The Gap Between Best Practices and Reality: A Systematic Review on the Interventions With Incarcerated Women

Abstract

Female incarceration rates are rising worldwide. Evidence has suggested important distinctions between women and men who commit crimes, with women presenting significant vulnerabilities related to adverse and traumatic experiences. This highlights the importance of developing prison interventions that adequately respond to these specificities, namely gender-responsive, trauma-informed, and needs assessment-based (such as the risk-needs-responsivity model). This review aims to describe recent psychosocial interventions delivered to imprisoned women, including their treatment modalities, targets, and theoretical models, ultimately analyzing the degree to which the recommended principles guide them. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, our search yielded 66 articles across 5 databases. The results showed that most studies targeted a wide range of treatment targets aligned with gender specificities. However, this was not the case for program duration, format, and multimodality, which were rarely adapted to women’s gendered and trauma-related needs, mostly consisting of group-based interventions, many under 12 sessions, and addressing specific targets. Additionally, only 29 studies reported interventions that were gender-responsive, 18 trauma-informed, and 5 based on the risk-needs-responsivity model. These results show a gap between the reality of the interventions that are being delivered to female prisoners and the best practices recommended by scientific literature.

Keywords

female criminality intervention during female imprisonment gender-responsive trauma-informed RNR

Introduction

Despite women constituting only about 7% of the global prison population, their incarceration rates are rising at a rapid pace, with a global increase of 57% since 2000 (Fair & Walmsley, 2022). Thus, women now represent one of the fastest-growing demographic in prisons (Castro Rodrigues et al., 2022; Grills et al., 2015), which, in turn, has intensified the need to address the unique physical, emotional, and social challenges they face within correctional systems and prompted a surge in research aimed at understanding and addressing the distinct needs of incarcerated women, particularly around issues of mental health, trauma, and substance abuse (Mejia et al., 2024).

However, most of the research in this field has historically focused on men, generally failing to address these gender-specific needs (Ang et al., 2025). This one-size-fits-all model has led to implementing male-centric interventions frequently ineffective or even detrimental when applied to women, overlooking the distinctive pathways that lead women to incarceration (Bloom & Covington, 2008; Castro Rodrigues et al., 2022). Higher rates of reoffending can then be the result of poor interventions, which do not seem to allow for the development of coping skills that are necessary to deal with their context upon reentering their communities (Chen, 2023).

Furthermore, pre-incarceration trauma has been shown to be very prevalent among women who have committed crimes, particularly in terms of personal victimization, mental health problems, and substance abuse (Balis, 2021). Thus, there is an urgent need to rethink the penal responses for these women (Fazel et al., 2016), designing gender-responsive treatment programs tailored to the specific needs of incarcerated women prior to their return and reintegration in their communities (Anderson et al., 2020), besides sanctioning the criminal behavior.

Trauma-informed and gender-responsive practices are being increasingly recognized as essential for the rehabilitation of female inmates, as they address issues stemming from past victimization, aiming to avoid re-traumatization in correctional environments and prioritizing safety, trust, and empowerment (Praetorius et al., 2017; Shortt et al., 2014; Sousa et al., 2024). These approaches are crucial given that incarcerated women are at higher risk for mental health issues, suicidal behaviors, and substance abuse and have distinct needs related to reproductive and general physical health (Gharagozloo et al., 2025; Swopes et al., 2017). Gender-responsive practices further address the specific life experiences and social roles of women, including the impact of separation from children, family, and support networks, factors that mostly affect women, as they are typically the primary caregivers (Bartlett & Hollins, 2018; Kulkarni et al., 2010; Mejia et al., 2024; Shortt et al., 2014). These practices recognize that women in prison often have histories of victimization, mental health struggles, and substance use disorders, requiring targeted, holistic interventions rather than punitive approaches (Kulkarni et al., 2010; Mejia et al., 2024).

