Abstract
Objectives
This health promotion project used participatory processes to engage all stakeholders to design and pilot preventive health tools in partnership with and for individuals with incarceration experience. This article outlines the methods of engaging with this marginalized population and interventions conducted to successfully utilize participation in the planning phases of the project to develop collaborative values, mission, and project scope.
Participants
Eighteen men and women with incarceration experience participated through two community organizations that were invited to work as project partners.
Setting
Participatory planning was conducted through an iterative process and partnership between an academic institution and community organizations.
Intervention
Engagement was developed through community networks and partnership building, including articulation of shared values and formation of a Project Advisory Committee. Participatory planning was facilitated through focus groups and interviews conducted with prison leavers to narrow the scope of the project to three health priority areas. Discussion analysis was conducted using interpretive phenomenological qualitative methodology to extract themes in terms of underlying systemic barriers to health and suggestions for ways to address them.
Outcomes
The interventions resulted in collaborative project planning and allowed for the prioritization of promoting holistic health for individuals with incarceration experience in mental health and addiction, cancer, and blood-borne infectious diseases by sharing knowledge, supporting selfadvocacy, and strengthening relationships.
Discussion
Community engagement and participatory processes allowed the project to be more relevant to those it serves, and also meaningfully engaged prison leavers in an empowering participatory process to address health inequities.
Key words: Community-based participatory research, prisoners, community health planning
Résumé
Objectifs
Notre projet de promotion de la santé a fait appel à des processus participatifs pour amener tous les acteurs à concevoir et à mettre à l’essai des outils de prévention pour les ex-détenus, en partenariat avec ces personnes. Nous présentons les méthodes employées pour mobiliser cette population marginalisée et les interventions menées pour utiliser leur participation avec succès au stade de la planification du projet en vue de définir les valeurs de collaboration, la mission et la portée du projet.
Participants
Dix-huit ex-détenus, hommes et femmes, ont participé au projet par l’entremise de deux organismes communautaires invités à devenir partenaires du projet.
Contexte
La planification participative s’est déroulée selon un processus itératif et à l’aide d’un partenariat entre un établissement d’enseignement supérieur et des organismes communautaires.
Intervention
La mobilisation s’est faite par les réseaux communautaires et l’édification de partenariats, notamment en énonçant des valeurs partagées et en créant un comité consultatif pour le projet. La planification participative a été facilitée par des groupes de discussion et des entrevues menées avec des ex-détenus pour limiter la portée du projet à trois aspects de la santé jugés prioritaires. Les discussions ont été analysées selon une méthode qualitative/interprétative phénoménologique pour en extraire les thèmes du point de vue des obstacles systémiques sous-jacents à la santé et des moyens suggérés pour les aborder.
Résultats
Les interventions ont mené à la planification concertée du projet et permis de cibler en priorité la promotion de la santé holistique des ex-détenus dans trois domaines: la santé mentale et la toxicomanie; le cancer; et les maladies infectieuses véhiculées par le sang; pour cela on a utilisé le partage des connaissances, l’appui à l’autonomie sociale et le renforcement des liens.
Discussion
La mobilisation communautaire et les processus participatifs ont permis au projet d’être plus pertinent pour ses bénéficiaires; le projet a aussi impliqué de façon constructive des exdétenus dans un processus participatif habilitant afin d’aborder les iniquités en santé.
Mots clés: recherche participative communautaire, prisonnier, planification en santé communautaire
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: Vancouver Foundation; Women in2 Healing; Long Term Inmates Now in the Community (L.I.N.C.); Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia; Dr. Jane Buxton; Dr. Janusz Kaczorowski; Dr. Viv Ramsden; and Kelly Murphy. Dr. John L. Oliffe is supported by a Michael Smith Scholar Award.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.Public Safety Canada Portfolio Corrections Statistics Committee. Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview. Public Works and Government Services Canada. 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Binswanger IA, White MC, Perez-Stable EJ, Goldenson J, Tulsky JP. Cancer screening among jail inmates: Frequency, knowledge, and willingness. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(10):1781–87. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.052498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fazel S, Baillargeon J. The health of prisoners. Lancet. 2011;377(9769):956–65. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61053-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Baillargeon J, Black SA, Pulvino J, Dunn K. The disease profile of Texas prison inmates. Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10(2):74–80. doi: 10.1016/S1047-2797(99)00033-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Freudenberg N, Daniels J, Crum M, Perkins T, Richie BE. Coming home from jail: The social and health consequences of community reentry for women, male adolescents, and their families and communities. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(10):1725–36. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.056325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Krieg AS. Aboriginal incarceration: Health and social impacts. Med J Aust. 2006;184(10):534–36. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00357.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Douglas N, Plugge E, Fitzpatrick R. The impact of imprisonment on health: What do women prisoners say? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(9):749–54. doi: 10.1136/jech.2008.080713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lindquist CH, Lindquist CA. Health behind bars: Utilization and evaluation of medical care among jail inmates. J Community Health. 1999;24(4):285–303. doi: 10.1023/A:1018794305843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Sung H-E, Richter L. Contextual barriers to successful reentry of recovering drug offenders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;31(4):365–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Schnittker J, John A. Enduring stigma: The long-term effects of incarceration on health. J Health Soc Behav. 2007;48(2):115–30. doi: 10.1177/002214650704800202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Martin RE, Murphy K, Chan R, Ramsden VR, Granger-Brown A, Macaulay AC, et al. Primary health care: Applying the principles within a communitybased participatory health research project that began in a Canadian women’s prison. Global Health Promot. 2009;16(4):43–53. doi: 10.1177/1757975909348114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Vollman AR, Anderson ET, McFarlane JM. Canadian Community as Partner: Theory and Practice in Nursing. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 576. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health Program Planning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005. p. 458. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Martin RE, Murphy K, Hanson D, Hemingway C, Ramsden V, Buxton J, et al. The development of participatory health research among incarcerated women in a Canadian prison. Int J Prisoner Health. 2009;5(2):95–107. doi: 10.1080/17449200902884021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.L.I.N.C. Society of British Columbia. 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Women in2 Healing. https://doi.org/www.womenin2healing.org/ (Accessed July 2011).
- 17.Fournier P, Potvin L. Participation communautaire et programmes de santé: les fondements du dogme. Sciences Sociales et Santé. 1995;13(2):39–58. doi: 10.3406/sosan.1995.1326. [DOI] [Google Scholar]