Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Revista Española de Sanidad Penitenciaria logoLink to Revista Española de Sanidad Penitenciaria
. 2026 Apr 1;28(1):9–18. doi: 10.18176/resp.00118

Nutritional Health, Dietary Conditions, and Meal Satisfaction Among Incarcerated Males: A Comparative Study Across Indian Prisons

Salud nutricional, condiciones dietéticas y satisfacción alimentaria entre la población reclusa masculina: uma evaluación comparativa entre prisiones indias

Kuril Sanjeet 1, Sunita Mishra 1, Narendra Kumar 2, Zia Parveen 1, Rajani Singh 1
PMCID: PMC13063734  PMID: 41971705

ABSTRACT

Objectives:

Incarceration affects various aspects of a prisoner’s health, nutrition, and coping behaviours. This study aimed to explore and compare socio-demographic characteristics, dietary habits, and health-related experiences among male inmates in two Indian district prisons at Lucknow and Unnao.

Material and method:

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 60 male inmates (30 from each prison). Data were collected using a structured questionnaire covering dietary habits, body mass index, nutritional awareness, physical activity, and substance use. Descriptive statistics and comparative analysis were used to assess inter-prison differences.

Results:

Most participants were young adults with no significant difference in age or body mass index between the two groups. An urban background was more common in Lucknow, whereas a rural background was predominant in Unnao. Nutritional awareness was higher in Lucknow (53.3%) than in Unnao (33.3%). Overall access to fresh produce and dietary variety was limited. Only 13.3% had received any nutritional counselling. Meal satisfaction was significantly higher in Lucknow (P = 0.04), and access to physical activity was more frequently reported.

Discussion:

Nutritional awareness, diet quality, and access to physical activity were influenced by institutional differences. Targeted interventions such as structured nutrition education and exercise programs are needed to improve the health and well-being of incarcerated populations.

Keywords: prisoners, lifestyle, health knowledge, feeding behaviour, incarceration, quality of life

INTRODUCTION

Prisons across the world are often described as environments marked by systemic deprivation, overcrowding, and fragile health structures, all of which generate severe risks for incarcerated populations1,2. Despite this, most prison research has traditionally focused on criminological or administrative aspects, while neglecting the nutritional, lifestyle, and coping dimensions that directly shape inmates’ well-being3,4.

The importance of studying health-related behaviours within prisons stems from the close link between daily routines, food systems, and adaptive strategies and institutional order and rehabilitation outcomes5,6. Poor diet quality, repetitive menus, and restricted autonomy not only worsen pre-existing health disparities but also create conditions that heighten psychosocial stress and increase vulnerability to chronic disease7. The prison environment, characterized by rigid routines and structural inequities, forces inmates to constantly adjust their behaviour and mindset in order to cope with confinement8,9.

Within Indian prisons, daily life is further influenced by financial deprivation, limited recreational opportunities, and unequal access to resources10. These conditions often foster informal food economies, peer alliances, and coping mechanisms that are shaped by institutional hierarchies and inmate subcultures11. While these strategies may provide temporary relief, they also highlight systemic failures in correctional management and underscore the urgent need for reforms centred on health and rehabilitation12. Prison systems in India face persistent challenges that compromise inmates’ physical and mental health. Overcrowding, monotonous diets, limited access to healthcare, and exposure to violence and stigma constitute constant factors that keep correctional institutions in a state of chronic strain13.

The prison setting thus operates as both a determinant of health and a site of social inequality14. Nutritional inadequacies, lack of structured physical activity, and high rates of substance use not only affect inmates’ capacity to maintain physical and psychological stability but also undermine their prospects for successful reintegration upon release15,16. Furthermore, correctional nutrition and lifestyle practices are rarely addressed in public health planning, despite their strong links to aggression, depression, and cognitive decline17,18.

Although some studies have been conducted on the health status of prisoners in India, empirical data addressing diet, lifestyle, and adaptive behaviour in district-level facilities remain scarce19,20. This gap limits evidence-based decision making and weakens policy responses to prison health challenges.

