Cancer in English prisons: a mixed-methods study of diagnosis, treatment, care costs and patient and staff experiences
Cancer in English prisons: a mixed-methods study of diagnosis, treatment, care costs and patient and staff experiences
Background: The increasing size of the ageing English prison population means that non-communicable diseases such as cancer are being more commonly diagnosed in this setting. Little research has so far considered the incidence of cancer in the English prison population, the treatment patients receive when they are diagnosed in a prison setting, their care costs and outcomes or their experiences of care compared with those of people diagnosed in the general population. This is the first mixed-methods study that has been designed to investigate these issues in order to inform recommendations for cancer practice, policy and research in English prisons.
Methods: we compared cancer diagnoses made in prison between 1998 and 2017 with those made in the general population using a cohort comparison. We then used a cohort comparison approach to patients’ treatment, survival, care experiences and costs of care between 2012 and 2017. We also conducted qualitative interviews with 24 patients diagnosed or treated in prison, and 6 custodial staff, 16 prison health professionals and 9 cancer professionals. Findings were presented to senior prison and cancer stakeholders at a Policy Lab event to agree priority recommendations.
Results: by 2017 cancer incidence in prison had increased from lower levels than in the general population to similar levels. Men in prison developed similar cancers to men outside, while women in prison were more likely than women outside to be diagnosed with preinvasive cervical cancer. In the comparative cohort study patients diagnosed in prison were less likely to undergo curative treatment, particularly surgery, and had a small but significantly increased risk of death. They also had fewer but slightly longer emergency hospital admissions, lower outpatient costs and fewer planned inpatient stays. While secondary care costs were lower for patients in prison, when security escorts costs were added, emergency care and total costs were higher. Control and choice, communication, and care and custody emerged as key issues from the qualitative interviews. People in prison followed a similar diagnostic pathway to those in the general population but experienced barriers arising from lower health literacy, a complex process for booking general practitioner appointments, communication issues between prison staff, surgical, radiotherapy and oncology clinicians and a lack of involvement of their family and friends in their care. These issues were reflected in patient experience survey results routinely collected as part of the annual National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. The four priorities developed and agreed at the Policy Lab event were giving clinical teams a better understanding of the prison system, co-ordinating and promoting national cancer screening programmes, developing ‘health champions’ in prison and raising health literacy and awareness of cancer symptoms among people in prison. Limitations: We could not identify patients who had been diagnosed with cancer before entering prison.
Conclusion: healthcare practices and policies both within prisons and between prisons and NHS hospitals need to be improved in a range of ways if the cancer care received by people in prison is to match that received by the general population.
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, COHORT COMPARISON STUDY, COST OF CARE STUDY, PATIENT EXPERIENCE OF CANCER CARE, PRISON HEALTHCARE, QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW STUDY
Davies, Elizabeth A.
a4c9f3a6-1dc5-48bc-9f1e-1eb5e6588d91
Lüchtenborg, Margreet
4d1904a1-3abc-462e-a9d8-3171f09eda2c
Hunter, Rachael Maree
38cfc414-e271-4a60-ab65-6c821bedfd40
Visser, Renske
1e47393b-afa8-4150-891d-7f4fc2eed1ae
Huynh, Jennie
c0536247-5495-4d44-b11d-675c8edc5cbb
Pow, Ross
330f6c4f-0c52-4613-a4a3-663990d5d11d
Plugge, Emma
b64d2086-6cf2-4fae-98bf-6aafa3115b35
Taylor, Rachel M.
99abdd17-69fe-4860-bed9-b1073cb489db
Armes, Jo
d72d1004-457a-4f30-bec7-329e696fe34f
February 2025
Davies, Elizabeth A.
a4c9f3a6-1dc5-48bc-9f1e-1eb5e6588d91
Lüchtenborg, Margreet
4d1904a1-3abc-462e-a9d8-3171f09eda2c
Hunter, Rachael Maree
38cfc414-e271-4a60-ab65-6c821bedfd40
Visser, Renske
1e47393b-afa8-4150-891d-7f4fc2eed1ae
Huynh, Jennie
c0536247-5495-4d44-b11d-675c8edc5cbb
Pow, Ross
330f6c4f-0c52-4613-a4a3-663990d5d11d
Plugge, Emma
b64d2086-6cf2-4fae-98bf-6aafa3115b35
Taylor, Rachel M.
