Search results

This paper aims to describe and analyse Swiss prisoners’ and experts’ views on collective punishment, the practice where a group is punished for one person’s transgression.

A series of qualitative interviews with prisoners and stakeholders are reported following thematic analysis.

Despite being forbidden by the Geneva Convention and other international instruments, participants from this study expressed the view that collective punishment continues to be practiced in some form in prisons in Switzerland, violating the rights of prisoners via unjust and arbitrary decision-making, unjust rules, inequalities in prison structures and continuation of incarceration based on the behaviour of others. Families can also be both victims and vectors of collective punishment, and prolonging the detention of prisoners who would otherwise have been released because of rare high-profile cases of reoffending can also be considered a form of collective punishment.

These significant findings suggest that collective punishment in various forms continues to be used in Swiss prisons.

According to the principle of equivalence of care, health care in prison has to be of the same standard and quality as in the general population. This study aims to determine the geographic accessibility of dialysis services for older prisoners and the older general population in Switzerland and whether accessibility and availability of dialysis care are equivalent.

Spatial accessibility analysis incorporated four different data types: population data, administrative data, street network data and addresses of prisons and hemodialysis services.

Analysis revealed that the average travel time to the nearest dialysis service was better for prisoners (11.5 min) than for the general population (14.8 min). However, dialysis service for prisoners is hampered by the necessary lead-time in correctional settings, which, ultimately, leads to longer overall access times (36.5 min). Accordingly, the equivalence of dialysis care for older Swiss prisoners is not entirely respected for availability and accessibility.

The strength of the study lies in the combination of ethical principles and the highly tangible results of a spatial accessibility analysis. The ethics-driven empirical analysis provides arguments for policy-makers to review the current practices.

The purpose of this paper is to identify primary health concerns prompting older and younger prisoners in Switzerland to consult a nurse or a general practitioner (GP) within the prison healthcare setting, and explores if these reasons for visits differ by age group (49 years and younger vs 50 years and older). The authors used 50 years and older as the benchmark for older prisoners in light of literature indicating accelerated aging among prisoners.

Retrospective information from medical records of 406 prisoners were collected for a period of six months. This study analyzed the reasons for which prisoners visited the nurses and GPs available to them through the prison healthcare service. These reasons were coded using the International Classification of Primary Care-version 2. Data were analyzed descriptively and four generalized linear models were built to examine whether there was an age group difference in reasons for visiting nurses and GPs.

The health reasons for visiting nurses and GPs by 380 male prisoners from 13 Swiss prisons are presented. In the six month period, a total of 3,309 reasons for visiting nurses and 1,648 reasons for visiting GPs were recorded. Prisoner participants’ most common reasons for both visits were for general and unspecified complaints and musculoskeletal problems. Older prisoners sought significantly more consultations for cardiovascular and endocrine problems than younger prisoners.

Nurses play an important role in addressing healthcare demands of prisoners and coordinating care in Swiss prisons. In light of age-related healthcare demands, continuing education and training of both nurses and GPs to adequately and efficiently address the needs of this prisoner group is critical. Allowing prisoners to carry out some care activities for minor self-manageable complaints will reduce the demand for healthcare.

This study presents unique data on healthcare concerns for which prisoners visit prison nurses and GPs. It highlights the varied needs of older prisoners as well as how these needs are addressed based on the availability of the primary healthcare provider within the prison.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the prevalence of polypharmacy and drug–drug interactions (DDIs) in older and younger prisoners, and compared if age group is associated with risks of polypharmacy and DDIs.

For 380 prisoners from Switzerland (190 were 49 years and younger; 190 were 50 years and older), data concerning their medication use were gathered. MediQ identified if interactions of two or more substances could lead to potentially adverse DDI. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and generalised linear mixed models.

On average, older prisoners took 3.8 medications, while younger prisoners took 2.1 medications. Number of medications taken on one reference day was higher by a factor of 2.4 for older prisoners when compared to younger prisoners (p = 0.002). The odds of polypharmacy was significantly higher for older than for younger prisoners (>=5 medications: odds ratio = 5.52, p = 0.035). Age group analysis indicated that for potentially adverse DDI there was no significant difference (odds ratio = 0.94; p = 0.879). However, when controlling for the number of medication, the risk of adverse DDI was higher in younger than older prisoners, but the result was not significant.

Older prisoners are at a higher risk of polypharmacy but their risk for potentially adverse DDI is not significantly different from that of younger prisoners. Special clinical attention must be given to older prisoners who are at risk for polypharmacy. Careful medication management is also important for younger prisoners who are at risk of very complex drug therapies.

In the literature, 65 years is commonly used as the age to designate an older person in the community. When studying older prisoners, there is much variation. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how researchers define older offenders and for what reasons.

The authors reviewed articles on health and well-being of older offenders to assess terminology used to describe this age group, the chosen age cut-offs distinguishing younger offenders from older offenders, the arguments provided to support this choice as well as the empirical base cited in this context.

The findings show that the age cut-off of 50 years and the term “older” were most frequently used by researchers in the field. The authors find eight main arguments given to underscore the use of specific age cut-offs delineating older offenders. They outline the reasoning provided for each argument and evaluate it for its use to define older offenders.

With this review, it is hoped to stimulate the much-needed discussion advancing towards a uniform definition of the older offender. Such a uniform definition would make future research more comparable and ensure that there is no ambiguity when researchers state that the study population is “older offenders”.