Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

The associations between social determinants of health, mental health, substance-use and recidivism: a ten-year retrospective cohort analysis of women who completed the connections programme in Australia

Harm Reduction Journal volume 21, Article number: 2 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Women with substance-use issues are overrepresented in prison. Research on women’s recidivism often focuses on offending behaviour rather than the health and social circumstances women are experiencing when reimprisonment occurs. This study examines the relationship between social determinants of health (SDOH), mental health, substance-use and recidivism among women exiting prison with histories of substance-use.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of women exiting prison who completed the transitional support programme “Connections” between 2008 and 2018. Recidivism was measured up to two years post-release. Women’s support needs were measured at baseline (4 weeks pre-release) and follow-up (four weeks post-release). Ongoing needs in relation to well-established SDOH were calculated if: (1) at baseline women were identified as having a re-entry need with housing, employment, finances, education, domestic violence, child-custody and social support and (2) at follow-up women reported still needing help in that area. Women’s self-reported substance-use and mental health since release were captured at follow-up. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all measures. Associations between SDOH, mental health, substance-use and recidivism were estimated by multiple logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders. We also evaluated the mediating effects of mental health on the relationship between SDOH and substance-use.

Results

Substance-use was associated with increased odds of recidivism (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–2.9; p = 0.02). Poor mental health (AOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.9–4.6; p =  < 0.01), ongoing social support (AOR 3.0, 95% CI 1.9–5.0; p =  < 0.01), child-custody (AOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0–3.3 p = 0.04), financial (AOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3–3.2; p =  < 0.01) and housing (AOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–2.9; p = 0.02) needs were individually associated with increased odds of substance-use. Mediation analysis found mental health fully mediated the effects of ongoing housing (beta efficiency (b) = − 033, standard error (SE) 0.01; p = 0.05), financial (b = 0.15, SE 0.07; p = 0.05), child-custody (b = 0.18, SE 0.01; p = 0.05) and social support (b = 0.36, SE 0.1; p = 0.05) needs onto substance-use, and partially mediated the effects of domestic violence (b = 0.57, SE 0.23; p = 0.05) onto substance-use.

Conclusion

This study underscores the critical importance of addressing the interplay between SDOH, mental health, substance-use and recidivism. An approach that targets SDOH holds the potential for reducing mental distress and substance-use, and related recidivism.

Background

There are a number of important links between social determinants of health (SDOH) and the pathways of imprisonment for women. SDOH are the non-medical causes of health outcomes, encompassing the social, economic, political and environmental factors that impact the health of individuals and populations [1, 2]. SDOH include: adverse childhood experiences; education, income/monetary support, employment/job security and working life conditions; housing and neighbourhood conditions; social support/inclusion; socioeconomic position; and access to affordable health services [3,4,5,6,7]. Whilst these SDOH are recognised as determinants of health outcomes and health inequalities, many of these determinants have also been associated with women’s criminal offending [8, 9].

Women with a history of incarceration often have experiences of multiple disadvantages [10] including poverty and low income, unemployment and homelessness—all known SDOH [10,11,12]. Disproportionately high numbers of women in prison report histories of substance-use and diagnosis of mental illness [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. The correlation between substance-use and criminal offending is well established [21] and for women, illicit drug charges is the most common serious offence among sentenced women in Australia and women in prison worldwide [22,23,24]. However, substance-use is not simply an individual choice or behaviour but a complex multifactorial health issue, correlated with SDOH [25]. For women in prison, substance-use is often shaped by physical and sexual victimisation across the life span resulting in cumulative trauma, subsequent poor mental health [13, 14, 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33], as well as socioeconomic disadvantage [34, 35]. It is often reported by women in prison that experiences of trauma and mental illness precede substance-use, with women reportedly using substances to alleviate distress associated with trauma and to manage mental health issues [13, 14, 19]. Mental health and substance-use are therefore interrelated and complex health issues that not only increase a woman’s risk of imprisonment [36, 37] but may also impact women’s integration into the community post-release, and therefore reimprisonment.

In 2019, 9535 women were either on remand or sentenced to a correctional facility in Australia with approximately the same number of women (n = 9573) released to the community [38]. The rate of women who return to prison following a release from prison (i.e., recidivism) is not routinely published in Australia [39, 40]. However, of all people (both men and women) released from prison in Australia in 2019, 42.7% returned to prison within two years (returning 2021–2022) [40]. Whilst recidivism rates are not reported for women, the proportion of women in prison who have a prior imprisonment is reported which shows that roughly half (48%) of women in prison have been previously imprisoned [11]. New South Wales (NSW), the most populous State in Australia, housed 28% (or n = 1014) of Australia’s female prison population in March 2020 [41]. Of which, 72% reported a previous imprisonment [42]. This data not only shows the high volume of reincarceration of women, but also the reality that surviving in the community after release from prison is difficult for women with a history of incarceration, many of whom have co-occurring substance-use and mental health issues.

Whilst it is important to report rates of recidivism, the use of this measure to evaluate or measure the effectiveness of interventions has it flaws. Using a simplified measure of recidivism with an emphasis on individual choice and behaviour decontextualizes the complex systemic issues impacting women’s access to resources and support after release from prison [12, 36]. In this way, a measure like recidivism obfuscates how survival in the community post-release is shaped by broader social and political forces (i.e., SDOH) that deprive individuals of choice and the means to pursue long-term change in their life [12]. However, research with incarcerated women rarely investigates key SDOH within their exploration of recidivism.

A recent systematic review [36] looking at the effectiveness of post-release or transitional (i.e., via a throughcare approach) programmes for women with substance-use disorders, reported that neither SDOH nor mental health were reviewed as associating factors in individual studies. Effectiveness of programmes was measured by recidivism (yes/no) in all included studies (n = 12) and only four (33%) reported substance-use uptake post-release despite the study population for all studies being women with substance-use disorders. Housing, employment, finances, education, child-custody, social support nor mental health were analysed, despite their influence on health and their associations with imprisonment [12, 43].

When it comes to “what works” to reduce women’s reoffending, there remains a lack of evidence as to what is effective at reducing recidivism for women exiting prison with histories of substance-use. This highlights a need to look beyond rates of recidivism to glean how SDOH and complex health issues can impact community integration for women exiting prison. Such research will shed light on the particular challenges women are facing when they re-enter the community and advance understandings of the pathways to reimprisonment among women. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the relationship between SDOH, substance-use, mental health and recidivism among women, identifying factors associated with the reimprisonment of women with histories of substance-use.

Methods

Study design and participant selection

This is a retrospective cohort study of women who completed the Connections programme (referred to as Connections) between 1st January 2008 and 30th June 2018, allowing for a two-year observation period for recidivism outcomes. The source of the study cohort is the Connections database, which is maintained by the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network. Eligibility criteria for Connections is reported elsewhere [44]. To be selected for this study, we included all women who completed Connections (i.e., completed pre- and post-release assessments) for the first time. Women were allocated to one of the following groups based on their recidivism status at two years post-release: (1) return-to-custody (RTC) group or (2) did not return-to-custody (No-RTC) group.

The Connections programme

Connections is a voluntary prison health programme for people in prison with histories of illicit substance-use available in all adult correctional facilities in NSW, Australia. Full details of Connections can be found in the published programme evaluation study protocol [44]. Briefly, Connections clinical support workers (CSWs) meet face-to-face with people in prison who are preparing to exit to the community. Given that Connections is a health programme, CSWs refer to participants as patients. CSWs engage with patients generally up to four weeks prior to release to provide pre-release assessment and complete a re-entry treatment plan. This forms the foundation for linkage to community-based support and services related to the individual needs of each patient, with their direct input.

After release, CSWs continue to provide support up to four weeks post-release (with an option to extend for another four weeks, if requested). Due to the individualised nature of this programme, there is no set number of engagements between CSWs and patients. At four weeks, CSWs administer the post-release assessment to track progress made in the community and to identify if patients require further support for any ongoing or new needs. Patients who requested extended support did not complete any further assessments. For this reason, the proportion of patients who requested additional support are not reported.

Measures

Social determinants of health

Housing, employment, financial problems, education, domestic violence, parenting and social support were categorised as SDOH as they represent fundamental areas that can impact a wide range of health outcomes [45,46,47,48,49]. The re-entry treatment plan outlines whether patients had any “issues identified” or “no issues identified” in the following areas: housing, employment/training, financial, education, domestic violence, parenting and social support. Ongoing needs with SDOH were calculated when patients were identified as (1) having an issue identified at baseline (via the pre-release assessment) and (2) then at follow-up (via the post-release assessment) reported they still need help or have problems in that same area. Analysing ongoing needs allows us to review changes in need over time, highlighting areas that need targeted resources. Women who had no issue identified at baseline, or women who were identified as having an issue at baseline but at follow-up no longer had that need/problem, were allocated to the comparison group. Women who did not answer follow-up questions were also allocated to the comparison group to ensure we reported on the true number of women who self-reported needing help compared those who did not report needing help. See Table A1 in the appendix for a detailed description of all the variables tested in the analyses.

Complex health issues

Substance-use and mental health are categorised as complex health issues which can be influenced by SDOH; are associated with imprisonment; and women with these health issues are overrepresented in prisons [9, 36, 50, 51]. Substance-use issues were identified at baseline by the re-entry treatment plan. Mental health was measured using the mental health dimension of the Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12).

The SF-12, which was derived from the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), is a health-related quality-of-life instrument that has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid use of self-reported health status among general and specific populations [52,53,54]. Large population-based studies have found the mental health component of the SF-12 to be a useful screening tool for monitoring the prevalence of mental health issues (including depression, major depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder) among general populations and for targeting treatment and prevention [55, 56]. It uses scored scales based upon the US general population, with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. A score below 50 indicates poorer mental health than the average population [52]. The mean threshold of < 50 (10) has been found to be an appropriate measure of poor mental health among Australian populations [56, 57] and to be a psychometrically sound instrument for measuring mental health among people with severe mental illness (including schizophrenia, schizoaffective, bipolar and major depression) [58]. The proportion of women who had issues identified on the re-entry treatment plan, or women who score < 50 on the SF-12, were reported and used for baseline data.

At follow-up, the post-release assessment asked questions about these health issues since release: substance-use was identified when women self-reported either (1) using any drugs (other than prescribed) and/or (2) having had problems with alcohol since release from prison; mental health was measured using the SF-12. Unlike SDOH which reflect an ongoing need in those areas, our analysis of health conditions included all women who reported substance-use or poor mental health since release from prison (i.e., not ongoing). This was done to account for the challenges women specifically face when exiting prison which might trigger adverse mental health or substance-use after release from prison [59,60,61]. Women who did not report substance-use at follow-up, and women who scored > 50 on the SF-12 were allocated to the comparison group. Women who did not answer the relevant follow-up questions were also allocated to the comparison group.

Statistical analysis

All data analysis was performed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 27) software [62]. Frequencies for categorical variables and means with standard deviations for continuous variables were calculated. Statistical differences between RTC group and no-RTC group women during a two-year follow-up were determined with Chi-square tests and independent-sample t tests as appropriate. Statistical significance was defined at the p value < 0.05.

Two backward elimination, also called backward stepwise multiple logistic regression, models were used, one with the predictor variable recidivism (i.e., being allocated to the RTC group) and the second with the predictor variable substance-use since release from prison. Backward elimination begins with all of the variables of interest in the equation (i.e., SDOH and complex health issues) and removes the least significant variables one-by-one until all remaining variables are statistically significant. The first multiple logistic analysis was used to assess the associations between SDOH, complex health issues (independent variables) with being allocated to the RTC group (dependant variable). In this model, we adjusted for admission year to account for programme changes and improvements between 2008 and 2018. In addition, we adjusted for age, being from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, first time in custody and sentence-length as the literature has reported these factors to be correlated to recidivism [50, 51, 63].

Substance-use is often cited as a criminogenic factor [36, 50]; however, there are gaps in knowledge that explore factors associated with substance-use after release from prison. To address this gap, we used a second multiple logistic regression model to assess the associations between SDOH and mental health (independent variables) with women who reported substance-use since release from prison (dependant variable) to explore potential influential factors driving women to return to substance-use in the community. The second model was adjusted for admission year (to account for programmes changes), age (as age (younger) has been found to be a predictor of substance-relapse [64]), and Opioid Substitution Therapy status in prison (to account that some women were on treatment which has shown reductions in post-release relapse [65]). Crude and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were produced.

Finally, considering women in prison have reported that mental distress often preceded substance-use [66,67,68], and previous studies have found that complex health issues can be directly influenced by SDOH [5]; we hypothesised that mental health (M) will mediate the effect of SDOH (X) onto substance-use (Y) (See Fig. 1). To test this theory, we performed a mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro (model 4, version 4.2) by Andrew Hayes [69] in SPSS, adjusting for admission year and age. Beta coefficients (b) and standard error (SE) were computed. Statistical significance of the indirect effect was determined using 10,000 bootstrap confidence intervals, as these have higher power to detect a statistically significant indirect effect [70].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Directed acyclic graph (DAG)

Full size image

Ethics

Ethics approval for this project was granted from NSW Population and Health Services Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (HREC/16/CIPHS/17); Aboriginal Health Medical Research Council HREC (1187–16); Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network HREC (Reference number: G217-16); Corrective Services NSW Ethics Committee (D190221581); University of Technology Sydney (ETH18-2587); and the University of Newcastle (H-2020–0074).

Results

A total of n = 413 (4.0%) women, who had their first engagement with Connections and completed both assessments (pre- and post-release assessments), were included in this study. Of those 40.2% (n = 166) were allocated to the RTC group and 59.8% (n = 238) were allocated to the no-RTC group. Sociodemographic characteristics by group are shown in Table 1. RTC group women were significantly younger (mean age of 32.8 (SD = 7.3) vs. 34.8 (SD = 8.1; p = 0.05)); larger proportions identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (41.0% vs. 26.5%; p = 0.04); had lower educational attainment (5.6% vs. 19.6%; p = 0.01); and fewer had participated in previous formal employment (33.1% vs. 21.7%; p = 0.01) compared to no-RTC group women. Most women (76.8%) reported having children. When asked about histories of substance-use, a larger proportion RTC group women reported a drug problem prior to incarceration (89.5% vs. 79.5%; p = 0.01) compared to no-RTC group women. Whilst no differences were seen between groups, most women reported previously receiving treatment for a mental health condition (71.6% vs. 74.0%; p = 0.60).

Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics by group
Full size table

Incarceration history by group

Table 2 presents the incarceration history by group. Significantly more RTC group women had a history of imprisonment (80.4% vs. 67.7%; p = 0.01) and were imprisoned for substance-related offences (79.8% vs. 67.4%; p = 0.01) compared to no-RTC group women. No significant differences were seen between groups for sentence-length and probation after release.

Table 2 Incarceration history by group
Full size table

Issues at baseline and needs at follow-up by group

Table 3 shows the proportion of women who were identified as having an issue at baseline and their needs at follow-up. Overall women had a mean of 6.3 (SD = 2.2) issues at baseline, with a mean of 5.0 (SD = 1.9) SDOH issues and 1.3 (SD = 0.6) complex health issues per woman at baseline. At follow-up, women reported a mean of 2.1 (SD = 1.7) total needs per woman, with a mean of 1.3 (SD = 1.2) SDOH ongoing needs and 0.8 health issues per woman at follow-up. Nearly all women had a substance-use issue at baseline (93.7%). At follow-up, a larger proportion RTC group women reported substance-use since release (38% vs. 28.2%; p = 0.04) compared to no-RTC group women.

Table 3 Issue identified at baseline and needs at follow-up by group
Full size table

Multiple logistic analysis

The adjusted multiple logistic regression showed that substance-use after release was associated with an increase in odds of RTC within 2 years (AOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–2.9; p = 0.02) compared to women who did not report substance-use during follow-up (Table 4). No other SDOH or health issue had a direct relationship with recidivism.

Table 4 Odds ratio of correlates of return-to-custody within two years, ongoing social determinants of health and complex health issues at follow-up
Full size table

As the association between criminal offending and substance-use is well established, we wanted to explore whether any SDOH or mental health were individually associated with substance-use (Table 5). After adjusting for potential confounders, having poor mental health at follow-up (AOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.9–4.9; p =  < 0.01), or reporting ongoing needs with social support (AOR 3.0, 95% CI 1.9–5.0; p =  < 0.01), child-custody (AOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0–3.3 p = 0.04), finances (AOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3–3.2; p =  < 0.01) and housing (AOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–2.9; p = 0.02) were associated with increased odds of substance-use post-release.

Table 5 Odds ratio of correlates of social determinants of health, mental health and substance-use
Full size table

Mediators of treatment effects

The mediation models assessed the mediating role of mental health on the relationship between SDOH and substance-use. The results showed poor mental health to have a significant indirect effect on the relationship between ongoing housing (b = − 0.33, SE 0.01), financial (b = 0.15, SE 0.07), domestic violence (b = 0.57, SE 0.23), child-custody (b = 0.18, SE 0.01) and social support (b = 0.36, SE 0.1) needs and substance-use, supporting our hypothesis (see Fig. 2 and Table A2 in the appendix). Furthermore, the direct effect (path c’) of domestic violence on substance-use in the presence of the mediator was also significant (b = 1.24, SE 0.63, p = 0.05). Hence, mental health partially mediated the relationship between domestic violence and substance-use. In all other significant models, mental health fully mediated the relationship between ongoing housing, financial, child-custody and social support needs and substance-use, as the direct effect (path c’) was not significant in the presence of mental health.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Indirect effects of social determinants of health onto substance-use through mental health in mediation model. Note: *p = 0.05; **p = 0.01; ***p =  < 0.01

Full size image

Discussion

The relationship between SDOH, mental health, substance-use and recidivism was examined in a population of women who participated in Connections for the first time between 2008 and 2018. RTC group women were significantly younger; with higher proportions identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, having lower educational attainment and limited work experience compared to no-RTC group women. These findings are consistent with existing research that has found younger age, low educational attainment, unemployment and being a First Nations person or person from a culturally and linguistically diverse community to be correlated with recidivism [71,72,73,74,75].

Pathways to reimprisonment

Larger proportions of RTC group women reported a history of drug use (prior to imprisonment), were currently incarcerated for substance-related offences and reported substance-use (either using drugs (other than prescribed) or having a problem with alcohol) since release from prison compared to no-RTC group women. In addition, substance-use since release from prison increased the odds of recidivism by 80% compared to women who did report substance-use since release. These findings not only confirm the association between substance-use and pathways to imprisonment reported elsewhere [16, 21, 23, 76], but also indicate that substance-use after release is a pathway to reimprisonment, specifically for women.

Pathways to substance-use post-release

Whilst predictors of recidivism have gained attention due to the increasing number of people who RTC after release, to-date no paper has examined associations between SDOH, mental health and substance-use after release from prison among women. As a result, we sought to understand if any SDOH or mental health were associated with substance-use post-release. Our results illustrate that poor mental health in tandem with ongoing social support, child-custody, financial and housing needs were individually associated with substance-use post-release.

Substance-use was increased by nearly threefold among women who had a mean score of < 50 on the SF-12, indicating poor mental health; by threefold for women who reported ongoing social support needs (i.e., negative social support); by twofold for women who reported ongoing financial problems; and the odds of substance-use were increased by 80% among women who reported ongoing child-custody (85%) and housing (81%) needs.

Whilst these SDOH increased the odds of substance-use, it is potentially through the understandable worry and distress these issues cause. Furthermore, as substance-use can be influenced by a variety of causes, it is unrealistic to assume that a single variable would explain a causal relationship. Although our data cannot test whether poor mental health came prior to substance-use, other research recognises poor mental health as a common pathway to substance-use uptake [66, 68, 77, 78]. These studies highlighted that not only did mental distress precede the onset of substance-use but long-term substance-use (as a form as self-medication) led to substance dependency, a known pathway to imprisonment [21, 79, 80]. In addition, literature reviewing ways to improve/support abstinence shows that negative (or inadequate) social support [81], issues regaining custody of children [82] and child removal [83,84,85], financial stress [86,87,88,89] and housing insecurities [90, 91] can increase the risk of substance-use via triggering mental distress.

Finally, the mediation models found that ongoing housing, financial, child-custody and social support needs were associated with substance-use only via poor mental health when it was added as a mediating variable. Domestic violence, however, had partial indirect effects onto substance-use through mental health, as the indirect effect did not cancel out the direct effect (path c’) when the mediator was introduced. Therefore, we argue that substance-use should be understood and treated in conjunction with co-occurring mental health in this population.

Previous literature has highlighted how broader structural barriers impact women’s transition to the community in regard to: the real challenges women face trying to obtain appropriate housing as a result of cost/affordability and the sheer paucity of government-funded housing [92,93,94,95]; gendered barriers to gaining meaningful employment and therefore reduced opportunities for financial independence [96,97,98,99]; the catch-22 of trying to regain child-custody after a period of imprisonment but needing appropriate housing and a stable job that suits the needs of children to show stability [98, 100]; and how custody length, along with co-occurring substance-use and mental health, and socioeconomic disadvantage can further impact these ongoing needs for women who are exiting prison to the community [101, 102].

Therefore, unless changes are made at a social–political–environmental level to address these broader structural barriers (i.e., upstream SDOH), then prison and post-release policies and programmes are limited in how much they can support women with co-occurring substance-use and mental health issues, particularly in terms of achieving long-term sustainable outcomes. Moreover, with consideration of SDOH and a harm prevention approach to (re)incarceration, what is required is targeted resourcing of women’s services providing holistic wraparound support for women to improve access to appropriate and long-term housing, income support/employment opportunities, restoration of children, and domestic and family violence. Such support could see reductions in poor mental health and therefore reduced rates of substance-use post-release.

Strengths and limitations

Research including incarcerated women has focussed too heavily on recidivism and individual behaviour, rather than on the broader social determinants of reimprisonment. This study extended our knowledge of the relationship between SDOH, mental health, substance-use and recidivism among women with histories of substance-use in a large Australian sample over ten years. These results are of value to decision makers in relation to policies and programmes that wish to improve community integration and reduce recidivism among women. As Connections focused on patients with substance-use histories, our findings may not be generalizable to the wider women’s prison population. However, considering most women in prison report a history of substance-use and poor mental health, the results of this study can potentially be applied to a larger number of women in prison in Australia and worldwide.

A number of study limitations should be considered when interpreting these results. Self-reported data is known to have its biases [103]. Higher proportions of women identified SDOH issues at baseline compared to still having that need at follow-up. We cannot reasonably expect that most patients needs have been met during the eight week support provided by Connections. However, given the aims of Connections is to provide linkage to community-based services, we can postulate that most of the needs would have been addressed (and linked) by CSW. In addition, we also suggest that context (78% of women were on probation after release), increased agency and sensitivity of the nature of many follow-up questions (i.e., housing status in the community, domestic violence, substance-use, etc.) may have reduced the response rate and impacted findings from reporting bias due to stigmatisation around substance-use, and or fear it might jeopardise their survival, reunification of their children, or government benefits and council housing applications/policies [104,105,106,107,108,109].

Recidivism is one of the most fundamental measures used in criminal justice research [110,111,112,113]. However, by grouping women based on their RTC status at two years post-release we decontextualize a complex series of events that explains why women returned to custody. Future prospective research in this area should endeavour to use a suite of recidivism events such as survival time in the community, offence type and severity. Such a suite of measures could give readers and policy makers a clearer view of the post-release experience and challenges women face after release from prison. The pre- and post-release assessments were designed as general health and wellbeing assessments for people in prison with histories of substance-use to identify the individual needs of each patient. They were not designed to capture the specific needs of women or people from different cultural groups. We acknowledge that colonisation and its ongoing impacts shape social, political and cultural determinants of First Nations people’s health and that neither this context, nor First Nations people’s health frameworks, have been captured by these assessments.

Conclusion

Results from this study highlight that women who use substances after release from prison are more likely to return-to-custody. Substance-use post-release was seen to be influenced by SDOH, in the context of mental distress in some cases. Therefore, any policy or programme that aims to reduce recidivism for women must address social determinants of co-occurring substance-use and mental health. This requires political commitment to ensure services and programmes are resourced to provide holistic support for women exiting prison, as well as resourcing across the broader social welfare system to address housing affordability and funding for women’s services. Such a commitment could see improved wellbeing and reductions in substance-use following release and therefore recidivism.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

SDOH:

Social determinants of health

NSW:

New South Wales

CSWs:

Connections clinical support workers

RTC:

Return-to-custody

No-RTC:

Did not return-to-custody

SF-12:

Short form-12 health survey

SPSS:

IBM statistical package for the social sciences

AOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

b:

Beta efficiency

SE:

Standard error

HREC:

Human Research Ethics Committee

References

  1. The World Health Organisation. What are social determinants of health? . 2015; http://www.who.int/social_determinants/sdh_definition/en/

  2. Krieger N. A glossary for social epidemiology. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2001;55(10):693–700.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Marmot M, Bell R. Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health. 2012;126(Suppl 1):S4-s10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sheiham A. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. A report of the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) 2008. Commun Dent Health. 2009;26(1):2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Braveman P, Egerter S, Williams DR. The social determinants of health: coming of age. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:381–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dignan M. Socioeconomic status and health in industrial nations: social, psychological and biological pathways. Psychosom Med. 2001;63(2):329–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organisation. Social determinants of health. 2023 [cited 2023 March 13]; https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1

  8. Baldry E, et al. People with mental and cognitive disabilities: Pathways into prison. Background Paper. Sydney: School of Social Science and International Studies, UNSW, 2013.

  9. McCausland R, Baldry E. Who does Australia Lock Up? the social determinants of justice. Int J Crime Justice Soc Democracy, 2023.

  10. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, The health of Australia’s prisoners 2018. AIHW: Canberra, 2019.

  11. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, The health and welfare of women in Australia’s prisons. Canberra: AIHW, 2020.

  12. Carlton B, Segrave M. Rethinking women’s post-release reintegration and ‘success.’ Aust N Z J Criminol. 2016;49(2):281–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stalans SJ. Women’s offending behavior: evidence-based review of gender differences and gender responsive programs. Vict Offenders. 2009;4(4):405–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Langan NP, Pelissier BM. Gender differences among prisoners in drug treatment. J Subst Abuse. 2001;13(3):291–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jamin D, et al. “My first 48 hours out”: drug users’ perspectives on challenges and strategies upon release from prison. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18(1):32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Fearn NE, et al. Trends and correlates of substance use disorders among probationers and parolees in the United States, 2002–2014. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;167:128–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Fazel S, Yoon IA, Hayes AJ. Substance use disorders in prisoners: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis in recently incarcerated men and women. Addiction. 2017;112(10):1725–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Baldry E, et al. Ex-prisoners, homelessness and the state in Australia. Aust N Z J Criminol. 2006;39(1):20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson J, et al. “I know if I drink I won’t feel anything”: substance use relapse among depressed women leaving prison. Int J Prison Health. 2013;9(4):169–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rousseau D, et al. Empowering through embodied awareness: evaluation of a peer-facilitated trauma-informed mindfulness curriculum in a woman’s prison. Prison J. 2019;99(4):14S-37S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moore KE, et al. Reentry interventions that address substance use: a systematic review. Psychol Serv. 2020;17(1):93–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Prisoners in Australia. Canberra, 2021.

  23. Begun AL, Rose SJ, LeBel TP. Intervening with women in jail around alcohol and substance abuse during preparation for community reentry. Alcohol Treat Q. 2011;29(4):453–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. World Health Organisation. Women's Health in Prison: Correcting Gedner Inequity in Prison Health. 2009; http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/76513/E92347.pdf

  25. Volkow ND, et al. Drug use disorders: impact of a public health rather than a criminal justice approach. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):213–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wolff N, Shi J. Childhood and adult trauma experiences of incarcerated persons and their relationship to adult behavioral health problems and treatment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(5):1908–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tripodi SJ, Pettus-Davis C. Histories of childhood victimization and subsequent mental health problems, substance use, and sexual victimization for a sample of incarcerated women in the US. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2013;36(1):30–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Addressing women's victimisation histories in custodial settings. Australian Government Canberra, 2012.

  29. Karlsson ME, Zielinski MJ. Sexual victimization and mental illness prevalence rates among incarcerated women: a literature review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2018;21(2):326–49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Vaswani N, Paul S. ‘It’s knowing the right things to say and do’: challenges and opportunities for trauma-informed practice in the prison context. Howard J Crime Justice. 2019;58(4):513–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tuxhorn R (2021) “I’ve got something to live for now”: a study of prison nursery mothers. J Critical Criminology, 2021: p. 1–21.

  32. Salem BE, et al. At a crossroads: reentry challenges and healthcare needs among homeless female ex-offenders. Int Assoc Forensic Nurses. 2013;9(1):14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. World Health Organisation. Women's Health in Prison: Correcting Gender Inequity in Prison Health. 2009; http://www.euro.who.int/data/assets/pdf_file/0004/76513/E92347.pdf

  34. Moloney KP, van den Bergh BJ, Moller LF. Women in prison: the central issues of gender characteristics and trauma history. Public Health. 2009;123(6):426–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Petrillo M. The corston report: a review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. Probat J. 2007;54(3):285–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Edwards L, et al. A systematic review of post-release programs for women exiting prison with substance-use disorders: assessing current programs and weighing the evidence. Health Justice. 2022;10(1):1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Nowotny KM, et al. Risk profile and treatment needs of women in jail with co-occurring serious mental illness and substance use disorders. Women Health. 2014;54(8):781–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Corrective Services, Australia. Jun-quarter-2023 21/09/2023 [cited 2023 September 23]. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/corrective-services-australia/latest-release#cite-window1

  39. Australian Law Reform Commission. Recidivism and prior record of imprisonment. 2018 [cited 2021 September 20]. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/pathways-to-justice-inquiry-into-the-incarceration-rate-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-alrc-report-133/3-incidence/recidivism-and-prior-record-of-imprisonment/

  40. Sentencing Advisory Council. Released prisoners returning to prison. 2023 29 June 2023 [cited 2023 September 22]. https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sentencing-statistics/released-prisoners-returning-to-prison

  41. Statistics ABO, Corrective Services, Australia. 2020.

  42. Phelan L, Sotiri M, Scott M. Profile of women in prison in NSW. Part A: A Snapshot. The Keeping Women out of Prison (KWOOP) Coalition NSW, 2020.

  43. Baldry E. Women in transition: from prison to…. Curr Issues Crim Justice. 2010;22(2):253–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sullivan E, et al. Recidivism, health and social functioning following release to the community of NSW prisoners with problematic drug use: study protocol of the population-based retrospective cohort study on the evaluation of the connections program. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e030546.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia’s health 2014., In Australia’s health series no. 14. Canberra: AIHW, 2014.

  46. Ansari Z, et al. A public health model of the social determinants of health. Soz Praventivmed. 2003;48(4):242–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Turrell G, Mathers CD. Socioeconomic status and health in Australia. Med J Aust. 2000;172(9):434–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shavers VL. Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99(9):1013–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The social determinants of health: it’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(Suppl 2):19–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Wooditch A, Tang LL, Taxman FS. Which criminogenic need changes are most important in promoting desistance from crime and substance use? Crim Justice Behav. 2013;41(3):276–99.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ogloff JRP, Davis MR. Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: contributions of the risk–needs–responsivity approach. Psychol Crime Law. 2004;10(3):229–42.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Larson CO. Use of the SF-12 instrument for measuring the health of homeless persons. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(3):733–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Bellali T, et al. Health-related quality of life of prisoners with diabetes mellitus. J Forensic Leg Med. 2020;73: 101971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Burdine JN, et al. The SF-12 as a population health measure: an exploratory examination of potential for application. Health Serv Res. 2000;35(4):885–904.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Vilagut G, et al. The mental component of the short-form 12 health survey (SF-12) as a measure of depressive disorders in the general population: results with three alternative scoring methods. Value Health. 2013;16(4):564–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gill SC, et al. Validity of the mental health component scale of the 12-item short-form health survey (MCS-12) as measure of common mental disorders in the general population. Psychiatry Res. 2007;152(1):63–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sanderson K, Andrews G. The SF-12 in the Australian population: cross-validation of item selection. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2002;26(4):343–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Salyers MP, et al. Reliability and validity of the SF-12 health survey among people with severe mental illness. Med Care. 2000;38(11):1141–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Janca E, et al. Sex differences in suicide, suicidal ideation, and self-harm after release from incarceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2022;58(3):355.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. King EA, Tripodi SJ, Veeh CA. The relationship between severe mental disorders and recidivism in a sample of women released from prison. Psychiatr Q. 2018;89(3):717–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fries L, Fedock G, Kubiak SP. Role of gender, substance use, and serious mental illness in anticipated postjail homelessness. Soc Work Res. 2014;38(2):107–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. IBM Corp, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Released 2020: Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

  63. Brinkley-Rubinstein L. Incarceration as a catalyst for worsening health. Health Justice. 2013;1(1):3.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Andersson HW, Wenaas M, Nordfjærn T. Relapse after inpatient substance use treatment: a prospective cohort study among users of illicit substances. Addict Behav. 2019;90:222–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Farahmand P, Modesto-Lowe V, Chaplin MM. Prescribing opioid replacement therapy in US correctional settings. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2017;45(4):472–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Turner S, et al. Self-medication with alcohol or drugs for mood and anxiety disorders: a narrative review of the epidemiological literature. Depress Anxiety. 2018;35(9):851–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Falk DE, Yi HY, Hilton ME. Age of onset and temporal sequencing of lifetime DSM-IV alcohol use disorders relative to comorbid mood and anxiety disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;94(1–3):234–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Robinson J, et al. Self-medication of anxiety disorders with alcohol and drugs: results from a nationally representative sample. J Anxiety Disord. 2009;23(1):38–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. xvii, 507-xvii, 507, 2013.

  70. Rijnhart JJM, et al. Mediation analysis methods used in observational research: a scoping review and recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):226.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Scott CK, et al. Predictors of recidivism over 3 years among substance-using women released from jail. Crim Justice Behav. 2014;41(11):1257–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Greiner LE, Law MA, Brown SL. Using dynamic factors to predict recidivism among women: a four-wave prospective study. Crim Justice Behav. 2015;42(5):457–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Staton-Tindall M, et al. Factors associated with recidivism among corrections-based treatment participants in rural and urban areas. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015;56:16–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Katsiyannis A, et al. Adult recidivism in united states: a meta-analysis 1994–2015. J Child Fam Stud. 2018;27(3):686–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. De Rooy K, Bennett S, Sydes M. Women released from custody: investigating risk factors and reoffending. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019;63(13):2239–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Johnson H. Factors associated with drug and alcohol dependency among women in prison, in trends & issues in crime and criminal justice. Canberra, 2006.

  77. Robinson J, et al. Role of self-medication in the development of comorbid anxiety and substance use disorders: a longitudinal investigation. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(8):800–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Davies G, et al. The role of lifestyle in perpetuating substance use disorder: the lifestyle balance model. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2015;10(1):2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Fazel F, Yoon IA, Hayes AJ. Substance use disorders in prisoners: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis in recently incarcerated men and women. Addiction. 2017;122(10):1725–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Bello JK, et al. Trends in substance use by gender among participants in a jail-based substance use disorder treatment program: 1998–2016. J Forensic Sci. 2020;65(1):97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Binswanger IA, et al. Return to drug use and overdose after release from prison: a qualitative study of risk and protective factors. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2012;7(1):3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Gobena EB, et al. The lived experience of motherhood after prison: a qualitative systematic review. Women Crim Just. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2022.2030274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Sankaran V, Church C, Mitchell M. A cure worse than the disease: The impact of removal on children and their families. Marq L Rev. 2018;102:1161.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Enlander A, Simonds L, Hanna P. Using the power threat meaning framework to explore birth parents’ experiences of compulsory child removal. J Comm Appl Soc Psychol. 2022;32(4):665–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Abbott L, et al. Compulsory separation of women prisoners from their babies following childbirth: uncertainty, loss and disenfranchised grief. 2021.

  86. Belle D. Poverty and women’s mental health. Am Psychol. 1990;45(3):385–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Belle D, Doucet J. Poverty, inequality, and discrimination as sources of depression among U.S. women. Psychol Women Q. 2003;27(2):101–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Kuruvilla A, Jacob KS. Poverty, social stress and mental health. Indian J Med Res. 2007;126(4):273.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Smith K, Flatley J. Drug misuse declared: findings from the 2010/11 British crime survey. England Wales Home Office, 27; 2011.