This article aims to help address this breach by providing a comparative assessment of lifestyle practices, dietary patterns, and coping behaviours among male prisoners in two district-level prisons in Uttar Pradesh. The specific objectives of this study are therefore:

  • Compare the socio-demographic characteristics of male inmates in two district prisons, Lucknow and Unnao.

  • Assess dietary habits, nutritional awareness, and body mass index among the study participants.

  • Examine access to opportunities for physical activity and substance use patterns across the two institutions.

  • Explore coping behaviours and adaptive strategies developed by inmates within the prison environment.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Ethics Clearance

All participants provided written informed consent before enrolment. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Headquarters, Prison Administration & Reform Services, Government of Uttar Pradesh (Clearance No.: 239/FN/SHS/BBAU/23). All procedures adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines for research involving incarcerated populations.

Study Sites and Sample Size

Data collection was carried out between August and October 2023 in two facilities: Lucknow District Jail (≈4,000 inmates) and Unnao District Jail (≈2,000 inmates) (Figure 1). A total of 60 male prisoners were recruited, with 30 participants from each facility, using convenience sampling from daily muster rolls.

Figure 1. Geographical locations of study sites in Uttar Pradesh, India. The maps show Lucknow (left) and Unnao (right) districts where prison-based surveys and anthropometric assessments were conducted among incarcerated males.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The sample size was determined according to logistical feasibility and resource availability, aiming to obtain preliminary insights into inmates’ dietary patterns, lifestyle behaviours, and coping strategies. Although a formula-based calculation for a finite population would suggest a larger sample (approximately 94 participants for Lucknow Jail, assuming a 95% confidence level, 10% margin of error, and maximum variability), the selected sample size was considered adequate for exploratory analysis and to guide future large-scale investigations.

Eligibility criteria included: (i) age ≥18 years, (ii) continuous incarceration for ≥6 months, (iii) ability to comprehend Hindi or English, and (iv) voluntary participation. Prisoners with known wasting diseases, severe mental illness, or physical disabilities precluding measurement were excluded.

Development of Survey Questionnaire

A structured, 52-item questionnaire was developed by adapting validated prison health and nutrition instruments and contextualising it for Indian correctional settings21. It was administered in English and Hindi for clarity and accessibility, following face validation by subject experts. Prior to the main data collection, a brief pilot validation was conducted with a small group of inmates to evaluate the clarity, relevance, and cultural appropriateness of the questionnaire items, ensuring suitability for the prison environment:

  • Section I (11 items) captured socio-demographic and anthropometric details, including age, duration of incarceration, and self-reported height and weight, with BMI classified per WHO standards22,23.

  • Section II (10 items) assessed dietary habits and nutrition awareness- measuring intake frequency, dietary variety, and basic knowledge- categorized into four awareness levels.

  • Section III (9 items) focused on eating behaviours and coping strategies, including meal satisfaction, food sharing, and stress-related adaptations such as religious practices or substance use24.

  • Section IV (10 items) explored health-related variables like access to counselling, physical activity, chronic illness status, and perceived health changes during incarceration25.

BMI Assessment

Anthropometric assessments were conducted in a private medical room to ensure confidentiality. Weight was measured using a calibrated digital weighing scale (Omron HN-286, Japan; accuracy ± 0.1 kg), and height was measured using a portable stadiometer (SECA 213, Germany; accuracy ± 0.1 cm). Participants wore light clothing and no footwear. Height was recorded with participants in the Frankfurt horizontal plane, with heels and scapulae touching the vertical surface26. Each measurement was taken twice. If discrepancies exceeded 0.3 kg (weight) or 0.5 cm (height), a third measurement was taken and the two closest values averaged. BMI was computed as weight (kg) divided by height (m2), and categorized per WHO criteria: underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥30.0)27.

Lifestyle, Dietary, and Adaptive Strategy Analyses

Responses related to lifestyle, diet, and coping strategies were coded as binary (yes = 1, no = 0) or ordinal values and aggregated to yield composite domain scores. Meal satisfaction was recorded as satisfied/not satisfied. Data on access to physical activity, nutrition counselling, and substance use were documented as present or absent28.

