↓ Skip to main content

Safer tattooing interventions in prisons: a systematic review and call to action

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
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
Safer tattooing interventions in prisons: a systematic review and call to action
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5867-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nguyen Toan Tran, Célestine Dubost, Stéphanie Baggio, Laurent Gétaz, Hans Wolff

Abstract

Worldwide more than ten million people are detained at any given time. Between 5 and 60% of people experiencing incarceration report receipt of a tattoo in prison - mostly clandestine, which is associated with risks of blood-borne infections (BBIs). Although safer tattooing techniques are effective in preventing BBI transmission and available to the general population, there is limited knowledge about the impact of safer tattooing strategies in prisons in terms of health outcomes, changes in knowledge and behaviors, and best practice models for implementation. The objective of this research was to identify and review safer tattooing interventions. We conducted a systematic review of the literature. Studies of all design types were included if they were published until 27 June 2018, the population was incarcerated adults, they reported quantitative outcomes, and were published in English, French, or Spanish. Of 55 papers retrieved from the initial search, no peer-reviewed article was identified. One paper from the grey literature described a multi-site pilot project in Canada. Its evaluation suggested that the project was effective in enhancing knowledge of incarcerated people and prison staff on standard precautions, had the potential to reduce harm, provided vocational opportunities, and was feasible although enhancements were needed to improve implementation issues and efficiency. Although access to preventive services, including to safer tattooing interventions, is a human right and recommended by United Nations agencies as part of a comprehensive package of harm reduction interventions in prisons, this review identified only a few promising strategies for safer tattooing interventions in carceral settings. We call upon governments, criminal justice authorities, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions to implement safer tattooing projects that adhere to the following guiding principles: i) integration of methodologically-rigorous implementation research; ii) involvement of key stakeholders (incarcerated people, prison authorities, research partners) in the project design, implementation, and research; iii) integration into a comprehensive package of BBI prevention, treatment, and care, using a stepwise approach that considers local resources and acceptability; and iv) publication and dissemination of findings, and scaling up efforts. CRD42017072502 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 25 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Psychology 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 25 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#5,589,607
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,513
of 15,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,161
of 330,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#144
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,064 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 330,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.