  90. Herbert CW, Morenoff JD, Harding DJ. Homelessness and housing insecurity among former prisoners. RSF Russell Sage Found J Soc Sci. 2015;1(2):44–79.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Keene DE, Smoyer AB, Blankenship KM. Stigma, housing and identity after prison. Sociol Rev. 2018;66(4):799–815.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Gilmour T. Pathways home: NSW community housing’s role delivering better outcomes for people exiting corrective services, H.A. Network, Editor. 2018.

  93. Keene DE, et al. Navigating limited and uncertain access to subsidized housing after prison. Hous Policy Debate. 2018;28(2):199–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Pinner, J., Ensuring safe, secure housing options for people leaving prison. Shelter NSW: Sydney, Australia, 2021.

  95. Acosta S, Gartland E. Families wait years for housing vouchers due to inadequate funding: expanding program would reduce hardship, improve equity. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2022.

  96. Sheppard A, Ricciardelli R. Employment after prison: navigating conditions of precarity and stigma. Eur J Probat. 2020;12(1):34–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Butcher KF, Park KH, Piehl AM. Comparing apples to oranges: differences in women’s and men’s incarceration and sentencing outcomes. J Labor Econ. 2017;35(S1):S201–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. KPMG, Diversity Council of Australia, and W.G.E. Agency., She's Price(d)less: the economics of the gender pay gap. 2022.

  99. Flower S. Employment and female offenders: an update of the empirical research, in Gender-responsive strategies for women offenders. National Institute of Corrections: Washington DC, 2010.

  100. Stone U. I'm still your mum: mothering inside and outside prison. RMIT University, 2013.

  101. Cracknell M. Post-release reforms for short prison sentences: re-legitimising and widening the net of punishment. Probat J. 2018;65(3):302–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Australian Law Reform Commission, Short sentences of imprisonment, Australian Government, Editor. 2017.

  103. Bound J, Brown C, Mathiowetz N. Measurement error in survey data. In: Handbook of econometrics. Elsevier; 2001. p. 3705–843.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  104. van Olphen J, et al. Nowhere to go: How stigma limits the options of female drug users after release from jail. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2009;4(1):10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Stone R. Pregnant women and substance use: fear, stigma, and barriers to care. Health Justice. 2015;3(1):2.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Rosenman R, Tennekoon V, Hill LG. Measuring bias in self-reported data. Int J Behav Healthc Res. 2011;2(4):320–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Althubaiti A. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:211–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Bauhoff S. Self-report bias in estimating cross-sectional and treatment effects. In: Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands; 2014. p. 5798–800.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  109. Brenner PS, DeLamater J. Lies, damned lies, and survey self-reports? Identity as a cause of measurement bias. Soc Psychol Q. 2016;79(4):333–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Leverentz A et al. Beyond recidivism: new approaches to research on prisoner reentry and reintegration. 2020.

  111. Duwe G. The use and impact of correctional programming for inmates on pre- and post-release outcomes, National Institute of Justice, Editor. U.S. Department of Justice: Minnesota Department of Corrections 2017.

  112. King R, Elderbroom B. Improving recidivism as a performance measure, In: Justice policy center brief. Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC. 2014.

  113. Urban Institute, Measuring recidivism at the local level: a quick guide. n.d.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

Nil.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Layla Maree Edwards & Sungwon Chang

  2. Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network, Malabar, Australia

    Reem Zeki, Julia Bowman, Craig Cooper & Elizabeth Sullivan

  3. The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Sacha Kendall Jamieson

  4. University of Newcastle Australia, Newcastle, Australia

    Reem Zeki & Elizabeth Sullivan

Authors
  1. Layla Maree Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sungwon Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Reem Zeki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sacha Kendall Jamieson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julia Bowman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Craig Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elizabeth Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LE, RZ, SC, SKJ, JB and ES contributed to the conception and design of the study. LE performed the data analysis under the supervision of RZ and SC. LE, RZ, SC, SKJ, JB, CC and ES contributed to interpretation of the results. LE drafted the manuscript and RZ, SC, SKJ, JB, CC and ES revised it for critically important intellectual content. Finally, all authors approved of the manuscript to be submitted for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Sullivan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The project titled Recidivism, health and social functioning following release to the community of NSW prisoners with problematic drug use: an Evaluation of the Connections Program (i.e., Connections) is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funded project, which this study is embedded. Ethics approval for this project was granted from NSW Population and Health Services Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (HREC/16/CIPHS/17); Aboriginal Health Medical Research Council HREC (1187–16); Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network HREC (Reference Number: G217-16); Corrective Services NSW Ethics Committee (D190221581); University of Technology Sydney (ETH18-2587); and the University of Newcastle (H-2020–0074).

Consent for publication

We confirm that all authors have given their approval for the submission of this manuscript. In addition, a complete draft manuscript was sent to the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AH&MRC) HREC for review, as per their ethics agreement. This agreement states that any research outputs that include First Nations people must be submitted for review by the AH&MRC HREC for feedback and consultation prior to publication. This manuscript was submitted on 03/07/2023 and approved by the AH&MRC HREC on 18/07/2023.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables

Table 6 Social determinants of health and complex health variables—data dictionary
Full size table

6,

Table 7 Mediation of the effect of social determinants of health on substance-use through mental health
Full size table

7.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Edwards, L.M., Chang, S., Zeki, R. et al. The associations between social determinants of health, mental health, substance-use and recidivism: a ten-year retrospective cohort analysis of women who completed the connections programme in Australia. Harm Reduct J 21, 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00909-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00909-4

Keywords

Harm Reduction Journal

ISSN: 1477-7517