Mental health in the criminal justice system: A pathways approach to service and research design

Abstract

Background: Care pathway approaches were introduced into health care in the 1980s and have become standard international practice. They are now being introduced more specifically for health care in the criminal justice system. Care pathway delivery has the theoretical advantage of encouraging a whole-systems approach for health and social care within the criminal justice system, but how well is it supported by empirical evidence?

Aims: The aim of this study is to review the nature and extent of evidence streams supporting health care delivery within interagency pathway developments since 2000.

Method: We used an exploratory narrative method to review the nature and extent of evidence streams supporting health care delivery within interagency pathway developments since 2000. The available literature was reviewed using a keyword search approach with three databases: PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar.

Findings: Research in this field has covered police custody, courts, prisons, and the wider community, but there is little that follows the entire career through all these elements of offender placement. Main themes in the research to date, regardless of where the research was conducted, have been counting the disorder or the need, development and evaluation of screening tools, and evaluation of clinical intervention styles. Most evidence to date is simply observational, although the possibility of conducting randomised controlled trials of interventions within parts of the criminal justice system, especially prisons, is now well established.

Conclusions: Access to health care while passing through the criminal justice system is essential because of the disproportionately high rates of mental disorder among offenders, and the concept of structured pathways to ensure this theoretically satisfying, but as yet empirically unsupported. Further, substantial cuts in services, generally following government economies, are largely unresearched. Considerable investment in new possibilities, driven by both pressure groups and government, tend to be informed by good will and theory rather than hard evidence and are often not evaluated even after introduction. This must change.