https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6326-296X
![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Background
Experiencing incarceration leads to increased rates of stress that result in a variety of negative physical, mental, and emotional outcomes. However, little research focuses on how individuals vary in their coping responses to stressful life events, like imprisonment.
Aims
This study extends prior research by examining whether changes in coping styles throughout the first year of incarceration influence mental health symptomology at 6- and 12-months post placement.
Methods
Using longitudinal data collected via semi-structured interviews with incarcerated men, this study measures changes in coping strategies and their effect on psychological well-being using the SCL-90-R. Ordinary least squares regression models were used to regress mental health symptomology on residual change scores of coping strategies.
Results
Changes in dysfunctional coping during the first 6- and 12-months of placement were associated with increased levels of adverse mental health symptoms. Changes in emotion- and problem-focused coping were not associated with mental health symptomology.
Conclusions
This research illustrates the need to continue exploration into individual responses to stressful events, such as initial incarceration, and suggests that prison systems should be designed in ways that decrease the need to adapt in dysfunctional ways, while providing opportunities for incarcerated people to cope in more productive ways.
Acknowledgments
Our research was made possible with the cooperation of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry. The interpretation of the results and the conclusions drawn from them are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry or the National Institute of Justice.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Maximum custody at the time of study was the highest and most restrictive level of custody with at least 22 hours a day spent alone in a cell with higher levels of correctional supervision and fewer work or outdoor opportunities. Close custody is the second highest level of custody where individuals tend to have a cellmate, move through the facility with some officer supervision, and have access to programming and visitation. Medium custody is the least restrictive of the three, where individuals can move somewhat freely around the facility, are housed in dormitory-style bunk units, and have increased access to programs.
2 All interviews were conducted face-to-face in the prison unit’s visitation room. All questions in the interviews were asked by the interviewer, including the 90 item SCL-90-R; signifying an interview-based survey. The men were provided with laminated answer scales for some portions of the interview instrument in order to aid in response (e.g., when 90 questions were asked about symptoms experienced) and to aid in confidentiality of responses (e.g., where participants could point to response options when asked questions about interactions with staff).
3 Among those eligible to be included in the study, 57.9% participated, generating a baseline sample of 326 men.
4 All participants in this study were read an informed consent script that described the purpose of the research and use of the data. Participants were required to verbally agree to each interview. Ethical approval for the study was approved by the Arizona State University Institutional Review Board (Study #00006371).
5 Respondents were eligible for participation if they were reclassified to maximum custody from a lower custody placement during baseline, as a result of low number of prisons admissions who are placed directly into maximum custody in the ADCRR.
6 The remaining 7 items comprising the full 90 items are only intended for use with the GSI and include items such as having a poor appetite, trouble falling asleep, overeating, restless sleep, feelings of guilt, etc.
7 Consistent with previous studies (see for e.g., Beijersbergen et al., Citation2014; Luke et al., Citation2021) question 19 in the Brief COPE Inventory was revised for the prison setting. Specifically, the question “I've been doing something to think about it less, such as going to movies, watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or shopping” was changed to the following “I’ve been doing something to think about it less, such as watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or exercising.”
8 Residual changes scores are beneficial over raw difference scores for several reasons. When assessing change, residual change scores are preferable over raw difference scores (D = Y time 2 – Y time 1) since residualized scores adjust for baseline levels (Jennings & Cribbie, Citation2016). Taking the original value into account is beneficial because a change from, for example, 1 to 4 may be much more substantively meaningful than a change from 15 to 18, though both are indicative of a positive 3 score. Similarly, a lack of change from 18 to 18 or 0 to 0, would both produce a 0 score, but the use of dysfunctional coping consistently across waves would appear very different in terms of the respondent’s mental health than no use of dysfunctional coping throughout the time period. Additionally, residual change scores put change into context of all other change occurring in the sample (Wright et al., Citation2012).
9 Final analyses include (1) residual change scores of the 3 coping styles between baseline and wave 2 on wave 2 mental health symptomology and (2) residual change scores of the 3 coping styles between wave 2 and wave 3 on wave 3 mental health symptomology. Additional analyses of the residual change scores of the 3 coping styles between baseline and wave 3 on wave 3 mental health symptomology were also assessed, but the results were substantively similar to the above.
10 One sample t-tests were assessed on all independent and dependent variables to ensure those missing on key measures at subsequent waves were not significantly different from respondents who participated in the baseline interview. The results indicated no significant differences between retained and attrited respondents.