| Literature DB >> 29482529 |
Kimberly R Dong1, Aviva Must2, Alice M Tang2, Curt G Beckwith3, Thomas J Stopka2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals on probation experience economic disadvantage because their criminal records often prohibit gainful employment, which compromises their ability to access the basic components of wellbeing. Unemployment and underemployment have been studied as distinct phenomenon but no research has examined multiple determinants of health in aggregate or explored how these individuals prioritize each of these factors. This study identified and ranked competing priorities in adults on probation and qualitatively explored how these priorities impact health.Entities:
Keywords: Criminal justice; Employment; Food insecurity; Homeless; Hunger; Probation; Social determinants of health; Substance use
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29482529 PMCID: PMC5828298 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5201-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Selected demographic characteristics of probationers interviewed in Rhode Island, 2016 (n = 22)
| Characteristics | No (%) or Median (IQR)a |
|---|---|
| Gender Identification | |
| Male | 15 (68) |
| Female | 7 (32) |
| Age (years) | 31 (27, 48) |
| Race/ethnicity | |
| Hispanic/Latino(a) | 5 (23) |
| White | 17 (77) |
| Black | 5 (23) |
| Time spent on current probation term (months) | 24 (12, 60) |
| Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) participation | 16 (73) |
| Anxiety about having enough foodb | 12 (55) |
| Had dependents (of any age) to provide for | 17 (77) |
| History of illicit drug use (not including marijuana) | 10 (45) |
| Weight statusc | |
| Normal Weight | 7 (32) |
| Overweight | 6 (27) |
| Obese | 8 (36) |
aIQR = Interquartile range (25th%ile and 75th%ile)
bAnxiety about having enough food was assessed by asking the question, “Tell me about whether or not you go through periods of time when you are not sure you will be able to get enough food”
cDetermined by Body Mass Index (weight (kilograms)/height (meters)2) standard cutoffs which was calculated based upon self-reported height and weight
Priorities ranked in a study of adults on probation in Rhode Island, 2016 (n = 22)
| Priority | No (%) That Ranked the Priority | Mean Rank Score (SD) | No (%) Ranking the Priority Highest (Score = 1) | Range of Ranking Scores |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substance Use Recovery | 9 (41) | 1.78 (1.30) | 6 (27) | 1–4 |
| Employment | 13 (59) | 2.15 (1.14) | 4 (18) | 1–5 |
| Housing | 14 (64) | 2.36 (1.15) | 4 (18) | 1–5 |
| Food | 15 (68) | 2.60 (1.35) | 4 (18) | 1–5 |
| Providing for Others | 12 (55) | 3.00 (1.91) | 4 (18) | 1–6 |
| Other | 7 (32) | 3.29 (2.36) | 2 (9) | 1–7 |
| Healthcare | 12 (55) | 3.75 (1.35) | 1 (5) | 1–5 |
SD = standard deviation
Fig. 1Probationers’ ranked priorities as they relate to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Rhode Island, 2016. This figure compares Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (left top triangle) with the ranked priorities of probationers (vertical arrow). Maslow’s basic needs, which comprises the bottom two levels of the pyramid (physiological and safety), were the basis for the pre-selected priorities for our qualitative study. The ranking of the priorities are depicted with the highest ranked priority (substance use recovery) on the bottom of the arrow in order to the lowest ranked priority (healthcare) at the top of the arrow. While most of the ranked priorities correspond with the basic needs of Maslow’s hierarchy, the priority of providing for others corresponds with Maslow’s psychological needs, which consist of “belongingness and love” and “esteem”. The priorities ranked by probationers are shaded in the same color of the corresponding level of Maslow’s hierarchy to demonstrate how these concepts are connected. Because the “other priorities” identified by probationers varied along Maslow’s hierarchy, this priority was left colored white. Qualitative findings present probationers’ perspectives related to each of the top ranked priorities. For the top four priorities, salient quotes support why these priorities were ranked of high importance by probationers are included in the side arrows. bLatina female, 25 years old; cLatina female, 64 years old; dWhite male, 54 years old; eWhite female, 33 years old
Additional thematic quotes from probationers in Rhode Island, 2016 (n = 22)
| Priority | Participant | Quote |
|---|---|---|
| SUBSTANCE USE RECOVERY | ||
| Why a priority |
|
|
| Substance use is not effective for coping |
|
|
|
|
| |
| EMPLOYMENT | ||
| Why a priority |
|
|
| Barriers to employment |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Types of jobs available |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Alternatives to employment |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Second chances lead to employment |
|
|
|
|
| |
| HOUSING | ||
| Housing milieu |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Barriers to housing |
|
|
|
|
| |
| FOOD INTAKE | ||
| High cost of food |
|
|
| Food insecurity |
|
|