Background More than one in 10 of all prisoners in England and Wales are Foreign Nationals. This article discusses whether the research applications to one London prison are aimed at understanding a prisoner population characterised by significant multinational and multilingual complexity.
Methods We studied all accessible documents relating to research undertaken at a women's prison between 2005 and 2009 to assess the involvement of Foreign National prisoners and women with limited English. The source of information was prison research applications and protocols. We also looked at available final research reports and journal articles.
Results Two key findings emerged from this study. First, studies at this prison frequently excluded Foreign National prisoners and women with limited English. Second, Foreign National prisoners were often clustered as a homogeneous category in the research reports reviewed. This is despite their diverse cultural backgrounds, their variable immigration status and their differing competence in English, all of which affect their lives.
Conclusions The failure to include and/or identify social subgroups of the population can undermine the value of research, including, in the case of the study prison, funded health research. This can compromise associated needs assessments and service delivery, particularly important in already disadvantaged populations; this may encourage and/or perpetuate a range of health inequalities. There is a pressing need to examine cultural exclusion in other health and criminal justice settings, to assess the ways in which—and the extent to which—such exclusion may compromise the merit of proposed and completed health and social research.
- Foreign nationals
- research on special populations
- research on special populations
- foreign nationals
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the This study was conducted with the ethical approval of Essex 2 Research Ethics Committee (NRES). We also received ethical approval from the studied prison.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Using telemedicine to improve access, cost and quality of secondary care for people in prison in England: a hybrid type 2 implementation effectiveness study
- Alcohol Brief Interventions (ABIs) for male remand prisoners: protocol for development of a complex intervention and feasibility study (PRISM-A)
- Acceptability and feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial of medical skin camouflage for recovery of women prisoners with self-harm scarring (COVER): the study protocol
- Prison environment and non-communicable chronic disease modifiable risk factors: length of incarceration trend analysis in Mexico City
- The impact of imprisonment on health: what do women prisoners say?
- Prevalence of human papillomavirus infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer in imprisoned women worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Impact of incarceration on cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review and meta-regression on weight and BMI change
- HCV seropositivity in inmates and in the general population: an averaging approach to establish priority prevention interventions
- Influence of environmental factors on mental health within prisons: focus group study
- Mapping palliative care provision in European prisons: an EAPC Task Force Survey