99abdd17-69fe-4860-bed9-b1073cb489db
Armes, Jo
d72d1004-457a-4f30-bec7-329e696fe34f
Davies, Elizabeth A., Lüchtenborg, Margreet, Hunter, Rachael Maree, Visser, Renske, Huynh, Jennie, Pow, Ross, Plugge, Emma, Taylor, Rachel M. and Armes, Jo
(2025)
Cancer in English prisons: a mixed-methods study of diagnosis, treatment, care costs and patient and staff experiences.
Health and Social Care Delivery Research, 13 (3).
(doi:10.3310/HYRT9622).
Abstract
Background: The increasing size of the ageing English prison population means that non-communicable diseases such as cancer are being more commonly diagnosed in this setting. Little research has so far considered the incidence of cancer in the English prison population, the treatment patients receive when they are diagnosed in a prison setting, their care costs and outcomes or their experiences of care compared with those of people diagnosed in the general population. This is the first mixed-methods study that has been designed to investigate these issues in order to inform recommendations for cancer practice, policy and research in English prisons.
Methods: we compared cancer diagnoses made in prison between 1998 and 2017 with those made in the general population using a cohort comparison. We then used a cohort comparison approach to patients’ treatment, survival, care experiences and costs of care between 2012 and 2017. We also conducted qualitative interviews with 24 patients diagnosed or treated in prison, and 6 custodial staff, 16 prison health professionals and 9 cancer professionals. Findings were presented to senior prison and cancer stakeholders at a Policy Lab event to agree priority recommendations.
Results: by 2017 cancer incidence in prison had increased from lower levels than in the general population to similar levels. Men in prison developed similar cancers to men outside, while women in prison were more likely than women outside to be diagnosed with preinvasive cervical cancer. In the comparative cohort study patients diagnosed in prison were less likely to undergo curative treatment, particularly surgery, and had a small but significantly increased risk of death. They also had fewer but slightly longer emergency hospital admissions, lower outpatient costs and fewer planned inpatient stays. While secondary care costs were lower for patients in prison, when security escorts costs were added, emergency care and total costs were higher. Control and choice, communication, and care and custody emerged as key issues from the qualitative interviews. People in prison followed a similar diagnostic pathway to those in the general population but experienced barriers arising from lower health literacy, a complex process for booking general practitioner appointments, communication issues between prison staff, surgical, radiotherapy and oncology clinicians and a lack of involvement of their family and friends in their care. These issues were reflected in patient experience survey results routinely collected as part of the annual National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. The four priorities developed and agreed at the Policy Lab event were giving clinical teams a better understanding of the prison system, co-ordinating and promoting national cancer screening programmes, developing ‘health champions’ in prison and raising health literacy and awareness of cancer symptoms among people in prison. Limitations: We could not identify patients who had been diagnosed with cancer before entering prison.
Conclusion: healthcare practices and policies both within prisons and between prisons and NHS hospitals need to be improved in a range of ways if the cancer care received by people in prison is to match that received by the general population.
Text
3047160
- Version of Record
More information
Published date: February 2025
Keywords:
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, COHORT COMPARISON STUDY, COST OF CARE STUDY, PATIENT EXPERIENCE OF CANCER CARE, PRISON HEALTHCARE, QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW STUDY
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 502148
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/502148
ISSN: 2755-0060
PURE UUID: 57fb62ae-f93a-46a4-88c0-776023fc5918
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 17 Jun 2025 16:47
Last modified: 22 Aug 2025 02:29
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Elizabeth A. Davies
Author:
Margreet Lüchtenborg
Author:
Rachael Maree Hunter
Author:
Renske Visser
Author:
Jennie Huynh
Author:
Ross Pow
Author:
Rachel M. Taylor
Author:
Jo Armes
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics