Prison-based health and wellbeing interventions: evidence review and survey of provision

Annex A: Table of studies included in the evidence review

Intervention category - Sport

Woods et al. (2017): A systematic review of the impact of sport-based interventions on the psychological well-being of people in prison

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative (n = 9)
• Qualitative (n = 5)
• Control groups in 6 studies (4 randomised and 2 non-randomised).

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 614
• Male (n = 527)
• Female (n = 87)
• Aged 15 years or over
• Prisoner status not reported.

Measures^a

• Symptom Checklist-90 Revised
• Positive and negative affect scale
• Perceived Stress scale

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., depression and self-esteem)
• Qualitative: Improvements in physical (cardiovascular fitness), emotional (e.g., anxiety) and health and diet outcomes

Woods et al. (2020): Developing mental health awareness and help seeking in prison: a feasibility study of the State of Mind Sport programme

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• Control group (non-randomised)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 75
• Male sample
• Mean age = 37.50 (SD = 11.01)
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being scale
• Brief Resilience Scale

Results^b

• Quantitative: Non-significant differences between groups on resilience and mental-wellbeing
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., feeling hope)

Sanchez-Lastra et al. (2019): Effectiveness of Prison-Based Exercise Training Programs: A Systematic Review

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative (N = 11 RCT)
• Control group (randomised)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 697
• Gender –majority male
• Mean age = 24.25
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• Range of physical outcomes (e.g. VO₂ max)
• Range of motional outcomes (e.g., Self-esteem inventory)

Results^b

• Significant improvements in physical outcomes (e.g., lower fat percentage), emotional (e.g., depression) for intervention groups compared to control
• No significant differences observed for other emotional outcomes (e.g., self-esteem) between intervention and control groups

Williams et al. (2015): Evaluating a rugby sport intervention programme for young offenders

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• Control group present (non-randomised)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 24
• Male sample
• Mean age intervention group = 19.55
• Mean age control group = 18.77
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• Self-esteem (single item)
• Buss-Perry Aggression questionnaire

Results^b

• Quantitative: No significant differences between groups for self-esteem; Significant decline in aggression for intervention group compared to control group
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., feeling calm)

Amtmann and Kukay (2016): Fitness Changes After an 8-Week Fitness Coaching Program at a Regional Youth Detention Facility

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 2
• Age range: 16-19
• Both male
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• Range of measures (e.g., BMI)

Results^b

• Quantitative: Improvements in physical outcomes (e.g., cardiovascular fitness)
• Qualitative: Improvements in physical (e.g., cardiovascular fitness) and emotional (e.g., reduced stress) outcomes

Johnson et al. (2018): Implementation and Evaluation of a Physical Activity and Dietary Program in Federal Incarcerated Females

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 29
• Female sample
• Mean age = 42.9 Sentenced

Measures^a

• Wagnild and Young Resilience Scale
• BMI

Results^b

• Statistically significant improvement in BMI

Martin et al. (2013): Incarcerated women develop a nutrition and fitness program: participatory research

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 16
• Female sample
• Age range: 18-40+
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• Physical activity readiness questionnaire
• Follow-up questionnaire measuring energy, stress and sleep

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant reduction in some physical outcomes (e.g., chest size)
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., self-esteem)

Baumer (2018): British Library EThOS: Male prisoners' motivation to engage in exercise as a means of promoting physical and mental wellbeing

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 78
• N = 36 (2-6 months follow-up)
• Male sample
• Mean age = 34.86
• On remand, sentenced and in resettlement units

Measures^a

• Range of physical measures (e.g., blood pressure)
• Range of emotional measures (e.g. 1RAND 36 – Item Health Survey)

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant improvements in physical (e.g., weight) and emotional (e.g., emotional wellbeing) outcomes
• Qualitative: Improvements in physical (e.g., fitness) and emotional outcomes (e.g., stress)

Gallant et al (2015): Recreation or rehabilitation? Managing sport for development programs with prison populations

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control groups

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 36 (across 4 studies)
• Male and female samples
• Age range: 20-60 Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in physical (e.g., cardiovascular fitness), emotional (e.g., anxiety) and social (e.g., less isolation) outcomes

