Abstract
Introduction:
The measurement of patient satisfaction with mental health services is well-established and a key indicator of performance. Patient satisfaction with mental health services received in criminal justice settings however is however less frequently studied. Our aim was to establish how frequently patient satisfaction with mental health services in correctional (prison) settings is being reported, and to identify methods of measurement including all tools that have been used to measure patient satisfaction in these settings.
Methods:
A comprehensive search of published articles and thesis dissertations was undertaken using multiple databases. Two reviewers independently screened the references to determine eligibility and then extracted the necessary data using a predefined extraction template. Only studies that measured patient satisfaction with a mental health service or intervention within a correctional facility were included.
Results:
46 studies, which included various measures, were identified as being eligible for inclusion. The median number of patients involved in these studies was 37.5 (range: 4–1150). Tools were heterogeneous in length, purpose, and design, and these measured a variety of different domains. Most of the tools used had been developed in non-correctional settings and applied in correctional settings without adaptation. Tools with established psychometric properties were used only in ten instances, whereas the majority of the studies reported using author-developed interviews and questionnaires to obtain feedback.
Conclusion:
Patient satisfaction measurement tools in correctional services are heterogeneous and largely unvalidated; there is no uniformity in the measurement methods used.
Systematic Review Registration:
https://osf.io/md8vp, identifier md8vp.
Introduction
The systematic measurement of patients’ attitudes towards their treatment in general psychiatric settings began to emerge in the 1960s, initially focusing on perceptions of the ward environment and staff interactions (). By the 1980s, structured questionnaires became more common to evaluate satisfaction with healthcare treatment (, ), gaining more prominence in the 1990s (, ).
Patient feedback is now recognized as a key indicator of health service quality. McLellan et al. (, ) emphasized the importance of proactively seeking patient feedback in mental health and addiction services as part of a continuous quality improvement process (). Direct patient feedback can be used to improve quality of care by highlighting areas of weakness in the care process, identifying unmet needs, improving patient-centered care, and driving continuous improvement. High satisfaction levels are increasingly pursued by health services as indicators of good service structure and delivery ().
Satisfaction is a multidimensional concept, often poorly defined, but broadly reflects the patients’ subjective evaluation of the care they received (). It is influenced by various factors directly related to the healthcare provided (), as well as patients’ expectations of the service and variations in attitudes and response tendencies across different patient groups (). The assessment of patients’ satisfaction with the service may be expressed in relation to the overall care received or may relate to a specific aspect of a service or treatment intervention. A significant body of literature focuses on patients’ experience of therapeutic relationships, ward atmosphere, and the social climate of mental health services (). Environmental factors such as aesthetics, space, and food have also been the focus of satisfaction surveys. Nevertheless, there are established methods for obtaining reliable measurement despite the diversity of the concept ().
Correctional services have grown internationally and are now said to be the largest providers of mental health services in the United States (). The number of people in prisons globally has reached 11.5 million (), with approximately one in seven incarcerated individuals having psychosis or major depression (). International standards such as the Mandela Rules (), Bangkok Rules (), and the American Psychiatric Association’s practice guidelines () require that people who are incarcerated should receive health care that is at least equivalent to those who are not incarcerated", however the quality of healthcare often falls below acceptable standards (). The development of clinical service tools for evaluating quality of correctional mental health services has lagged behind other healthcare services. Systematic measurement of patient satisfaction is essential to capture the experiences and perspectives of this population and to incorporate them into service improvement efforts.
Although correctional facilities present unique challenges for mental health service provision, patient feedback should be integral as one facet of measuring the adequacy of the service. Those who receive care in coercive environments have limited autonomy and may fear negative consequences from expressing dissatisfaction. Despite this, assessment of patient satisfaction has been established in forensic mental health services where involuntary detention is also present, and patients have been shown to provide thoughtful feedback on the healthcare service (). Nevertheless, there are clear differences in healthcare delivery in correctional facilities compared to hospitals and other healthcare settings, such as an enhanced focus on security, crisis intervention, and more limited resources in custodial settings, which require adaptations in the methods used to assess satisfaction.
We therefore carried out a scoping review to summarize the international literature on the practice of patient satisfaction measurement with mental health services in correctional settings. Our aim was to establish (1) how frequently patient satisfaction with mental health services is reported; (2) identify the methods used to assess patient satisfaction, and (3) identify all published tools used to measure patient satisfaction in these settings, including their psychometric properties, and any evidence of replication or validation.
Methods
We used the PCC (Population, Concept and Context) framework to guide the development of the review question (). The PCC elements were as follows: (a) Population: individuals in a criminal justice mental health service referred to as “patients” or “clients”, who have received or are receiving mental health care during incarceration (we consider “patient” and “client” to be synonymous for the purpose of this review). (b) Concept: patient satisfaction with the mental health service or intervention that they have received. We have considered “satisfaction”, “patient perception of care” and “patient experience” as interchangeable for the purpose of this review. We have included studies that measured patient satisfaction with mental health services overall, or any specific therapeutic group or intervention received. (c) Context: the term ‘criminal justice setting’ is used here to refer to any facility where incarcerated individuals are detained while awaiting trial or after being sentenced. These institutions are known in different jurisdictions as jails, prisons, penitentiaries, or correctional centers.
A correctional mental health service is defined as any service addressing the psychiatric needs of incarcerated individuals within a correctional facility. These services are typically designed to treat incarcerated individuals who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder prior to their incarceration, during their incarceration, or when facing an acute mental health crisis.
The review protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) methodology () and was registered on the Open Science Framework Registries ().
Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection
We aimed to identify all studies that measured patient satisfaction with mental health services in a correctional setting that were published in English involving adult patients (aged 18 and above). All study designs were considered. We excluded studies if they primarily measured aspects that were not directly part of the healthcare service (e.g. perceptions of safety and security), those evaluating satisfaction with services for addictions, and those eliciting only staff attitudes or perceptions of care.
Search strategy
We considered all literature published in any year in English until the final search date on 1 August 2024. A search strategy was developed in consultation with a librarian. Studies were identified through a search of PsycINFO, PubMed and CINAHL databases, as well as hand-searches conducted in Google Scholar and reference scans of identified papers. The following list of search terms was used: “offender”, “inmate”, “prison”, “incarcerated”, “detainee”, “jail”, “feedback”, “prisoners”, “correctional institutions”, “correction or detention center or center or facility or institute”, “satisfaction or preference or opinion, tool or survey or questionnaire”.