Statistical Analysis

Data were double-entered and cleaned in Microsoft Excel, then exported to IBM SPSS Statistics (v28.0) for analysis. Descriptive statistics (means ± SD, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize participant characteristics. Group comparisons between prisons were conducted using independent-sample t-tests for continuous variables (e.g., age, BMI) and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables (e.g., meal satisfaction, coping strategies). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ) was used to evaluate non-parametric associations among nutrition-awareness scores, BMI, and incarceration duration. Statistical significance was set at P <0.05. Where appropriate, effect sizes were reported (Cohen’s d for continuous, Cramer’s V for categorical variables) to enhance interpretability.

Quality Control and Data Reliability

Measurement instruments were calibrated daily using certified weights and a steel rule. Internal consistency for awareness items was acceptable (Cronbach’s α = 0.82). Ten percent of completed questionnaires were re-checked by a senior investigator for data entry accuracy, with an error rate of <1%. All personal identifiers were removed before analysis, and data were stored in encrypted, password-protected files.

RESULTS

Socio-Demographic Characteristics

The socio-demographic details of inmates from Lucknow and Unnao prisons are summarized in Table 1. The mean age of prisoners was 32.5 ± 8.1 years in Lucknow and 34.2 ± 9.3 years in Unnao, with no significant difference (P = 0.43). Marital status was similar across groups, with 60% married in Lucknow and 50% in Unnao (P = 0.43). A statistically significant difference was observed in place of residence (P = 0.04), with more urban residents in Lucknow (60%) and more rural residents in Unnao (66.7%). Religious affiliation did not differ significantly (P = 0.20), although Hindu inmates predominated in both prisons. BMI distribution showed that most inmates were normal or underweight (66.7% in Lucknow; 63.3% in Unnao), while about one-third were overweight/obese (P = 0.79). Dietary habits were also comparable, with 66.7% vegetarians in Lucknow and 53.3% in Unnao (P = 0.30). The average prison duration was 3.7 ± 1.8 years in Lucknow and 4.1 ± 2.0 years in Unnao (P = 0.41).

Table 1. Socio-Demographic Comparison (Lucknow vs. Unnao, n = 30 each).

Variable Category Lucknow (n = 30) Unnao (n = 30) Total (n = 60) p-value Test Used
Age (Years) Mean ± SD 32.5 ± 8.1 34.2 ± 9.3 33.3 ± 8.7 0.43 Independent t-test
Marital Status Married 18 (60%) 15 (50%) 33 (55%) 0.43 Chi-square
Unmarried 12 (40%) 15 (50%) 27 (45%)
Residence Urban 18 (60%) 10 (33.3%) 28 (46.7%) 0.04 Chi-square
Rural 12 (40%) 20 (66.7%) 32 (53.3%)
Religion Hindu 23 (76.7%) 18 (60%) 41 (68.3%) 0.20 Fisher's exact
Muslim/Other 7 (23.3%) 12 (40%) 19 (31.7%)
BMI Normal/Underweight 20 (66.7%) 19 (63.3%) 39 (65%) 0.79 Chi-square
Overweight/Obese 10 (33.3%) 11 (36.7%) 21 (35%)
Dietary Habit Vegetarian 20 (66.7%) 16 (53.3%) 36 (60%) 0.30 Chi-square
Non-vegetarian 10 (33.3%) 14 (46.7%) 24 (40%)
Prison Duration Mean ± SD 3.7 ± 1.8 4.1 ± 2.0 3.9 ± 1.9 0.41 Independent t-test
Open in a new tab

Note. p-values from independent t-tests (for means) and chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests (for categorical variables) as appropriate. p <0.05 indicates significant difference.

Dietary Patterns by Prison

Table 2 presents the dietary patterns of prisoners in Lucknow and Unnao. Access to dietary variety was limited overall, with 40% of Lucknow inmates and 26.7% of Unnao inmates reporting variety (P = 0.28). Most inmates consumed fruits and vegetables on a weekly basis (Lucknow: 46.7%; Unnao: 53.3%), while daily consumption was low (26.7% vs. 20%) and nearly one-quarter of inmates in both groups reported never consuming them (P = 0.76). Fast food or processed food intake was relatively common, with 33.3% of Lucknow and 46.7% of Unnao prisoners reporting daily or weekly consumption (P = 0.31). Nutritional awareness was higher in Lucknow (53.3%) than in Unnao (33.3%), though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.11). Dietary restrictions, whether due to health or beliefs, were reported by 20% of Lucknow inmates and 13.3% of Unnao inmates (P = 0.73). Overall, no statistically significant differences were found, but patterns indicate variability in diet quality and nutritional awareness between the two prisons.