Welland et al (2020): Rugby as a rehabilitation program in a United Kingdom Male Young Offenders’ Institution: key findings and implications from mixed methods research

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• Control group present

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 46
• Male sample
• Mean age intervention group = 19.64
• Mean age control group = 19.76
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Qualitative: Improvements in physical (e.g., fitness) and emotional (e.g., sense of belonging) outcomes

Parker et al. (2014): Sport in a youth prison: male young offenders' experiences of a sporting intervention

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 12
• Male sample
• Aged 15-17
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in emotional (e.g., self-esteem) and social (e.g., making new friends) outcomes

O'Toole et al. (2017): The efficacy of exercise referral as an intervention for Irish male prisoners presenting with mental health symptoms

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 30
• Male sample
• Age range: 22-52
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• Range of emotional measures (e.g., Depression)

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., self-esteem)
• Qualitative: Improvements in physical (e.g., sleep), emotional (e.g., self-esteem) outcomes

Meek and Lewis (2014): The Impact of a Sports Initiative for Young Men in Prison: Staff and Participant Perspectives

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 79
• Male sample
• Mean age = 19 years and 8 month
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in physical (e.g., diet, emotional (e.g., stress) and social (e.g., peer support) outcomes

Woods (2018): British Library EThOS: The perceived benefits of sport based interventions on the psychological well-being of people in prison

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 14
• Male sample
• Age range: 18-24
• Prisoner status not reported.

Measures^a

• The Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale

Results^b

• Quantitative: No change in emotional outcomes (e.g., psychological wellbeing)
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional (e.g., stress) and social (e.g., improved relationships) outcomes

Meek (2012): Meek_2nd_Chance_Portland_Evaluation_Final_Report.pdf

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 79
• Male sample
• Mean age = 19 years and 8 months
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• Weinberger and Schwartz adjustment inventory (self-esteem)
• Phillips and Springer's individualised protective factor index

Results^b

• No significant improvement in self-esteem or self-concept
• Qualitative outcomes reported in Meek and Lewis (2014)

Ulster Rugby (2019): Prison-Evaluation-Apr-2019.pdf

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 35
• N = 20
• Gender - NR
• Age (ii) = 55+
• Prisoner status - NR

Measures^a

• The Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale

Results^b

• Improvements in physical (fitness), emotional (self-esteem) and social (e.g., improved relationships) outcomes

Intervention category - Horticultural

Brown et al. (2016): Prison Service Journal: 225 | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods (qualitative reported)
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 25 (across two phases)
• Male sample
• Age - NR
• Variations in prisoner status

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvement in physical (e.g., diet) and emotional (stress) outcomes

Timler et al. (2019): Growing connection beyond prison walls: How a prison garden fosters rehabilitation and healing for incarcerated men

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 10
• Male sample
• Mean age = 52
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in health (e.g., diet) and emotional (self-esteem) outcomes

Baybutt et al. (2018): Growing health in UK prison settings

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 21 (n = 16 prisoners and n = 5 prison staff)
• Male and female sample
• Age - NR
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in health (diet), physical (weight loss) and emotional (e.g., self-esteem) and social (improved relationships) outcomes

Seymour (2019): British Library EThOS: Horticulture, hypermasculinity and mental wellbeing : the connections in a male prison context

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 51
• Male sample
• Age range 19-60
• On remand or sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in health (e.g., nutrition), emotional (e.g., anxiety) and social (e.g., development of friendships) outcomes

Toews et al. (2018): Impact of a nature-based intervention on incarcerated women

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 11
• Female sample
• Age - NR
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• 'Interaction with nature scale' (visual analog tool developed for purpose of study)

Results^b

• Quantitative: Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., feeling more happy)
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional (e.g., feeling calmer) and social (e.g., improved relationships) outcomes

Farrier and Kedwards (2015): E_Impact Report - Greener on the Outside For Prisons (2015).pdf (uclan.ac.uk)

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group.

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 872
• Male and female sample
• Age – NR

Measures^a

• NR

Results^b

• Quantitative: Improvements in health, (e.g., healthy eating), emotional (e.g., confidence) and social (e.g., social interactions) outcomes
• Qualitative: Improvements in physical, (e.g., weight loss), emotional (e.g., confidence) and social(e.g., improved relationships) outcomes

Jenkins (2016): "Landscaping in Lockup: The Effects of Gardening Programs on Prison Inmates" by Rachel Jenkins

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative and qualitative studies included.