Screening and data extraction were carried out by two independent reviewers. Any conflicts were resolved after discussion with the principal investigator. We carried out a narrative synthesis to examine and summarize the findings of the included studies. Search terms, method of analysis (descriptive), inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified in advance and documented in the protocol. The literature reviewed included primary research studies published in a peer-reviewed journal and thesis dissertations. Articles were limited to English language, and no date limitation was set.
Data sources and data extraction
After the database searches were completed, the records were imported into Covidence—a web-based collaboration software platform that streamlines the production of systematic and other literature reviews ()—and duplicates were automatically removed. All abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers, and a third one for conflict resolution where this arose. Abstracts that met the aforementioned eligibility criteria were subjected to a full-text screening by the same reviewers, and eligible studies were retained.
Study selection and characteristics
A total of 7479 papers were identified using the search strategy. After removing duplicates, posters, and non-original studies, 4772 papers remained. Following a review of abstracts, 85 papers were subjected to a full text review and 46 studies were eligible for inclusion (See Figure 1).
Figure 1
Results
Synthesized findings
Studies fell into three major categories: studies with tools that showed evidence of psychometric testing (10 studies), studies that reported standardized tools but without psychometric testing in the setting used (3 studies), and study-specific questionnaires or semi-structured interviews (34 studies) (Tables 1–3).
Table 1
| Authors | Methodology | Setting | Country | Sample size | Service assessed | Mode of assessment | Completion rate | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1: Studies with Psychometrically Tested Methods | ||||||||
| Batastini, et al. (2016) () | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | Prison | US | 49 | Telemental health group for segregated inmates. | Questionnaire | Not reported | Specific results of CSQ-8 not reported. |
| Morgan et al. (2008) () | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | Prison | US | 186 | Telemental health for parolees. | Questionnaire | Not reported | No difference in satisfaction between face-to-face and telemental health visit. |
| Black et al. (2018) () | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | Prisons and community corrections program | US | 37 | Systems Training for Emotional Predictability and Problem Solving (STEPPS) program for borderline personality disorder. | Questionnaire | 90% | Satisfaction with the STEPPS training program was higher for women than men. Satisfaction did not vary significantly by age or ethnicity. |
| Johnson et al. (2020) () | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-Revised (CSQ-8-R) | Prison | US | 78 | Psychotherapy (IPT) for Major Depressive Disorder in Prisons. | Questionnaire | Not reported | Treatment satisfaction for IPT was high, and significantly higher than treatment as usual TAU. |
| Johnson et al. (2019) () | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | Prison | US | 181 | Interpersonal psychotherapy for major depressive disorder. | Questionnaire | Not reported | Client satisfaction with IPT was high (mostly very satisfied). Client satisfaction was higher with IPT alone and IPT-TAU than TAU alone. |
| Black et al. (2013) () | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | Prison and community corrections | US | 41 | STEPPS group treatment for borderline personality disorder. | Questionnaire | 90% | Offenders were satisfied with the program. |
| Shaw (2008) () | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | Prison | US | 136 | Mental health services in prison. | Questionnaire | Not reported | Treatment satisfaction positively correlated with help-seeking and client expectations (positive). |
| Bjørngaard et al. (2009) () | Modified Psychiatric Outpatient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ) | Prison | Norway | 1150 | Correctional health services (including mental health services). | Questionnaire | 90% | Mental health problems were one area patients were least satisfied with. Recommended having better coordination between specialized mental health services and prison health services. Recommended the development of mental health services including those directed at drug-related problems. Poor mental health was significantly associated with dissatisfaction. |
| Zlotnick et al. (2009) () | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire | Prison | US | 44 | Satisfaction with cognitive-behavioral therapy (Seeking Safety [SS]). | Questionnaire | Not reported | Satisfaction with SS was high. |
| Wolff et al. (2015) () | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire | Prison | US | 230 | Integrated group therapy for comorbid PTSD and substance use disorder (Seeking Safety and Male-Trauma Recovery Empowerment Model). | Questionnaire | Not reported | CSQ score for “satisfaction with intervention” was 3.6 for SS and 3.5 for M-TREM. No statistically significant differences in satisfaction between SS and M-TREM programs. |
| 1.2: Standardized Tools with No Reported/Accessible Psychometric Properties | ||||||||
| Brodey, et al. (2000) () | Group Health Association of America Consumer Satisfaction Survey. | Prison | US | 43 | Satisfaction with telemental health psychiatric versus in person evaluation. | Questionnaire | 97% | Satisfaction with telemental health evaluation was high and similar to in-person evaluations. |
| Way et al. (2007) () | MHSIP Adult Survey adapted and combined with Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). | Prison | US | 613 | Mental health services in prison. | Questionnaire | Not reported | Overall satisfied, differences based on location/which programs involved with. |
| Gordon et al. (2006) () | MHSIP Consumer Satisfaction Survey. | Prison | US | 68 | “In-house” jail diversion program. | Questionnaire | 35% | Majority of participants saw improvement in different indices of the program evaluation—including dealing more effectively with daily problems, feeling more control over their life, and improved social relationships. |
Studies that have measured patient satisfaction in correctional mental health services.
Table 2
| Scale | Purpose/Setting designed for and country | Development method and psychometric properties | No of Items | Scale Characteristics | Domains | Psychometric properties reported in forensic setting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | Health services in the US | Extensively tested and validated in different health settings. Cronbach’s alpha: (0.93), Item-total correlation: (0.77), Convergent validity: (r = 0.66, p < 0.001) Structural Validity (One Factor) () | 8 | 4-point Likert | • Overall satisfaction with quality of services. • Received services wanted. • Program met needs. • Recommend the program. • Satisfied with the amount of help. • Services helped you deal with problems. • Satisfied with services you received. • Seek help again from the program. | Batastini, et al. () (telepsychiatry for prisoners) Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95 |
| Modified psychiatric out-patient experiences questionnaire (POPEQ) | Psychiatric outpatients, Norway | Based upon the POPEQ, which was developed from an extensive literature review and patient/expert views. Cronbach’s alpha 0.91, test-retest reliability 0.9. Single item factor structure () | 12 | Range from 0 (lowest possible satisfaction score) to 100 (highest possible satisfaction score) and global scale. | Satisfaction with help received and treatment outcome, clinician relationship, communication. | Bjørngaard et al. (), Cronbach’s alpha exceeded 0.9. Has shown evidence for good content validity, construct validity, and test-retest reliability. |
Psychometric properties of tools used in correctional settings.
Table 3
| Authors | Methodology | Setting | Country | Sample size | Service assessed | Mode of assessment | Completion rate | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1: Author Developed Questionnaires/Surveys | ||||||||
| Baxter (2003) () | Questionnaire | Prison and courts | UK | 8 | Mentally disordered offenders (MDO) service | Questionnaire | 15.69% | Many responders felt that they were unaware about the MDO team’s role and thus dissatisfied with the service. |
| Sylvia et al. (2021) () | Feedback survey | Prison | US | 24 | Stress management program for incarcerated veterans | Post-program feedback survey | 46.64% | Participants reported feeling comfortable during the program and found it helpful and relevant. |
| Spudic, T. J (2003) (). | Questionnaire | Prison | US | Not reported | Mental health services in prison | Questionnaire | Not reported | Overall satisfied with service. |
| Vaughan et al. (2002) () | Questionnaire | Prison | UK | 50 | Correctional mental health services inside and outside prison | Questionnaire | 84% | The prison healthcare was rated positively by 70% of the sample. Patients reported low satisfaction with police and probation officers, and services in the community including housing. |
| Pace et al. (2019) () | Questionnaire | Prison (residential parenting program) | US | 87 | Satisfaction with parenting program | Questionnaire | Not reported | Positive learning experience and applicable skills. |
| Wong (2018) () | Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (adapted from a questionnaire already used by Prison Health Services) | Prison | Australia | 29 | Client satisfaction experience of two Nurse Practitioner (NP) models | Questionnaire | 8% | Overall, satisfaction ratings were very high. The open-ended response was also positive for all participants. |
| Syed & Blanchette (2000) () | Questionnaire | Prison | Canada | 16 | Peer support program | Questionnaire | Not reported | Recipients found the PST services very helpful, met their expectations and were satisfied with its promptness. |
| Gonzalez (2013) () | Questionnaire | Prison | US | 12 | Counseling services | Questionnaire | Not reported | The majority of participants were relatively satisfied |
| Evans et al. (2017) (49) | Questionnaire | Prison | UK | 15 | Cognitive Behavioral Therapy | Questionnaire | Not reported | All participants expressed satisfaction with therapy, cited it as helpful and expressed they would recommend the service. |
| Karachaliou et al. (2024) (50) | Questionnaire | Prison | Greece | 100 | Telepsychiatry Services | Questionnaire | Not reported | Higher satisfaction observed with telepsychiatry services vs face-face services. |
| Morgan et al. (2004) (51) | Questionnaire | Prison | US | 418 | Correctional mental health services | Questionnaire | 70% | Patients preferred individual counseling vs group counseling. Numerous barriers to mental health service accessibility exist including concern surrounding privacy, stigma, and unawareness of available services. |
| Mekhjian et al. (1999) (52) | Questionnaire | Prison | US | 299 (23 psychiatry) | General telemedicine in correctional setting (includes psychiatric services) | Questionnaire | Not reported | Overall, patients were satisfied with telemedicine, specifically its role in information exchange and patient comfort. |
| Bernier & MacLellan (2012) (53) | Questionnaire | Prison | Canada | 65 | Correctional health services (including mental health services) | Questionnaire | 75% | More participants experienced dissatisfaction rather than satisfaction. |
| Magaletta et al. (2000) (54) | Questionnaire | Prison | US | 75 | Telehealth (psychiatrist consultations) | Questionnaire | Not reported | Overall, patients had a positive rating of the telehealth program. |
| Johnson & Zlotnick (2012) (55) | Questionnaire | Prison | US | 38 | Group interpersonal psychotherapy for major depressive disorder | Questionnaire | Not reported | IPT and PSYCHOED (control) participants reported satisfaction with the treatment they received. |
| 3.2: Author Developed Interviews | ||||||||
| Bouw et al. (2019) (56) | Semi-structured interviews | Prison | Netherlands | 22 | Mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention | Open-ended questions | 88% | Participants found participation in the program helpful for improving anger, impulse control, coping, and self-esteem |
| Mercer et al. (2022) (57) | Semi-structured interviews | Prison | UK | 8 | Prison animal program for participants at risk of self-harm | Open-ended questions | Not reported | Participants reported feeling calm and safe, as well as being able to connect and relate to others during the interactions with pets. |
| Toews et al. (2018) (58) | Semi-structured interviews and focus group | Prison | US | 11 | Nature-based intervention for incarcerated women | Open-ended questions | Not reported | Participants found the experience meaningful. They spoke the positive emotional and social impact, and being able to practice their skills or learn a new one. |
| Bartels et al. (2019) (59) | Semi-structured interviews | Prison | Australia | 9 | Yoga program | Open-ended questions | 50% | Participants found the program beneficial for their physical and mental wellbeing. Several also reported improved sleep. |
| Mertens & Vander Laenen (2020) (60) | Personal Interviews | Prison, Forensic and General care | Belgium | 42 | Experiences of females labelled as not criminally responsible | Open-ended questions | 68% | Participants discussed deprivations of liberty, autonomy, goods and services, security, and heterosexual relationships—and the pains described of indeterminacy, psychological assessment, and self-government. |
| Perdacher et al. (2022) (61) | Semi-structured interview | Prison | Australia | 37 | Acceptability of digital mental health app for indigenous prisoners | Open-ended questions | 73% | Positive experience of using the app |
| Taylor, J (2021) (62). | Reflective feedback sessions | Prison | UK | 14 | Trauma sensitive intervention for men who have committed sexual offenses. | Not reported | 78% | The holistic nature of the content supported them to experience their own harmfulness in a broader context. |
| Thekkumkara et al. (2023) (63) | Semi-structured interview | Prison | India | 5 | Peer support program for common mental disorders and substance abuse | Open-ended questions | 33% | Overall theme of subjective satisfaction – patients felt cared for, supported, accepted and experienced an improved mood. |
| Syed & Blanchette (2000) () | Semi-structured interviews | Prison | Canada | 7 | Peer support program | Open-ended questions | Not reported | Overall, participants were satisfied with the program – appreciated a resource outside of staff and promoted mental wellness. Points of dissatisfaction stemmed from language barriers, fears of privacy and a hierarchy being established based on participation. |
| Mario (2022) (64) | Semi-structured interviews | Prison (formerly incarcerated) | Canada | 8 | Mental health services in Prison (including DBT, counselling) | Open-ended questions | Not reported | Dissatisfaction with lack of cultural sensitivity of programming and proposed programs/strategies being linked to punitive/reward strategies |