Table 2. Nutritional Practices and Food Access in Prisons (Lucknow vs. Unnao, n = 30 each).

Variable Category Lucknow (n = 30) Unnao (n = 30) Total (n = 60) Test Applied p-value
Diet Variety Access Yes 12 (40%) 8 (26.7%) 20 (33.3%) Chi-square 0.28
No 18 (60%) 22 (73.3%) 40 (66.7%)
Fruits/Veg (Frequency) Daily 8 (26.7%) 6 (20%) 14 (23.3%) Chi-square 0.76
Weekly 14 (46.7%) 16 (53.3%) 30 (50%)
Never 8 (26.7%) 8 (26.7%) 16 (26.7%)
Fast Food Consumption Daily/Weekly 10 (33.3%) 14 (46.7%) 24 (40%) Chi-square 0.31
Monthly/Never 20 (66.7%) 16 (53.3%) 36 (60%)
Nutritional Awareness Yes 16 (53.3%) 10 (33.3%) 26 (43.3%) Chi-square 0.11
No 14 (46.7%) 20 (66.7%) 34 (56.7%)
Dietary Restrictions Yes (Health/Belief) 6 (20%) 4 (13.3%) 10 (16.7%) Fisher’s Exact 0.73
No 24 (80%) 26 (86.7%) 50 (83.3%)
Open in a new tab

Note. p-values were derived from chi-square tests for categorical variables (expected cell counts > 5) and Fisher’s Exact test where applicable (dietary restrictions). p <0.05 indicates a significant difference between groups.

Eating Behaviour and Health Variables

Table 3 shows eating behaviour and health-related variables among prisoners. Meal satisfaction differed significantly between the prisons (P = 0.04): 60% of Lucknow inmates were satisfied with meals compared to 40% in Unnao. Weight changes varied but were not significantly different (P = 0.59). About one-third reported weight gain (26.7% in Lucknow; 33.3% in Unnao), 16.7% reported weight loss, and just over half reported a stable weight. Nutritional counselling was uncommon, reported by only 20% in Lucknow and 6.7% in Unnao (P = 0.26). Access to physical activity was higher in Lucknow (66.7%) than Unnao (46.7%), though not statistically significant (P = 0.12). Addictive habits were prevalent. Tobacco use was reported by 40% of Lucknow and 53.3% of Unnao inmates, while alcohol and betel nut chewing were less common. Only 13.3% reported no addictions (P = 0.31).

Table 3. Eating Behaviour & Health Variables by Prison (Lucknow vs. Unnao, n = 30 each).

Variable Category Lucknow (n = 30) Unnao (n = 30) Total (n = 60) Test Applied p-value
Meal Satisfaction Satisfied 18 (60%) 12 (40%) 30 (50%) Chi-square 0.04
Not Satisfied 12 (40%) 18 (60%) 30 (50%)
Weight Changes Increased 8 (26.7%) 10 (33.3%) 18 (30%) Chi-square 0.59
Decreased 6 (20%) 4 (13.3%) 10 (16.7%)
Stable 16 (53.3%) 16 (53.3%) 32 (53.3%)
Nutritional Counselling Yes 6 (20%) 2 (6.7%) 8 (13.3%) Fisher’s Exact 0.26
No 24 (80%) 28 (93.3%) 52 (86.7%)
Physical Activity Access Yes 20 (66.7%) 14 (46.7%) 34 (56.7%) Chi-square 0.12
No 10 (33.3%) 16 (53.3%) 26 (43.3%)
Addictions Tobacco 12 (40%) 16 (53.3%) 28 (46.7%) Chi-square 0.31
Alcohol 4 (13.3%) 6 (20%) 10 (16.7%)
Pan 8 (26.7%) 6 (20%) 14 (23.3%)
None 6 (20%) 2 (6.7%) 8 (13.3%)
Open in a new tab

Note. p-values from chi-square or Fisher’s exact test as applicable. p <0.05 indicates significant difference.