The pathways theory (Daly, 1992) underscores that women’s involvement in crime often arises from survival mechanisms developed in response to abuse, economic marginalization, and trauma (Pollock & Pollock, 1998; Steffensmeier & Allen, 1996). As such, trauma-informed and gender-responsive programs should integrate mental health treatment, substance abuse interventions, and skills development to address the underlying causes of criminal behavior and promote long-term well-being (Covington et al., 2008). Regarding trauma, some conceptual distinction is needed. Although trauma-informed care/practice, trauma-informed treatment, and trauma-focused treatment denote different levels of trauma responsiveness, these terms are often applied interchangeably across intervention studies. Trauma-informed care typically refers to organizational principles emphasizing safety, empowerment, and avoidance of re-traumatization (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2014), whereas trauma-informed treatment involves clinician-delivered interventions that integrate these principles without engaging in direct trauma processing (Fallot & Harris, 2009). Trauma-focused treatments, by contrast, explicitly target the processing of traumatic memories using structured therapeutic modalities (Ford & Courtois, 2020). In practice, however, primary studies rarely articulate these distinctions consistently or in a theoretically transparent manner.

By incorporating comprehensive needs assessments, these programs can tailor interventions to the individual experiences and risk factors of incarcerated women, enhancing their effectiveness (Bloom et al., 2003). Thus, there has been a growing interest in therapeutic approaches that can more effectively address these individuals’ multifaceted challenges (Covington, 2022): This aligns with the Bangkok Rules (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2011), which recognizes the need for trauma-informed correctional policies that integrate comprehensive mental health and addiction services. These standards advocate for healthcare and rehabilitative measures that align with the specific needs of incarcerated women, fostering recovery and reducing recidivism (Bartlett & Hollins, 2018; Steiner & Meade, 2016).

The introduction of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model in the 1990s sought to enhance rehabilitation outcomes by matching intervention intensity to individuals’ criminogenic risks and needs (Bonta & Andrews, 2023). The RNR model stipulates three main principles for an effective rehabilitation of people who offend, namely the risk principle – which advocates that the intervention intensity should match the individual’s risk; the need principle – which states that intervention should target the individuals’ criminogenic needs, that is, the dynamic component of the risk factors that predict recidivism (i.e., antisocial behavior, substance misuse) and, the responsivity principle – which asserts that the intervention should match the offenders’ learning skills (general responsivity) and it should address personal characteristics that could impact the extent to which the individual might benefit from the intervention (specific responsivity; Bonta & Andrews, 2023; Parisi et al., 2025). Gender has been identified as a key responsivity factor (Duwe & Clark, 2015). Despite this, women have a range of static and dynamic gender-specific needs associated with recidivism that are not directly addressed by the RNR framework (Messina & Esparza, 2022). Considering that the RNR remains the dominant framework for best practices in correctional services (Crocker & Leclair, 2025) and its widespread impact on correctional intervention policies, it is crucial to examine how programs following this model can enhance their responsiveness for women (Parisi et al., 2025). Several studies revealed that gender-neutral risk needs assessment and interventions were not well suited for women who committed crimes (see Van Voorhis, 2022). As research continues to expose the limitations of conventional correctional approaches, the RNR model aligned with trauma-sensitive and gender-responsive principles is pointed as offering a promising path forward in enhancing the well-being and rehabilitation of incarcerated women (Covington, 2022). Indeed, the literature has shown that gender-responsive and trauma-informed approaches are more effective in reducing female recidivism (Covington, 2022; Gobeil et al., 2016; Summers et al., 2024) and have a positive impact in secondary outcome measures (i.e., anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); Messina et al., 2010) when compared to gender-neutral approaches, which are often based on male experiences (Covington et al., 2008).

Accordingly, this systematic review intends to analyze the extent to which recent psychological interventions delivered to imprisoned women adhere to gender-responsive, trauma-informed principles and align with the RNR model.