| Seaward (2021) (65) | Semi-structured interviews | Prison | Switzerland | 57 | Mental health services in prison | Open-ended questions | 72% | Observed variability in treatment satisfaction based on therapist’s positioning relative to justice system. Trust, open communication, and transparency were seen as critical to establish satisfaction with patient-provider relationships. |
| Merkt et al. (2021) (66) | Semi-structured interviews | Prison | Switzerland | 57 | Mental health services in prison | Open-ended questions | 72% | Experiences with psychotherapeutic treatments were very diverse; ranged from highly dissatisfied to highly satisfied. Dissatisfaction was closely linked to therapist’s close affiliation to the justice system |
| Gonzalez (2013) () | Semi-structured interviews | Prison | US | 12 | Mental health services in prison | Open-ended questions | Not reported | Sources of dissatisfaction included limited resources (insufficient time, insufficient accessibility in emergent situations) and a desire for more specified care (i.e. gender specific, more specialized groups). |
| Zendo (2015) (67) | Semi-structured interviews | Prison | Canada | 5 | Health Services in prison (including mental health services) | Open-ended questions | Not reported | Many sources of dissatisfaction were noted by participants including limited access to HCP within the first 24h of intake, delays/no access to mental health services, and concerns of over-medicalization due to the priority of security vs therapeutic care. |
| Jordan (2012) (68) | Semi-structured interviews | Prison | UK | 4 | Primary and secondary mental health services | Open-ended questions | Not reported | Interview data finds patients are satisfied in their relationships with MHPS – see them as important, working well and highly valued. Difficulties encountered in arranging patient interviews and rapport building. Suggestions include a focus on avoiding overly clinical language, presenting multiple questions at once and noting non-verbal communication. |
| Burton et al. (2021) (69) | Informal feedback | Prison | US | Not reported | Correctional mental health services | Not reported | Not reported | Patients’ informal feedback reflects relatively high overall satisfaction with telepsychiatry. |
| Bernier & MacLellan (2011) (53) | Focus group | Prison | Canada | 22 | Correctional mental health services | Open-ended and semi-structured questions | Not reported | Female and male focus group participants said there was no counselling available (despite informal counseling being offered). Participants found it problematic that they did not have, or have enough, access to a physician. |
| Solbakken et al. (2024) (70) | In-depth interview | Prison | Norway | 15 | Correctional mental health services | Open-ended questions | Not reported | Barriers to mental health service access included: distrust in the system, challenges with referral routines, worries about negative consequences, perceived limited access to mental healthcare. Suggestions: focus on providing information regarding mental health and available services, initiate outreach mental health services, and integrate mental health interventions into treatment programs. |
| Ahmed et al. (2016) (71) | Focus group | Prison | Canada | 12 | Health Services (including mental health services) | Semi-structured interviews | Not reported | Women found clinicians “did not care” about their issues and felt “sloughed off”/”dissatisfied” with responses received from prison staff. Participants reported being unaware of services available to them because they did not see care being provided or because of poor health literacy. |
| Jacobs & Giordano (2018) (72) | In-depth interviews | Prison | US | 19 | Jail psychiatric services | Open-ended, focused, and analytic questions | Not reported | Perceived benefits included: symptom management and safety Psychotherapeutic and rehabilitation-focused groups help pass the time, facilitate learning, and allow participants to feel more positive/goal-directed. Perceived lack of authority of clinical staff hindered the therapeutic alliance. Assessments did not take place/were incomplete, issues with staffing affected continuous crisis intervention, and access to medications and existing medication regimens was impaired. |
| Caulfield et al. (2016) (73) | In-depth interview | Prison | UK | 43 | Prison mental health services | Semi-structured interview | Not reported | In general, patients were offered support quickly and found it helpful in overcoming their problems/coping with prison. Women who are not suffering from significant mental health problems, but do require some emotional support, found it lacking. There was also a lack of consistency between types of treatment offered. |
| Wolff et al. (2015) () | Focus Group | Prison | US | 230 | Integrated group therapy for comorbid PTSD and substance use disorder (Seeking Safety and Male-Trauma Recovery Empowerment Model) | Open-ended questions | Not reported | One of the things participants most liked about the intervention was their groups, and what they least liked was the disbanding of their group. The ability to choose made them feel more respected and enthusiastic about the group. |
Author developed questionnaires and interviews used in a correctional setting.
Psychometrically validated tools
We identified 10 studies, nine of which were conducted in the United States (US), and one in Norway. (Table 1.1). All of the US studies used the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) and the Norwegian study used a modified Psychiatric Out-patient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ). Both tools were originally developed in civil settings but had psychometric properties reported in correctional settings (Table 2). The CSQ-8 is an 8-item unidimensional tool that addresses satisfaction with service desirability, perceived helpfulness, intention to reuse the program, program recommendation and overall satisfaction (). Although the CSQ-8 has been widely used in various healthcare settings, only two studies in correctional settings reported psychometric properties specific to their analysis (, ). Bjørngaard et al. (2009) modified an existing tool, the Psychiatric Out-Patient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ) (). This is a 12-item questionnaire, and has a unidimensional structure. As it had been developed for outpatients, it was modified to be applicable to a correctional setting.
Eight of the ten studies were conducted exclusively within a correctional setting, and two studies additionally involved community corrections programs. Only two studies evaluated correctional mental health services overall, two studies assessed telepsychiatric services, and the remaining six evaluated specific mental health programs, such as a program designed for borderline personality disorder (STEPPS) and psychotherapy. The sample sizes varied, from 37 to 1150. Three studies reported response rates (all 90%). None of the studies reported regular use over time to track trends in satisfaction measures, nor was there any evidence that responses were used to initiate service changes.
Non-psychometrically tested tools
Three studies used standardized tools without reported or accessible psychometric properties (Table 1.2). These tools included the Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP) Consumer Satisfaction Survey (), MHSIP adapted with a CSQ-8 (), and Group Health Association of America Consumer Satisfaction Survey (GHACSS) (). The MHSIP measured domains including accessibility, perceived benefit, overall satisfaction, as well as satisfaction with treatment processes and content; its modified version additionally incorporated measures of medication compliance, misbehavior, and utilization of crisis services (, ). The GHACSS evaluated patients’ perceptions of the evaluator and overall satisfaction with the evaluation (). All three studies were conducted in the US and exclusively within correctional settings. Two studies (, ) reported completion rates of 35% (Gordon et al, 2006) and 97% (Brodey et al, 2000).
There were 15 studies which had developed questionnaires specifically for the site that they were evaluating and had not been replicated in other settings (Table 3.1). Of these studies, eight were conducted in the USA, three in the UK, two in Canada, one in Australia, and one in Greece. Five studies evaluated satisfaction with correctional mental health services overall; three of these focused on telepsychiatric services. Nine focused on specific programs including counseling services, cognitive behavioral therapy, peer support programs, a stress reduction program, and a parenting program. A single study evaluated patient satisfaction with two different nurse practitioner models. The sample sizes varied, ranging from 8 to 418. The surveys addressed domains such as helpfulness, expectations, perceived effectiveness, recommendation, promptness, and overall service satisfaction.
Twenty-three studies (Table 3.2) employed study-specific interviews aimed at capturing satisfaction or providing feedback regarding the adequacy of mental health services. Numerous studies rationalized that an open-ended format would provide the necessary opportunity for elaboration, considering the subjectivity of satisfaction as a measure. Of these studies, six were from the USA, five from Canada, four from the UK, two from Australia, two from Switzerland, and one each from Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, and India.
The completion rate was reported in 9 studies, with an average of 68.67% (range: 33-88%; SD: 17.17). Thirteen studies evaluated general satisfaction with mental health services, while the remaining 10 focused on specific programs, including digital mental health services, mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention, nature-based intervention, prison animal program, yoga program, peer support programs, and trauma sensitive interventions. Five studies concentrated on specific subsets of the correctional population; three exclusively interviewed female detainees, one interviewed Indigenous inmates, and one evaluated a service specific to sexual offenders. The interview structure covered domains such as relationships with providers, accessibility, implications on day-to-day life, and overall satisfaction with the program. While the vast majority of studies employing satisfaction questionnaires reported positive feedback towards the services evaluated, seven of the interview-based studies reported sources of dissatisfaction. These included concerns surrounding privacy, accessibility of services, over-medicalization, and a desire for more specialized and patient-centered care (i.e. cultural sensitivity, addressing language barriers).
Discussion
The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the tools and methods used to measure patient satisfaction with correctional mental health services or specific interventions. Four main findings emerge from our review.
First, very few studies have measured patient satisfaction in correctional settings overall. There were 46 studies identified in the entire literature in English, and most were very small indicating this is a much overlooked area of inquiry given the size of the population receiving mental health services in correctional settings.
Second, only two different psychometrically validated tools have been reported (CSQ-8 and POPEQ) and neither had been designed specifically for use in correctional settings.
Third, the majority of studies had used study-specific (ad-hoc) surveys or interviews to evaluate satisfaction for a particular group or intervention which had not been validated. None of the study-specific measures demonstrated psychometric properties required for widespread dissemination.
Fourth, while patient satisfaction is a multidimensional concept, the only tools validated in correctional settings to date have unidimensional structures (, ). This suggests that important dimensions of patient satisfaction relevant to correctional settings may not be adequately captured by existing tools.
Psychometric methodology is essential to establish the reliability and validity of instruments when evaluating complex constructs such as patient satisfaction. However, only one instrument, the CSQ-8, met the established standards for psychometric development (74), and it has been validated outside the correctional environment. This raises questions about its applicability within correctional environments. There have been numerous studies that have developed questionnaires for measuring satisfaction in forensic settings; however, these are specific to inpatient populations and may not translate effectively to correctional settings (75–80). This highlights the need to develop and validate satisfaction instruments designed for use with correctional populations.
In addition, it is important to engage service users and content experts in developing the components of satisfaction to make sure that the domains assessed reflect the priorities and perspectives of those being assessed (81). Failure to incorporate patient perspectives has been a major criticism of past satisfaction questionnaires (81–84). None of the study-specific questionnaires described how items were generated, nor whether input from patients or other stakeholders informed their development. Furthermore, recurrent themes of interest identified in studies applying a qualitative methodology, such as privacy, staff-patient relationships, and effective communication, were frequently absent from the survey questionnaires (, , 64–66).
Few studies described the regular use of satisfaction surveys or how satisfaction data have been translated into actionable changes for mental health service delivery and quality improvement. Reporting such experiences could reinforce the utility of satisfaction tools and provide valuable insights into the ongoing development of correctional mental health care provision. Communication of this purpose could help promote a more patient-centered approach addressing concerns that have been highlighted in numerous studies (, 64).
Beyond considerations of tool development, the methods used to administer the tools should also be considered. For correctional populations, ensuring anonymity during data collection and dissemination is essential, considering patients’ fears of stigma and criticism from disclosure (). Many of the studies had small sample sizes and low completion rates which may indicate concerns about lack of confidentiality. Therefore, ensuring that there are robust mechanisms in place to preserve anonymity, coupled with efforts to reduce the stigma of mental health care among both patients and correctional staff could improve participation and data quality.
The majority of studies included in our review evaluated satisfaction using surveys, a favored approach due to their ease of administration. However, dissatisfaction with correctional mental health services was more readily apparent in studies which adopted a qualitative methodology. This may be attributed to the open format of an interview, which enables participants to contextualize their experiences and to express views that may not emerge from structured surveys (85).
There are several limitations to our review. We excluded non-English studies and studies which evaluated correctional mental health services from the perspectives of other stakeholders (i.e., clinicians, family members). This could be an avenue for further research. In addition, correctional settings prove a challenging environment for conducting research; although many correctional services may carry out satisfaction surveys for continuous quality improvement, unfavorable results could discourage these services from widely disseminating their data, contributing to publication bias.
Conclusion
There is currently no standardized or widely accepted method for measuring patient satisfaction measurement with the mental health services in correctional settings. While adapting tools developed in non-correctional settings is a reasonable step, validation is required for use in correctional settings. Moreover, none of the reviewed studies described repeated use, stakeholder co-design or the results of regular satisfaction surveys to monitor service quality over time. The results of this review emphasize the need for correctional-specific tool development and validation in correctional settings, to regularly gauge patient satisfaction and implement measures to improve service delivery when deficiencies are identified.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
RJ: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. NM: Writing – original draft, Data curation. MW: Writing – review & editing, Data curation. MM: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. CT: Writing – review & editing, Data curation. VA: Writing – review & editing, Data curation. MK: Writing – review & editing, Data curation. CG: Writing – review & editing. AS: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
WeinsteinRM. Patient attitudes toward mental hospitalization: A review of quantitative research. J Health Soc Behavior. (1979) 20:237–58.
2
HanssonL. Patient satisfaction with in-hospital psychiatric care: A study of a 1-year population of patients hospitalized in a sectorized care organization. Eur Arch Psychiatry neurological Sci. (1989) 239:93–100. doi: 10.1007/BF01759581
3
AttkissonCCZwickR. The client satisfaction questionnaire. Psychometric properties and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome. Eval Program Plann. (1982) 5:233–7. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(82)90074-x
4
GreenwoodNKeyABurnsTBristowMSedgewickP. Satisfaction with in-patient psychiatric services: relationship to patient and treatment factors. Br J Psychiatry. (1999) 174:159–63. doi: 10.1192/bjp.174.2.159
5
HolcombWRParkerJCLeongGBThieleJHigdonJ. Customer satisfaction and self-reported treatment outcomes among psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatr services. (1998) 49:929–34. doi: 10.1176/ps.49.7.929
6
Thomas McLellanAHunkelerE. Alcohol & Drug abuse: patient satisfaction and outcomes in alcohol and drug abuse treatment. Psychiatr Services. (1998) 49:573–5. doi: 10.1176/ps.49.5.573
7
McLellanATChalkMBartlettJ. Outcomes, performance, and quality: what’s the difference? J Subst Abuse Treat. (2007) 32:331–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.09.004
8
MeadowsGBurgessPFosseyEHarveyC. Perceived need for mental health care, findings from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being. Psychol Med. (2000) 30:645–56. doi: 10.1017/S003329179900207X
9
MigliettaEBelessiotis-RichardsCRuggeriMPriebeS. Scales for assessing patient satisfaction with mental health care: A systematic review. J Psychiatr Res. (2018) 100:33–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.02.014
10
SitziaJWoodN. Patient satisfaction: A review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Medicine. (1997) 45:1829–43. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00128-7
11
McInnesDK. Don’t forget patients in patient-centered care. Health Aff (Millwood). (2010) 29:2127. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0990
12
AhmedFBurtJRolandM. Measuring patient experience: concepts and methods. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. (2014) 7:235–41. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0060-5
13
SchalastNRediesMCollinsMStaceyJHowellsK. EssenCES, a short questionnaire for assessing the social climate of forensic psychiatric wards. Crim Behav Ment Health. (2008) 18:49–58. doi: 10.1002/cbm.v18:1
14
LyratzopoulosGElliottMNBarbiereJMStaetskyLPaddisonCACampbellJet al. How can Health Care Organizations be Reliably Compared?: Lessons From a National Survey of Patient Experience. Med Care. (2011) 49:724–33. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31821b3482
15
Reingle GonzalezJMConnellNM. Mental health of prisoners: identifying barriers to mental health treatment and medication continuity. Am J Public Health. (2014) 104:2328–33. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302043
16
Nations UUNODC. Prison Matters 2024: Global prison population and trends. A focus on rehabilitation (2024) UNODC. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/briefs/Prison_brief_2024.pdf.
17
FazelSHayesAJBartellasKClericiMTrestmanR. Mental health of prisoners: prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. Lancet Psychiatry. (2016) 3:871–81. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30142-0
18
McCall-SmithK. United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). International Legal Materials. (2016) 55(6):1180–205. doi: 10.1017/S002078290003089
19
PriebeSMigliettaE. Assessment and determinants of patient satisfaction with mental health care. World Psychiatry. (2019) 18:30–1. doi: 10.1002/wps.20586
20
Association AP. Psychiatric services in correctional facilities. Arlington, Virginia: American Psychiatric Pub (2015). Available at: https://www.appi.org/psychiatric_services_in_correctional_facilities_third_edition.
21
PrestonAGRosenbergASchlesingerPBlankenshipKM. I was reaching out for help and they did not help me”: Mental healthcare in the carceral state. Health Justice. (2022) 10:23. doi: 10.1186/s40352-022-00183-9
22
CoffeyM. Researching service user views in forensic mental health: A literature review. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. (2006) 17:73–107. doi: 10.1080/14789940500431544
23
PetersMDGodfreyCMKhalilHMcInerneyPParkerDSoaresCB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. (2015) 13(3):141–6. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
24
TriccoACLillieEZarinWO’BrienKKColquhounHLevacDet al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-scR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. (2018) 169:467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850
25
JonesRWaqarMSimpsonS. Client satisfaction measures in correctional settings: A scoping review protocol. (2024). doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/MD8VP
26
Covidence Systematic Review Software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation. (2024). Available online at: www.covidence.org (Accessed October 9, 2024).
27
BatastiniABMorganRD. Connecting the disconnected: Preliminary results and lessons learned from a telepsychology initiative with special management inmates. Psychol Serv. (2016) 13:283–91. doi: 10.1037/ser0000078
28
MorganRDPatrickARMagalettaPR. Does the use of telemental health alter the treatment experience? Inmates’ perceptions of telemental health versus face-to-face treatment modalities. J Consult Clin Psychol. (2008) 76:158–62. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.76.1.158
29
BlackDWBlumNAllenJ. Does response to the STEPPS program differ by sex, age, or race in offenders with borderline personality disorder? Compr Psychiatry. (2018) 87:134–7. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2018.10.005
30
JohnsonJEHailemariamMZlotnickCRichieFSinclairJChuongAet al. Mixed methods analysis of implementation of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for major depressive disorder in prisons in a hybrid type I randomized trial. Adm Policy Ment Health. (2020) 47:410–26. doi: 10.1007/s10488-019-00996-1
31
JohnsonJEStoutRLMillerTRZlotnickCCerboLAAndradeJTet al. Randomized cost-effectiveness trial of group interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for prisoners with major depression. J Consult Clin Psychol. (2019) 87:392–406. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000379
32
BlackDWBlumNMcCormickBAllenJ. Systems Training for Emotional Predictability and Problem Solving (STEPPS) group treatment for offenders with borderline personality disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. (2013) 201:124–9. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e31827f6435
33
ShawLB. Inmate characteristics and mental health services: An examination of service utilization and treatment effects. Texas Tech University (2008). Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/2346/10548.
34
BjorngaardJHRustadABKjelsbergE. The prisoner as patient - a health services satisfaction survey. BMC Health Serv Res. (2009) 9:176. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-176
35
ZlotnickCJohnsonJNajavitsLM. Randomized controlled pilot study of cognitive-behavioral therapy in a sample of incarcerated women with substance use disorder and PTSD. Behav Ther. (2009) 40:325–36. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2008.09.004
36
WolffNHueningJShiJFruehBCHooverDRMcHugoG. Implementation and effectiveness of integrated trauma and addiction treatment for incarcerated men. J Anxiety Disord. (2015) 30:66–80. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.10.009
37
BrodeyBBClaypooleKHMottoJAriasRGGossR. Satisfaction of forensic psychiatric patients with remote telepsychiatric evaluation. Psychiatr Serv. (2000) 51:1305–7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.51.10.1305
38
WayBBSawyerDAKahkejianDMoffittCLillySN. State prison mental heath services recipients perception of care survey. Psychiatr Q. (2007) 78:269–77. doi: 10.1007/s11126-007-9048-9
39
GordonJABarnesCMVanBenschotenSW. The dual treatment track program: A descriptive assessment of a new in-house jail diversion program. Fed Probation. (2006) 70:9. Available online at: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/70_3_2_0.pdf.
40
GarrattABjørngaardJHDahleKABjertnaesOASaunesISRuudT. The Psychiatric Out-Patient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ): data quality, reliability and validity in patients attending 90 Norwegian clinics. Nord J Psychiatry. (2006) 60:89–96. doi: 10.1080/08039480600583464
41
BaxterV. Evaluating a service for offenders with mental health problems. Nurs times. (2003) 99:24–7.
42
SylviaLGChudnofskyRFredrikssonSXuBMcCarthyMDFranconaJet al. A pilot study of a stress management program for incarcerated veterans. Mil Med. (2021) 186:1061–5. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usab121
43
SpudicT. Assessing inmate satisfaction with mental health services. New York City: Behaviour Therapy in Correctional Settings (2003) p. 217–8.
44
VaughanPStevensonS. An opinion survey of mentally disordered offender service users. Br J Forensic Practice. (2002) 4:11–20. doi: 10.1108/14636646200200017
45
PaceAEKringsKDunlapJNehillaL. Service and learning at a residential parenting program for incarcerated mothers: Speech-language pathology student outcomes and maternal perspectives. Language speech hearing Serv schools. (2019) 50:308–23. doi: 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-CCJS-18-0030
46
WongIWrightESantomauroDHowRLearyCHarrisM. Implementing two nurse practitioner models of service at an Australian male prison: A quality assurance study. J Clin Nurs. (2018) 27:e287–300. doi: 10.1111/jocn.2018.27.issue-1pt2
47
SyedFBlanchetteK. Results of an evaluation of the peer support program at Grand Valley Institution for Women. Correctional Service Canada, Research Branch, Corporate Development (2000). Available online at: https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/scc-csc/PS83-3-86-eng.pdf.
48
GonzalezM. Voices from Behind Bars: A Working Alliance? University of Missouri, St. Louis (2013).
49
EvansCForresterAJarrettMHuddyVCampbellCAByrneMet al. Early detection and early intervention in prison: improving outcomes and reducing prison returns. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. (2017) 28:91–107. doi: 10.1080/14789949.2016.1261174
50
KarachaliouEDouzenisPChatzinikolaouFPantazisNMartinakiSBaliPet al. Prisoners’ Perceptions and satisfaction with telepsychiatry services in Greece and the effects of its use on the coercion of mental healthcare. Healthcare (Basel). (2024) 12(10):1044. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12101044
51
MorganRDRozyckiATWilsonS. Inmate perceptions of mental health services. Prof psychology: Res practice. (2004) 35:389. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.35.4.389
52
MekhjianHTurnerJWGailiunMMcCainTA. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine in a prison environment. J Telemed Telecare. (1999) 5:55–61. doi: 10.1258/1357633991932397
53
BernierJRMacLellanK. Health status and health services use of female and male prisoners in provincial jail. Halifax, Canada: Atlantic Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health (2012).
54
MagalettaPRFaganTJPeyrotMF. Telehealth in the federal bureau of prisons: Inmates’ perceptions. Prof Psychology: Res Practice. (2000) 31:497. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.31.5.497
55
JohnsonJEZlotnickC. Pilot study of treatment for major depression among women prisoners with substance use disorder. J Psychiatr Res. (2012) 46:1174–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.05.007
56
BouwNHuijbregtsSCJScholteESwaabH. Mindfulness-based stress reduction in prison: experiences of inmates, instructors, and prison staff. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. (2019) 63:2550–71. doi: 10.1177/0306624X19856232
57
MercerJDaviesEWCookMBowesNJ. I feel happier in myself with the dogs”: the perceived impact of a prison animal programme for well-being. J Forensic Practice. (2022) 24:81–94. doi: 10.1108/JFP-11-2021-0057
58
ToewsBWagenfeldAStevensJ. Impact of a nature-based intervention on incarcerated women. Int J Prison Health. (2018) 14:232–43. doi: 10.1108/IJPH-12-2017-0065
59
BartelsLOxmanLNHopkinsA. I would just feel really relaxed and at peace”: findings from a pilot prison yoga program in Australia. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminology. (2019) 63:2531–49. doi: 10.1177/0306624X19854869
60
MertensAVander LaenenF. Pains of imprisonment beyond prison walls: qualitative research with females labelled as not criminally responsible. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. (2020) 64:1343–63. doi: 10.1177/0306624X19875579
61
PerdacherEKavanaghDSheffieldJHealyKDalePHeffernanE. Using the stay strong app for the well-being of indigenous Australian prisoners: feasibility study. JMIR Form Res. (2022) 6:e32157. doi: 10.2196/32157
62
TaylorJ. Compassion in custody: developing a trauma sensitive intervention for men with developmental disabilities who have convictions for sexual offending. Adv Ment Health Intellectual Disabilities. (2021) 15:185–200. doi: 10.1108/AMHID-01-2021-0004
63
ThekkumkaraSJagannathanAMuliyalaKPJosephAMurthyP. Feasibility testing of a peer support programme for prisoners with common mental disorders and substance use. Crim Behav Ment Health. (2023) 33:229–42. doi: 10.1002/cbm.v33.4
64
MarioB. Responsibilizing Rehabilitation: A Critical Investigation of Correctional Programming for Federally Sentenced Women. Ottawa, Canada: Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa (2022).
65
SeawardH. Intersections of mental health and criminal justice: A qualitative study of women in Swiss prisons. Basel, Switzerland: University of Basel (2022).
66
MerktHWangmoTPageauFLiebrenzMDevaud CornazCElgerB. Court-mandated patients’ Perspectives on the psychotherapist’s dual loyalty conflict – between ally and enemy. Front Psychol. (2021) 11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.592638
67
ZendoS. The Experiences of Criminalized Women When Accessing Health Care Services During Incarceration Within Provincial Jails: A Critical Narrative Study. London, Ontario, Canada: The University of Western Ontario Canada (2015).
68
JordanM. Prison mental health: context is crucial: a sociological exploration of male prisoners’ mental health and the provision of mental healthcare in a prison setting. Nottingham, United Kingdom: University of Nottingham (2012).
69
BurtonPRSMorrisNPHirschtrittME. Mental health services in a U.S. Prison during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatr Serv. (2021) 72:458–60. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000476
70
SolbakkenLEBergvikSWynnR. Breaking down barriers to mental healthcare access in prison: a qualitative interview study with incarcerated males in Norway. BMC Psychiatry. (2024) 24:292. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-05736-w
71
AhmedRAngelCMartelRPyneDKeenanL. Access to healthcare services during incarceration among female inmates. Int J Prison Health. (2016) 12:204–15. doi: 10.1108/IJPH-04-2016-0009
72
JacobsLAGiordanoSNJ. It’s not like therapy”: patient-inmate perspectives on jail psychiatric services. Adm Policy Ment Health. (2018) 45:265–75. doi: 10.1007/s10488-017-0821-2
73
CaulfieldLS. Counterintuitive findings from a qualitative study of mental health in English women’s prisons. Int J Prison Health. (2016) 12:216–29. doi: 10.1108/IJPH-05-2016-0013
74
FungDCohenMM. Measuring patient satisfaction with anesthesia care: A review of current methodology. Anesthesia Analgesia. (1998) 87:1089–98. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199811000-00020
75
MeehanTBergenHStedmanT. Monitoring consumer satisfaction with inpatient service delivery: the Inpatient Evaluation of Service Questionnaire. Aust New Z J Psychiatry. (2002) 36:807–11. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01094.x
76
ShivaAHadenSCBrooksJ. Forensic and civil psychiatric inpatients: development of the inpatient satisfaction questionnaire. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law Online. (2009) 37:201–13.
77
ShivaAHadenSCBrooksJ. Psychiatric civil and forensic inpatient satisfaction with care: the impact of provider and recipient characteristics. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr epidemiology. (2009) 44:979–87. doi: 10.1007/s00127-009-0019-3
78
MacinnesDBeerDKeeblePReesDReidL. The development of a tool to measure service user satisfaction with in-patient forensic services: the forensic satisfaction scale. J Ment Health. (2010) 19:272–81. doi: 10.3109/09638231003728133
79
MacInnesDCourtneyHFlanaganTBressingtonDBeerD. A cross sectional survey examining the association between therapeutic relationships and service user satisfaction in forensic mental health settings. BMC Res notes. (2014) 7:1–8. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-657
80
BressingtonDStewartBBeerDMacInnesD. Levels of service user satisfaction in secure settings–A survey of the association between perceived social climate, perceived therapeutic relationship and satisfaction with forensic services. Int J Nurs Stud. (2011) 48:1349–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.05.011
81
ChouS-CBoldyDPLeeAH. Measuring resident satisfaction in residential aged care. Gerontologist. (2001) 41:623–31. doi: 10.1093/geront/41.5.623
82
LarrabeeJHBoldenLV. Defining patient-perceived quality of nursing care. J Nurs Care Quality. (2001) 16:34–60. doi: 10.1097/00001786-200110000-00005
83
CastleNG. A review of satisfaction instruments used in long-term care settings. J Aging Soc Policy. (2007) 19:9–41. doi: 10.1300/J031v19n02_02doi: 10.1300/J031v19n02_02
84
RobinsonJPLucasJACastleNGLoweTJCrystalS. Consumer satisfaction in nursing homes: current practices and resident priorities. Res Aging. (2004) 26:454–80. doi: 10.1177/0164027504264435
85
ElgendyHShalabyROwusuENkireNAgyapongVIWeiY. A Scoping Review of Adult Inpatient Satisfaction with Mental Health Services. Basel, Switzerland: Healthcare (2023).
Summary
Keywords
patient satisfaction, correctional psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, scoping review, mental health, incarceration
Citation
Jones RM, Mather N, Waqar MU, Manetsch M, Taylor C, Adamo V, Kilada M, Gerritsen C and Simpson AIF (2025) Measuring patient satisfaction with mental health services in correctional settings: a systematic scoping review. Front. Psychiatry 16:1575157. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1575157
Received
11 February 2025
Accepted
15 April 2025
Published
14 May 2025
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited by
Yasin Hasan Balcioglu, Bakirkoy Prof Mazhar Osman Training and Research Hospital for Psychiatry, Neurology, and Neurosurgery, Türkiye
Reviewed by
Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland
Stefano Ferracuti, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Gizem Sahin-Bayindir, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Türkiye
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Jones, Mather, Waqar, Manetsch, Taylor, Adamo, Kilada, Gerritsen and Simpson.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Roland M. Jones, roland.jones@camh.ca
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.