DISCUSSION

Socio-Demographic Characteristics

This comparative study of two Indian district prisons highlights systemic nutritional inadequacies, limited dietary diversity, and uneven health-supporting environments that influence the well-being of inmates. While socio-demographic differences shaped certain behavioural patterns, both prisons exhibited common shortcomings in food quality, access to fresh produce, nutritional counselling, and opportunities for physical activity. The findings indicate that the prison populations of Lucknow and Unnao largely comprise individuals in early to mid-adulthood, which aligns with previous studies showing incarceration is more prevalent among younger adults. The similarity in marital status across groups suggests comparable levels of psychosocial support, which may influence coping strategies during incarceration29. The significant urban-rural difference highlights the distinct catchment profiles of the two prisons. Lucknow, being in a metropolitan setting, housed more urban inmates, whereas Unnao had a higher proportion of rural inmates. Such differences may reflect socio-economic backgrounds and pre-incarceration health access, potentially shaping inmates’ nutritional awareness and health behaviours30. Although religious affiliation was not statistically significant, the variation suggests cultural diversity that may influence dietary practices and social dynamics within prisons. This aligns with prior research indicating that cultural and religious diversity can shape inmates’ food choices, meal satisfaction, and social interactions within correctional environments31.

BMI patterns indicated that malnutrition and overweight coexist among inmates, underscoring ongoing nutritional challenges in correctional settings32. Globally, correctional institutions face systemic challenges that compromise inmates’ health, including limited healthcare, inadequate diets, and overcrowded environments33. Finally, the comparable prison duration across the two groups suggests similar stages of institutional adjustment at the time of data collection, which strengthens the comparability of behavioural and dietary findings across sites34.

Nutritional Practices and Food Access in Prisons

The study highlights significant dietary inadequacies in both Lucknow and Unnao prisons. More than two-thirds of inmates reported limited food variety, reflecting monotonous diets that are commonly associated with poor nutritional adequacy and reduced psychological well-being35. Fewer than one in four inmates consumed fruit or vegetables daily, and a notable proportion reported never consuming them during incarceration, raising concerns about micronutrient deficiencies, weakened immunity, and increased chronic disease risk36.

The high reliance on processed or low-quality foods further underscores nutritional gaps, consistent with findings from other institutional settings where meals often fall short of dietary guidelines37. Previous studies highlight that correctional diets often lack diversity and essential nutrients, contributing to both malnutrition and obesity among inmates38. While nutritional awareness appeared slightly higher in Lucknow, this did not result in healthier practices, largely due to inmates’ restricted control over food provision. Dietary restrictions were rare, though cases linked to health or personal beliefs indicate the need for greater accommodation of individual requirements39. Overall, despite the absence of significant inter-prison differences, the results reveal systemic shortcomings in prison food services with potential implications for both immediate health and long-term well-being of inmates.

Eating Behaviour and Health Variables

Meal satisfaction varied across sites, with Lucknow inmates reporting higher satisfaction than those in Unnao, likely due to differences in food preparation, quality, or cultural suitability. Similar findings in other correctional studies show that food service practices strongly influence both inmate well-being and institutional order40. Findings highlight that nutritional deficiencies and the presence of overweight inmates may coexist within prison populations, reflecting systemic dietary inadequacies and limited access to balanced nutrition, as observed in similar correctional settings41.

Weight outcomes also differed: while most inmates reported stable weight, nearly one-third gained weight, often linked to reduced activity and calorie-dense meals, whereas a smaller group reported weight loss, highlighting varied nutritional responses under confinement42. Nutritional counselling was reported by very few, underscoring the lack of structured dietary education in prisons43. Access to physical activity was somewhat greater in Lucknow, though not significant, yet exercise remains essential for health and stress management44.