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• Studies included
• male and female
• Age and prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
• The Satisfaction with Life Scale

Results^b

• Quantitative: Improvement in emotional outcomes (e.g., self-esteem) for both intervention and control participants.
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., anxiety)

Farrier et al. (2019): Mental health and wellbeing benefits from a prisons horticultural programme

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 137
• Male and female
• Age range: 18-65

Measures^a

• Green Gym questionnaires
• Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale

Results^b

• Quantitative: Improvement in emotional (e.g., confidence) and social (e.g., making new friends) outcomes
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional (e.g., confidence) and social (e.g., increased social interactions) outcomes

Intervention category - Yoga, meditation, and mindfulness

Bartels et al. (2019): "I Would Just Feel Really Relaxed and at Peace": Findings From a Pilot Prison Yoga Program in Australia

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 8
• Male
• Age range: 18-49
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• Depression, anxiety and stress scale Positive and negative affect scale
• Difficulties with emotion regulation scale Rosenberg self-esteem scale

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., stress); No significant changes in other measures (e.g., anxiety)
• Qualitative: Improvements in physical (e.g., strength) and emotional (e.g., feeling calm) outcomes

Tollefson and Phillips (2015): A Mind-Body Bridging Treatment Program for Domestic Violence Offenders: Program Overview and Evaluation Results

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• Control group (randomised)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 90
• Male
• Mean age = 33.5
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• SF-36 Health Survey

Results^b

• Significant improvements in physical and emotional outcomes for intervention group compared to control group.

Auty et al. (2017): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Yoga and Mindfulness Meditation in Prison: Effects on Psychological Well-Being and Behavioural Functioning

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative (in meta-analysis)
• Control group present in studies included in meta-analysis

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 75
• Male and female
• Age range: 18-66
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• Range of measures (e.g., Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale)

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant improvement in emotional (e.g., anxiety) outcomes for the intervention group compared to the control group.

Wimberly and Xue (2016): A Systematic Review of Yoga Interventions in the Incarcerated Setting

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative (n = 9) Qualitative (n = 1)
• 3 studies included a control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• Not reported

Measures^a

• Range of measures (e.g., The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale)

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., anxiety) for intervention group compared to control group
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., managing stress)

Per et al. (2020): Evaluating the Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Incarcerated Populations: A Meta-Analysis

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• 8 studies included a control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 2,265
• 75% male
• Studies of incarcerated adults (n = 11); mean age = 36.65
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• Range of measures (e.g., Beck Anxiety Inventory – II)

Results^b

• Significant improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., anxiety) for intervention group compared to control group

Williams-McGahee (2015): OpenAccess_Mindfulness meditation for stress and anxiety

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 6
• Female
• Aged range: 23-55
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• Perceived Stress Scale – 10
• Beck Anxiety Inventory

Results^b

• Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., stress)

Bilderbeck et al. (2013): Participation in a 10-week course of yoga improves behavioural control and decreases psychological distress in a prison population

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• Control group (randomised)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 100
• Intervention: 95.5% male Mean age = 37.38 Control: 90.9% male Mean age = 39.42 Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• Barrett Impulsiveness Scale
• Positive and Negative Affect Scale Perceived Stress Scale Brief Symptom Inventory

Results^b

• Significant improvement in emotional outcomes (e.g., stress) in intervention group compared to control group.

Bilderbeck et al. (2015): Preliminary Evidence That Yoga Practice Progressively Improves Mood and Decreases Stress in a Sample of UK Prisoners

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• No control group included in analyses

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 55
• Intervention: 95.5% male Mean age = 37.38 Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• Barrett Impulsiveness Scale
• Positive and Negative Affect Scale Perceived Stress Scale Brief Symptom Inventory

Results^b

• Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., stress)

Danielly and Silverthorne (2017): Psychological Benefits of Yoga for Female Inmates

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• Control group (randomised)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 50
• Female
• Mean age = 37.92 Sentenced

Measures^a

• Perceived Stress Scale
• Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale

Results^b

• Significant improvement in emotional outcomes (e.g., stress) for the intervention group compared to the control group.

Nidich et al. (2016): Reduced Trauma Symptoms and Perceived Stress in Male Prison Inmates through the Transcendental Meditation Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• Control group (randomised)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 181
• Male
• Intervention group mean age = 28.60
• Control group mean age = 29.95
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• Trauma symptom checklist
• Perceived Stress Scale

Results^b

• Significant improvement in emotional (e.g., depression) and physical outcomes (e.g., sleep disturbance) in the intervention group compared to the control group

Karup (2016): The Meaning and Effects of Yoga in Prison

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 11
• Male
• Mean age = 55

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in physical outcomes (e.g., strength), emotional (e.g., anxiety), and social (improvements in relationships) outcomes

Intervention category - Art and creative

Hanley and Marchetti (2020): Dreaming Inside: An evaluation of a creative writing program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men in prison

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 96 (study 1)
• N = 30 (study 2)
• Male
• Age range 20-50
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• NR

Results^b

• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., self-esteem)

Wright et al. (2014): Evaluation of a comedy intervention to improve coping and help-seeking for mental health problems in a women's prison

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 70 (pre-intervention; n = 24 post-intervention)
• Female
• Mean age = 32.6 Sentenced

Measures^a

• Mental Health Knowledge Schedule

Results^b

• Significant improvement in knowledge about mental health problems
• Significant change in social outcomes (e.g., comfort in talking to various people)
• Post-performance positive engagement in help-seeking and coping behaviours (e.g., start using gym was a 39% increase).

Meek et al. (2015): Evaluation of the Belong London PLAN A Programme at HMP/YOI Isis

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 47
• Male
• Mean age = 22 Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvement in emotional outcomes (e.g., self-esteem)
• Provision of peer-support in art therapy was viewed positively by prisoners

Caulfield (2015): Exploring Good Vibrations projects with vulnerable and challenging women in prison

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 26
• Female sample
• Mean age = 30
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in emotional (e.g., confidence) and social (e.g., (social skills) outcomes

Hodgson and Horne (2015): Imagining More than Just a Prisoner: The Work of Prisoners’ Penfriends

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods (prisoner information was quantitative)
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 113
• Male
• Age range: 20-70+
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., happiness)

Stephenson and Watson (2018): Prison Service Journal 239

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 21
• Female sample
• Mean age = 31
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale Beck Hopelessness Scale

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant improvements in reduction in hopelessness and overall wellbeing
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., confidence and self-esteem).

Pankey et al. (2016): Stress Reduction Through a Brief Writing Intervention With Women in Jail

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 6
• Female sample
• Mean age = 40 Sentenced

Measures^a

• Perceived stress scale

Results^b

• Quantitative: Improvement in emotional outcomes (e.g., stress)
• Qualitative: Improvement in emotional outcomes (e.g., feeling relief)

Wilkinson and Caulfield (2017): The Perceived Benefits of an Arts Project for Health and Wellbeing of Older Offenders

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 13
• Male sample
• Age range: 50-65
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvement in emotional (e.g., anger) and social (e.g., being able to talk to others) outcomes

Anderson et al. (2011): Prison Service Journal: 197 | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 16 to 25
• Male sample
• Age not reported
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvement in emotional outcomes (e.g., self-esteem)

Intervention category - Animal

Leonardi et al. (2017): "You Think You’re Helping Them, But They're Helping You Too": Experiences of Scottish Male Young Offenders Participating in a Dog Training Program

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods – qualitative reported
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 70
• Male sample
• Age range: 16-21
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in emotional (e.g., self-efficacy ) and social (e.g., working together) improvements

Smith (2019): A rescue dog program in two maximum-security prisons: A qualitative study

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 285
• Male sample
• Age not reported Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., self-esteem)

Jasperson (2013): An Animal-Assisted Therapy Intervention with Female Inmates

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• Control group present

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 74
• Female sample
• Mean age = 3
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• Outcome Questionnaire

Results^b

• No significant differences between groups for improvements in symptom distress and interpersonal relationships