Current Study

A few reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted on the topic of interventions with female prisoners (Agarwal & Draheim, 2024; Ang et al., 2025; Bartlett et al., 2015; Criss & John, 2025; Macdonald et al., 2025; Rosenfeld et al., 2024; Sousa et al., 2024; Van der Ploeg, 2024). However, they present some limitations and/or are fundamentally different from this one: some focused on specific designs (i.e., randomized control trails [RCT], quasi experimental), leaving out case or pilot studies (Ang et al., 2025; Criss & John, 2025) or on specific evidence-based programs (i.e., Seeking Safety; Agarwal & Draheim, 2024). Others included interventions focused on specific mental health challenges (i.e., PTSD; Rosenfeld et al., 2024; Van der Ploeg, 2024); drug use (Macdonald et al., 2025) or on crime (i.e., sex crimes against children; Sousa et al., 2024), or were focused on a broader female forensic population (i.e., women offenders in forensic health services, institutionalized or in the community; Bartlett et al., 2014). So, although evidence on intervention effectiveness has grown, limited attention has been given to how programs are framed and whether they report adherence to recommended models for working with imprisoned women. This gap informed the rationale for the current study. Thus, the current study aims to broadly and comprehensively review and describe the interventions designed and/or delivered to incarcerated adult women, assessing the extent to which these programs align with trauma-informed, gender-responsive, and RNR principles. By mapping the current landscape of prison-based interventions for women in these terms, this review will evaluate whether contemporary correctional practices reflect scientific advances and identify areas for future research and policy development.

Method

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021). Moreover, it was registered on OSF REGISTRIES (registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/J57PF).

Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria were established using the PICOS framework: Participants (P), Intervention (I), Comparison (C), Outcome (O), and Study Design (S). To be included in this systematic review, the following criteria had to be met: studies with adult incarcerated women (P), who underwent an individual or group intervention in prison or jail (I), with or without a comparison group (C), and with any psychological outcomes (O). All kinds of study designs were accepted (S). For this systematic review, we define as an intervention any activity conducted in the prison context that aims to address psychological, emotional, and/or behavioral issues or needs in incarcerated women. We restricted the review to psychological interventions and psychological outcomes to ensure conceptual coherence with the gender-responsive, trauma-informed, and RNR frameworks, which are theoretically grounded in psychological models and typically operationalized within psychologically based treatments.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) studies not written in English or Portuguese; (b) published before 2014; (c) studies with both male and female participants in which the results are not disaggregated by gender; (d) literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses; (e) gray literature; and (f) studies in which the intervention is not detailed. The exclusion criteria (b) was established to ensure that the review captured evidence produced in the last decade, reflecting current conceptualizations and implementation standards of gender-responsive, trauma-informed, and RNR-aligned interventions. These frameworks have evolved substantially in recent years, particularly in relation to trauma-informed practice (following SAMHSA’s 2014 guidelines) and the integration of gender-responsive principles in correctional settings. Including older studies would have introduced conceptual heterogeneity and limited comparability with contemporary intervention models.

Search Sources/Search Strategy/Data Sources

Studies were identified through the following databases: Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, B-On, and PsycNet. The initial search was conducted in May 2024, and an additional search was performed in March 2025, by three independent researchers. The following equation was used to search for suitable articles by title, abstract, and keywords: (psychological AND intervention* OR therapy OR intervention AND program* OR psychotherapy OR rehabilitation) AND (wom?n OR female*) AND (inmate* OR prisoner* OR incarcerated OR crim*). Additional relevant references were added through the analysis of other reviews assessing in-prison interventions that were not detected through database searches (Agarwal & Draheim, 2024; Ang et al., 2025; Auty et al., 2017; Beaudry et al., 2021; Byrne & Ghráda, 2019; Canada et al., 2020; Criss & John, 2025; Galway et al., 2022; Hidayati et al., 2023; Macdonald et al., 2025; Malik et al., 2023; Roberts et al., 2017; Rosenfeld et al., 2024; Stijelja & Mishara, 2022; Villafaina-Domínguez et al., 2020; Winicov, 2019; Yoon et al., 2017).

Study Selection and Data Extraction Procedures

Following the search process, the extracted data were imported into Rayyan. Duplicate articles were deleted, and titles and abstracts were screened against the inclusion criteria previously defined, enabling the selection of papers for full-text reading and analysis. These steps were conducted by three independent raters and assisted by a fourth reviewer, who resolved discrepancies when disagreements persisted after discussion.