Nutritional counselling was reported by very few inmates, underscoring the absence of structured dietary education and health promotion initiatives within correctional facilities. Access to opportunities for physical activity was somewhat greater in Lucknow, though not statistically significant; nevertheless, regular exercise remains vital for maintaining physical health, managing stress, and mitigating diet-related metabolic risks in incarcerated populations45. Overall, these patterns reflect how institutional conditions and individual behaviours interact, pointing to the need for better food services, health education, and targeted addiction interventions within prisons46. These deficiencies contribute to malnutrition risks, weight imbalances, and substance dependence. Addressing these gaps through improved food service management, structured nutrition education, and health-promoting interventions is essential for supporting inmates’ physical and mental health47. Policymakers and correctional authorities should prioritise reforms that align prison food systems with national dietary guidelines, ensure culturally appropriate and varied meals, and expand access to rehabilitation-oriented health services. Such measures could not only enhance inmate health but also strengthen institutional stability and long-term reintegration outcomes48.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, it was conducted in only two district prisons within a specific region of northern India, which may limit the potential for generalising and applying the findings to other correctional facilities with differing population profiles, dietary systems, and institutional resources. Second, the use of convenience sampling and the relatively small sample size, compared with the total inmate population, may restrict the statistical power and external validity of the results. Additionally, self-reported data on dietary habits and health behaviours could introduce response bias. Despite these constraints, the study provides valuable baseline insights into the nutritional awareness, dietary practices, and coping mechanisms among incarcerated males in Indian prisons; an area where empirical evidence remains scarce.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the disparities in nutritional awareness, dietary conditions, and meal satisfaction among male inmates in two Indian district prisons. Despite comparable BMI levels, differences in nutritional knowledge and access to diverse foods reflect institutional influences on inmates’ health and well-being. The limited availability of fresh produce and nutritional education underscores the need for structured dietary improvement and targeted health promotion initiatives within correctional settings. Strengthening nutrition policies and inmate education programs could enhance dietary quality, satisfaction, and overall health outcomes in carceral institutions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Headquarters, Prison Administration & Reform Services, Government of Uttar Pradesh, for granting permission and providing invaluable support for this study. We are also grateful for the cooperation of the administrative staff and personnel of Lucknow and Unnao District Prison for facilitating access to institutional meal services and ensuring smooth data collection. Their commitment to improving prison health and welfare is deeply appreciated.

Funding Statement

This research received no funding.

Footnotes

FUNDING: This research received no funding.

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS

The data and materials used in this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