Hemingway et al. (2015): An Exploration of an Equine-Facilitated Learning Intervention with Young Offenders

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 20
• Male sample
• Aged 18-21
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., confidence)

Dell et al. (2019): Animal-assisted therapy in a Canadian psychiatric prison

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 3
• Male and female sample
• Mean age = 48
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• NR

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant improvement in mental wellbeing (e.g., feeling happy)
• Qualitative: Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., less stress)

Villafaina-Dominguez et al. (2020): Effects of Dog-Based Animal-Assisted Interventions in Prison Population: A Systematic Review

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative (n=12)
• Qualitative (n= 8)
• Control group present (n=6)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 1295
• Male and female
• Aged 16-69

Measures^a

• Range of measures (e.g., Rosenberg Self-esteem scale)

Results^b

• Quantitative: Significant differences between intervention and control groups on emotional outcomes (e.g., depression)
• Significant differences between males and females on emotional outcomes (e.g., anxious, happy)
• Qualitative: Improvements in physical (e.g., weight loss), emotional (e.g., anxiety), social (e.g., ability to meet people) outcomes

Mulcahy and McLaughlin (2013): Is the Tail Wagging the Dog? A Review of the Evidence for Prison Animal Programs

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative (n = 5)
• Qualitative (n = 3)
• Mixed methods (n = 3)
• Control group present (n=4)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 412
• Male and female
• Age not reported Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• NR

Results^b

• Quantitative: No significant difference between intervention and control group on social skills
• Qualitative: Improvements in physical (e.g., weight loss), emotional (e.g., loneliness) and social (e.g., social skills)

Leonardi (2016): British Library EThOS: Paws for Progress : the development and evaluation of the first prison based dog training programme in the UK

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative
• Control groups present

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 58
• Male sample
• Aged 16-21
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short
• Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
• Assessment of Needs

Results^b

• Significant improvement in social outcomes (e.g., establishing relationships) for intervention group
• Significant improvement in stress management for control group
• No significant improvement in self-esteem for intervention group

Cooke and Farrington (2015): The Effects of Dog-Training Programs: Experiences of Incarcerated Females

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 12
• Female sample
• Mean age = 38.36
• Sentenced

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvements in emotional outcomes (e.g., stress)

Cooke and Farrington (2016): The Effectiveness of Dog-Training Programs in Prison: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative (n = 10)
• Control group present (n = 7)

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 310 program participants and N = 514 control participants
• Male and female
• Age not reported Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• Range of measures (e.g., Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory)

Results^b

• Significant but relatively small effect across all internalising outcomes (i.e., self-esteem, depression, loneliness, self-efficacy and wellbeing)

Mercer et al. (2015): The therapeutic potential of a prison-based animal programme in the UK

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Qualitative
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 3
• Male sample
• Age not reported
• Prisoner status not reported

Measures^a

• N/A

Results^b

• Improvement in emotional outcomes (e.g., feeling calmer)

Intervention category - Peer

South et al. (2014): A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve offender health in prison settings

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Quantitative (n = 19)
• Qualitative (n = 16)
• Mixed methods (n = 17)
• Unclear (n = 5)
• Control group - NR

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• Participant details not reported.

Measures^a

• Rosenberg self-esteem scale

Results^b

• Quantitative: No significant differences between the intervention and control group for self-esteem; Listeners reported positive differences in relationships with prison staff
• Qualitative: Improved emotional outcomes (e.g., anxiety)

Jaffe (2012): British Library EThOS: Peer support and seeking help in prison : a study of the Listener scheme in four prisons in England (bl.uk)

Research methodology and presence of control group

• Mixed methods
• No control group

Sample (N, gender, age, prisoner status)

• N = 331
• Male and female
• Age range: 18-31+
• Sentenced (70.1%) and un-sentenced (28.4%)

Measures^a

• Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being scale
• Liebing's (2004) scales – prisoner social life, staff-prisoner relationships

Results^b

• Participants reported mixed emotional outcomes (e.g., relief, anger and anxiety)
• Listeners reported improvements in emotional (e.g. self-esteem) and social outcomes (e.g., improved communication skills)

^a Only health and wellbeing outcomes from the studies were included

^b Differences between groups were reported rather than intragroup differences where provided