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). Intervention: Peer-based interventions. Comparators: Review questions 3 and 4 compared peer and professionally led approaches. Outcomes: Prisoner health or determinants of health; organisational/process outcomes; views of prison populations. Study designs: 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 .

Background: The voluntary sector has long been recognised as making an important contribution to individual and community health. In the UK, however, the links between primary health care services and the voluntary and community sector are often underdeveloped. Social prescribing is an innovative approach, which aims to promote the use of the voluntary sector within primary health care. Social prescribing involves the creation of referral pathways that allow primary health care patients with non-clinical needs to be directed to local voluntary services and community groups. Such schemes typically use community development workers with local knowledge who are linked to primary health care settings. Social prescribing therefore has the potential to assist individual patients presenting with social needs to access health resources and social support outside of the National Health Service. Aim: The aim of this paper is to explore the concept of social prescribing and discuss its value as a public health initiative embedded within general practice. Methods: The rationale for social prescribing and existing evidence are briefly reviewed. The paper draws on a case study of a pilot social prescribing scheme based in general practice. Data collected during the development, implementation and evaluation of the scheme are used to illustrate the opportunities and limitations for development in UK primary health care. Findings: The potential for social prescribing to provide a mediating mechanism between different sectors and address social need is discussed. The paper argues that social prescribing can successfully extend the boundaries of traditional general practice through bridging the gap between primary health care and the voluntary sector. The potential for wider health gain is critically examined. The paper concludes that social prescribing not only provides a means to alternative support but also acts as a mechanism to strengthen community–professional partnerships. More research is needed on the benefits to patients and professionals.

Evidence of the effectiveness of social prescribing is inconclusive causing commissioning challenges. This research focusses on a social prescribing scheme in Northern England which deploys ‘Wellbeing Coordinators’ who offer support to individuals, providing advice on local groups and services in their community. The research sought to understand the outcomes of the service and, in addition, the processes which supported delivery. Quantitative data was gathered from service users at the point they entered the service and also at the point they exited. Qualitative interviews were also undertaken with service users to gather further understanding of the service and any positive or negative outcomes achieved. In addition, a focus group discussion was also conducted with members of social prescribing staff to ascertain their perspectives of the service both from an operational and strategic perspective. In total, 342 participants provided complete wellbeing data at baseline and post stage and 26 semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out. Improvements in participants’ well-being, and perceived levels of health and social connectedness as well as reductions in anxiety was demonstrated. In many cases, the social prescribing service had enabled individuals to have a more positive and optimistic view of their life often through offering opportunities to engage in a range of hobbies and activities in the local community. The data on reductions in future access to primary care was inconclusive. Some evidence was found to show that men may have greater benefit from social prescribing than women. Some of the processes which increased the likelihood of success on the social prescribing scheme included the sustained and flexible relationship between the service user and the Wellbeing Coordinator and a strong and vibrant voluntary and community sector. Social prescribing has the potential to address the health and social needs of individuals and communities. This research has shown a range of positive outcomes as a result of service users engaging with the service. Social prescribing should be conceptualised as one way to support primary care and tackle unmet needs.

A number of claims have been made regarding the importance of prisoners staying in touch with their family through prison visits, firstly from a humanitarian perspective of enabling family members to see each other, but also regarding the impact of maintaining family ties for successful rehabilitation, reintegration into society and reduced re-offending. This growing evidence base has resulted in increased support by the Prison Service for encouraging the family unit to remain intact during a prisoner’s incarceration. Despite its importance however, there has been a distinct lack of research examining the dynamics of families visiting relatives in prison. This paper explores perceptions of the same event – the visit – from the families’, prisoners’ and prison staffs' viewpoints in a category-B local prison in England. Qualitative data was collected with 30 prisoners’ families, 16 prisoners and 14 prison staff, as part of a broader evaluation of the visitors’ centre. The findings suggest that the three parties frame their perspective of visiting very differently. Prisoners’ families often see visits as an emotional minefield fraught with practical difficulties. Prisoners can view the visit as the highlight of their time in prison and often have many complaints about how visits are handled. Finally, prison staff see visits as potential security breaches and a major organisational operation. The paper addresses the current gap in our understanding of the prison visit and has implications for the Prison Service and wider social policy.

Empowerment is espoused as a flagship value of health promotion. From the bold assertions in the Ottawa Charter [1] and the Jakarta declaration [2] through to the recent commitment in Nairobi [3], the discourse of empowerment has been unwavering throughout. This short points of view paper intends to stimulate critical discussion about the continued value and use of empowerment in contemporary health promotion. While empowerment has been seen as a cornerstone of health promotion practice and philosophy [4], we argue that unresolved challenges associated with the concept may inhibit the continued primacy of empowerment within the discipline. A recent evidence review of empowerment and its application to health and well-being (conducted by two of the authors and based primarily on evidence published between 2000 and 2010) has stimulated this assertion [5]. Lengthier discussions about these issues are currently being prepared for publication; therefore, this short article intends to focus on the definition of empowerment and, in the authors’ point of view, the dilution of the concept from its original roots as a radical social movement.

The ‘health-promoting prison’ has been informed by a broader settings-based philosophy to health promotion which conceptualizes health as the responsibility for all social settings. Though in its relative infancy, the notion of a health-promoting prison has gained political backing from international organizations like the World Health Organization, but the implementation of the policy rhetoric has not translated across all prison environments. The aim of this paper is to consider how key elements of health promotion discourse—choice, control and implicitly, empowerment—can apply in the context of imprisonment. These concepts were examined in three category-C (secure) prisons in England, through interviews with 36 male prisoners and 19 prison staff conducted by the first author. Analysis showed that prisoners negotiated the norms, structures and strictures of prison life by both relinquishing control and also by taking control, showing resistance and exercising some element of choice. The paradox is that, as most prisoners are expected to be released at some point they need to exercise some agency, control and choice, but these learning experiences may be constrained whilst ‘inside’. The paper argues that if a settings approach in prison is truly to move forward, both conceptually and practically, then health promoters should seek to embed the key values of health promotion within the prison setting.