  • 1.Choudhry K, Armstrong D, Dregan A. Prisons and embodiment: Self-management strategies of an incarcerated population. J Correct Health Care. 2019;25(4):338–350. doi: 10.1177/1078345819880240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Anyzewska A, Lakomy R, Lepionka T, Szarska E, Maculewicz E, Tomczak A, et al. Association between diet, physical activity and body mass index, fat mass index and bone mineral density of soldiers of the Polish Air Cavalry Units. Nutrients. 2020;12(1):242. doi: 10.3390/nu12010242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Almoayad F, Benajiba N, Earle J, Aboul-Enein BH, Sidhu A, Sajja A, et al. A scoping review of nutrition education interventions applied in prison settings. Curr Nutr Rep. 2023;12(4):845–863. doi: 10.1007/s13668-023-00497-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mommaerts K, Lopez NV, Camplain C, Keene C, Hale AM, Camplain R. Nutrition availability for those incarcerated in jail: Implications for mental health. Int J Prison Health. 2022;19(3):350–362. doi: 10.1108/ijph-02-2022-0009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kler P, Szczesniak B, Anyzewska A, Bertrand J. Assessment of nutritional knowledge of soldiers of the Territorial Defense Force of the Polish Armed Forces. Proc Nutr Soc. 2020;79(OCE2):E311. doi: 10.1017/S0029665120002591. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ifeonu C, Haggerty KD, Bucerius SM. Calories, commerce, and culture: The multiple valuations of food in prison. Punishm Soc. 2023;25(3):665–682. doi: 10.1177/14624745221097367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gacek M, Wojtowicz A, Popek A. Personality determinants of exercise-related nutritional behaviours among Polish team sport athletes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(5):4025. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Copic NZ, Kukic F, Tomic I, Parcina I, Dopsaj M. The impact of shift-work on nutritional status of police officers. Nauka Bezp Policja. 2020;25(1):3–14. doi: 10.5937/nabepo25-24628. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tesler R, Regev O, Birk R, Barak S, Shapiro Y, Weiss Y, et al. Health promotion programs in prison: Attendance and role in promoting physical activity and subjective health status. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1189728. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1189728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stanikowski P, Michalak-Majewska M, Domagala D, Jablonska-Rys E, Slawinska A. Implementation of dietary reference intake standards in prison menus in Poland. Nutrients. 2020;12(3):728. doi: 10.3390/nu12030728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lopez NV, Spilkin A, Brauer J, Phillips R, Kuss B, Delio G, et al. Nutritional adequacy of meals and commissary items provided to individuals incarcerated in a southwest, rural county jail in the United States. BMC Nutr. 2022;8(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s40795-022-00593-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Midtlyng G. Safety rules in a Norwegian high-security prison: The impact of social interaction between prisoners and officers. Saf Sci. 2022;149:105690. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105690. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sajdakowska M, Gutkowska K, Kosicka-Gebska M, Gebski J, Gantner A. Association between physical activity, diet quality and leisure activities of young Poles. Nutrients. 2023;15(24):5121. doi: 10.3390/nu15245121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Maier K, Ricciardelli R. "Prison didn't change me, I have changed": Narratives of change, self, and prison time. Criminol Crim Justice. 2022;22(5):774–789. doi: 10.1177/17488958211031336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rose AM. Assessing the mental health of multicultural prisoner populations: A cross-cultural comparison with culturally and linguistically diverse, Indigenous Australian and English-speaking background groups of prisoners. Swinburne University of Technology; 2020. Tesis doctoral. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tomczak A, Anyzewska A, Bertrandt J, Lepionka T, Kruszewski A, Gazdzinska A. Assessment of the level of physical activity and body mass index of soldiers of the Polish Air Force. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(14):8392. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19148392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Miecinski J. Changes in the Polish prison subculture and its impact on the security in penitentiary system. J Secur Sustain Issues. 2021;11(1):71–82. doi: 10.47459/jssi.2021.11.4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Malizia N. Prison subculture: A study on the adaptation of prisoners in Italian prisons. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2021;11:232. doi: 10.29322/IJSRP.11.03.2021.p11131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mesko G, Hacin R. Prisoners' and prison workers' views on the prison subculture in Slovenia. Rev Krim Kriminol. 2019;69(4):333–345. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330449787 [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Crewe B, Hulley S, Wright S. Life imprisonment from young adulthood: Adaptation, identity and time. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2020. Social relations. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Liguori F, Calella P. Physical activity and wellbeing in prisoners: a scoping review. Int J Prison Health. 2024 doi: 10.1108/IJOPH-07-2024-0038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jarman B. Life imprisonment in mature adulthood: Adaptation, risk, and reform later in the life course. University of Cambridge; 2022. Tesis doctoral. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Simanovic T, Gosev M. Is food more than a means of survival? An overview of the Balkan prison systems. Appetite. 2019;143:104405. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vanhouche AS. Prison food: Identity, meaning, practices and symbolism in European prisons. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fakhry Y. A review of health and nutrition in prisons: A challenge between human rights conventions, nutrition guidelines and health policies. Crossing Concept Bound. 2022;12(1):36–53. doi: 10.15123/uel.8v200. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.World Health Organization . Obesity and overweight. Geneva: WHO; Dec 08, 2025. [31/12/2025]. Disponible en: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight . [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Leech K, Rodham K, Burton A, Hughes T. Understanding weight gain in female prisoners. Int J Prison Health. 2024;20(3):271–285. doi: 10.1108/IJOPH-05-2023-0024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kosendiak A, Stanikowski P, Domagala D, Gustaw W, Bronkowska M. Dietary habits, diet quality, nutrition knowledge, and associations with physical activity in Polish prisoners: a pilot study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1422. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wooldredge J. Prison culture, management, and in-prison violence. Annu Rev Criminol. 2020;3(1):165–188. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041359. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Steiner B, Wooldredge J. Understanding and reducing prison violence: An integrated social control-opportunity perspective. Routledge; 2019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Woods-Brown C, Hunt K, Sweeting H. Food and the prison environment: a meta-ethnography of global first-hand experiences of food, meals and eating in custody. Health Justice. 2023;11(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s40352-023-00222-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Clua-García R, Puig Garcia L, Mellado S, Serrats M, Rue Queralt X, Llopart M, et al. The priorities for a prisoner are food, being able to talk to their family, and taking a shower: the experiences of prisoners placed in emergency isolation due to COVID-19 in a Catalan prison. Int J Prison Health. 2024;20(3):313–326. doi: 10.1108/IJOPH-05-2023-0028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.LeBlanc CP, Johnson C, Goguen P, Gagnon S. The nutritional content of food in carceral institutions: a systematic review of quantitative studies. J Correct Health Care. 2024;30(5):302–310. doi: 10.1089/jchc.23.10.0087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Vanhooren S, Leijssen M, Dezutter J. Coping strategies and posttraumatic growth in prison. Prison J. 2018;98(2):123–142. doi: 10.1177/0032885517753151. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jeyanthi M. Psychological repercussions/challenges of incarcerated men and their adaptive strategies. J Psychosoc Res. 2024;19(1):125–133. doi: 10.32381/JPR.2024.19.01.13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ahalt C, Haney C, Rios S, Fox MP, Farabee D, Williams B. Reducing the use and impact of solitary confinement in corrections. International Journal of Prisoner Health. 2017;13(1):41–48. doi: 10.1108/IJPH-08-2016-0040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Brooke J, Allsop F, Richards L, Ojo O. The development, delivery, content, and impact of nutrition education in prisons: a systematic review. J Correct Health Care. 2025;31(1):17–28. doi: 10.1089/jchc.24.08.0062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Plugge E, Van Hout MC, Jacobson J, Stürup-Toft S. Leaving no one behind in prison: improving the health of people in prison as a key contributor to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals 2030. BMJ Global Health. 2021;6:e004252. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tripathy S, Behera D, Negi S, Tripathy I, Behera MR. Burden of depression and its predictors among prisoners in a central jail of Odisha, India. Indian J Psychiatry. 2022;64(3):295–300. doi: 10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_668_21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fazel S, Yoon IA, Hayes AJ. Substance use disorders in prisoners: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis in recently incarcerated men and women. Addiction. 2017;112(10):1725–1739. doi: 10.1111/add.13877. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Samuels TA, Campbell S, Brown A, et al. Nutritional and health challenges among incarcerated populations: a public health perspective. Nutrition Reviews. 2021;79(15):1588–1604. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuab035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Herbert K, Plugge E, Foster C. Impact of incarceration on cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review and meta-regression on weight and BMI change. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e039278. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ally AR. The psychosocial effects of ex-prisoners and the mitigating strategies as they integrate into the community: A study of Iringa Municipality, Tanzania. Int J Novel Res Hum Soc Sci. 2022;9(5):7–16. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7113308. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.MacLean A, Maycock M, Hunt K, et al. Fit for LIFE: the development and optimization of an intervention delivered through prison gymnasia to support incarcerated men in making positive lifestyle changes. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:783. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13004-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Brown A, Woods-Brown C, Angus K, McMeekin N, Hunt K, Demou E. Recent evidence on rates and factors influencing smoking behaviours after release from smoke-free prisons: a scoping review. Int J Prison Health. 2024;20(4):450–465. doi: 10.1108/IJOPH-10-2023-0064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Rose A, Trounson J, Skues J, Daffern M, Shepherd SM, Pfeifer JE, et al. Psychological wellbeing, distress and coping in Australian Indigenous and multicultural prisoners: A mixed methods analysis. Psychiatry Psychol Law. 2019;26(6):886–903. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2019.1642259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Guan NC, Kee LW, Tee GY, Yusof M. Health promotion interventions in correctional settings: a review of effectiveness and implementation challenges. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(13):4183–4192. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020004489. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rubenstein LS, Amon JJ, McLemore M, Eba P, Dolan K, Lines R, Beyrer C. HIV, prisoners, and human rights. The Lancet. 2016;388(10050):1202–1214. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30663-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data and materials used in this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Articles from Revista Española de Sanidad Penitenciaria are provided here courtesy of Sociedad Española de Sanidad Penitenciaria

RESOURCES