↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer education and peer support in prisons

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer education and peer support in prisons
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1584-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Marie Bagnall, Jane South, Claire Hulme, James Woodall, Karen Vinall-Collier, Gary Raine, Karina Kinsella, Rachael Dixey, Linda Harris, Nat MJ Wright

Abstract

Prisoners experience significantly worse health than the general population. This review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer interventions in prison settings. A mixed methods systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, including qualitative and quantitative synthesis was conducted. In addition to grey literature identified and searches of websites, nineteen electronic databases were searched from 1985 to 2012. Study selection criteria were: Population: Prisoners resident in adult prisons and children resident in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). Peer-based interventions Comparators: Review questions 3 and 4 compared peer and professionally led approaches. Prisoner health or determinants of health; organisational/ process outcomes; views of prison populations. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method evaluations. Fifty-seven studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours, and that peer support services are acceptable within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients, practically or emotionally. Consistent evidence from many, predominantly qualitative, studies, suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects. There was little evidence on cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions. There is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health; peer support services are also an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse. PROSPERO ref: CRD42012002349 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Unknown 283 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 17%
Researcher 35 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 7%
Other 18 6%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 96 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 40 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 14%
Social Sciences 35 12%
Psychology 27 9%
Arts and Humanities 7 2%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 110 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,812,346
of 24,288,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,021
of 16,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,704
of 267,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#38
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,288,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.