a
modified assessment tool). To further foster this collaboration, the researchers
extended an invitation to IRB representatives at the two campuses of the university to
participate in the stakeholder meetings. One IRB representative from one campus
agreed to be a member of the stakeholder group and has provided a valuable
perspective during meetings.
Pilot a Small Proposal
The current project is a small pilot study. The stakeholders will be asked to
participate in an iterative process that balances problem solving actions implemented
in a collaborative context with data-driven collaborative analysis to understand
perceptions of safety and security, quality of communication, leadership style,
organizational structure, demands on time and other resources, and value of
outcomes. In addition, four focus groups will be conducted, each consisting of
approximately five to seven correctional officers, correctional treatment officers,
captains, lieutenants, wardens, and medical and mental health clinicians. The topic
of the focus groups will address clinician’s ability to accurately assess inmate
functioning and this may ultimately help to make recommendations for appropriate
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl
![Page 9: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions 751
housing and to provide treatment services safely. Next, the CM-GAF and the GAF
will be administered to 50 inmates (25 male and 25 female adults). Descriptive
correlation analyses are planned to examine relationships among the two assessment
ratings and CDOC risk scores.
CONCLUSION
Research in correctional settings has moved from the exploitation of a vulnerable
population to become overly protective and restrictive. With considerable growth of
the number of inmates with medical and mental health care needs, developing
effective interventions to serve this population is paramount. There now appear to be
signs of interest in and support for collaborative research with inmates as subjects by
corrections, academia and health care. Correctional research is maturing into a
discipline that emphasizes the importance of research findings that benefit prisoners
rather than coercing a susceptible group simply for convenience and economy.
Obstacles still exist, and well they should, to continually ensure the ethnical
treatment of prisoners and robust research practices.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition-Text Revision.Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Baillargeon, J., Binswanger, I. A., Penn, J. V., Williams, B. A., & Murray, O. J. (2009). Psychiatricdisorders and repeat incarcerations: The revolving prison door. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166,103–109.
Basco, M. R., Krebaum, S. R., & Rush, A. J. (1997). Outcome measures of depression. In H. H. Strupp,L. M. Horowitz, & M. J. Lambert (Eds.), Measuring patient changes in mood, anxiety, and personalitydisorders: Toward a core battery (pp. 191–245). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bick, J. A. (2007). Infection control in jails and prisons. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 45(8), 1047–1055.Brewer-Smyth, K. (2008). Ethnical, regulatory, and investigator considerations in prison research.
Advances in Nursing Science, 32(2), 119–127.Copenhaver, M., Chowdhury, S., & Atlice, F. L. (2009). Adaptation of an evidence-based intervention
targeting HIV-infected prisoners transitioning to the community: The process and outcome offormative research for the Positive Living Using Safety (PLUS) intervention. AIDS Patient Care STDS,23(4), 277–287.
Ditton, P. M. (1999). Mental health treatment of inmates and probationers. DOJ Publication NCJ 174463.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Fazel, S., Bains, P., & Doll, H. (2006). Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: A systematicreview. Addiction, 101(2), 181–191.
Fazel, S., & Danesh, J. (2002). Serious mental disorder in 23000 prisoners: A systematic review of 62surveys. Lancet, 359(9332), 545–550.
Foster, T. W. (1982). ‘‘Mushfaking’’: A compensatory behavior of prisoners. The Journal of SocialPsychology, 117, 115–124.
Hoffman, S. (2000). Beneficial and unusual punishment: An argument in support of prisoner participa-tion in clinical trials. Indiana Law Review, 33, 475–515.
Hornblum, A. M. (1997). They were cheap and available: Prisoners as research subjects in twentiethcentury America. British Medical Journal, 315, 1437–1441.
Hunt, D., & Saab, S. (2009). Viral hepatitis in incarcerated adults: A medical and public health concern.American Journal of Gastroenterol, 104, 1023–1031.
Hunter, S. B., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Imm, P., Wandersman, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2009). Technicalassistance as a prevention capacity building tool: A demonstration using the Getting To OutcomeTM
framework. Health Education and Behavior [Epub ahead of print].
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl
![Page 10: Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020508/575003011a28ab114896c655/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
752 S. Wakai et al.
Innes, C. A. (2003). Learning lessons and lessons learned: The National Institute of Justice’s ResearchDemonstration Project Strategy. Paper prepared for the annual meetings of the Academy of CriminalJustice Sciences, Boston.
Kalmbach, K. C., & Lyons, P. M. (2003). Ethical and legal standards for research in prisons. BehavioralSciences and the Law, 21, 671–686.
Magaletta, P., Morgan, R., Reitzel, L., & Innes, C. (2007). Toward the one: Strengthening behavioralsciences research in corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 933–944.
Moser, D. J., Arndt, S., Kanz, J. E., Benjamin, M. L., Bayless, J. D., & Reese, R. L., et al. (2004). Coercionand informed consent in research involving prisoners. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 45, 1–9.
Quina, K., Garis, A. V., Stevenson, J., Garrido, M., Brown, J., Richman, R., Renzi, J., Fox, J., & Mitchell,K. (2007). Through the bullet-proof glass: Conducting research in prison settings. Journal of Traumaand Dissociation, 8(2), 123–139.
Trestman, R. L. (2005). Current status of the process of mental health and substance abuse research withprisoners: Practical burdens and the benefits of the current system. Commissioned paper in support ofthe Institute of Medicine’s Committee on Ethical Considerations for Revisions to Department of Healthand Human Services Regulations on Protection of Prisoners Involved in Research.
United States (U.S.) Department of Justice. (2005). Almost 7 million adults under correctional supervisionbehind bars or on probation or parole in community. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/ppus04pr.htm
University of Connecticut (UConn). (2009). About UConn. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://www.uconn.edu/about/index.php
Walsh, T., Tickle, M., Milsom, K., Buchanan, K., & Zoitopoulos, L. (2008). An investigation of thenature of research into dental health in prisons: A systematic review. British Dental Journal, 204, 683–689.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law 27: 743–752 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/bsl