The papers that met the inclusion criteria were fully read and relevant data were extracted, according to the following topics: (a) reference details (i.e., authors and year), (b) country where the intervention took place, (c) study design, existence of control group and sampling technique, (d) sample characteristics (i.e., size, subsample), (e) type of intervention, (f) treatment modalities (i.e., format, duration, and facilitators), (g) treatment targets, and (h) intervention responsiveness (i.e., gender-responsive, and/or trauma-informed, and/or based on the RNR model). In this review, the classification of interventions as gender-responsive, trauma-informed, or aligned with the RNR model was based exclusively on explicit statements made by the authors of the primary studies. We intentionally avoided reinterpreting or re-evaluating whether interventions “truly” met these frameworks, as such an assessment would exceed the scope of a systematic review and introduce substantial subjectivity. These frameworks are well established and widely recognized in the literature; therefore, when authors adopt them, they typically report this directly. Conversely, the absence of such claims was treated as meaningful, and no assumptions were made. This procedure ensured methodological transparency and prevented the imposition of external judgments on peer-reviewed interventions whose theoretical fidelity had already been evaluated through the publication process. Coding decisions were therefore purely descriptive and based on what was explicitly reported in each article.

Methodological Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the studies included in this systematic review was independently assessed by two of the authors using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018). This tool aims to appraise the methodological quality of different categories of studies (e.g., qualitative, RCT, non-RCT, quantitative descriptive, and mixed methods), through an evaluation of two screening questions and five items classified as either yes, no, or can’t tell. Therefore, each study could range from a score of 0 to 5, and, in case of disagreements, those were resolved by a third author.

Results

The search strategy used in this systematic review identified a total of 1.226 articles. Fourteen extra papers were identified through the examination of previously published reviews, totalizing 1.240 recorded articles. Of these, a total of 188 were duplicates and were removed. As a result, a total of 1.052 titles and abstracts were assessed for eligibility. This initial screening yielded 174 papers for full-text reading. Thereafter, 108 papers were excluded due to distinct reasons: wrong target population (n = 13); other setting than a prison or jail (n = 3); not assessing psychological outcome (n = 5); lacking a description of the intervention (n = 14); systematic review or meta-analysis (n = 31); not reporting data by gender (n = 27); reporting on secondary data (n = 2); written in other languages than English or Portuguese (n = 3); published prior to 2014 (n = 2), and no access (n = 8). A total of 66 articles met our eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

Quality Assessment

Out of 66 articles, 6 met all 5 of MMAT’s criteria; 13 met 4 criteria, 21 met 3, 19 met 2 criteria, and 7 met only 1 of MMAT’s criteria (see Table 1). The most prevalent limitations of the assessed studies are: lack of a representative sample of the target population, the outcome assessors not being blind to the provided intervention, failure to present complete outcome data, and failure to consider confounding factors in the data analysis.

Table 1.

Studies’ Intervention Characteristics.

Study	Country	Design control group sampling	Sample characteristics	Type of intervention	Treatment modalities (format, duration, and facilitators)	Treatment targets	Gender Responsive	Trauma Informed	RNR	Quality Assessment (MMAT Criteria)
Bahrami et al. (2016)	Iran	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); multistage random sampling	70 women above cut-off in Buss and Perry Agression Questionnaire	Anger management education; psychoeducation	Group; 4 sessions; N/A	Mental health and aggression	No	No	No	4
Billington et al. (2016)	United Kingdom	Qualitative; N/A; convenience sampling	35 women	Shared reading – specific literature-based intervention;	Group; 12 months; trained project workers	Mental health and well-being	No	No	No	5
Bove and Tryon (2018)	USA	Qualitative (phenomenological); (N/A); Criterion sampling	6 women	Stories of change – a community outreach project	Group; 18 months; female inmates	Stigma of being incarcerated	Yes	Yes	No	5
Bridges et al. (2020)	USA	Quasi-experimental (N/A); Convenience sampling	128 women with self-reported history of sexual victimization	SHARE; CBT	Group; 8 sessions; therapists	Depression and PTSD symptomatology; shame of trauma and victimization	Yes	Yes	No	3
Collica-Cox and Furst (2019)	USA	Quasi-experimental (N/A); purposive sampling	10 women, primary caregivers	Parenting program modeled after PIO + meditation and yoga + CPR, first aid and AED course + graduation/reunification day; CBT + mindfulness	Group; 14 classes + 6-hr CPR, first aid and AED course; PI	Parental stress, anxiety, depression, self-esteem, contact with children and confidence in parenting skills	No	No	No	2
Collica-Cox and Furst (2020)	USA	Quasi-experimental (N/A); purposive sampling	11 women, primary caregivers	Parenting Program modeled after PIO + meditation and yoga + CPR, first aid and AED course + Graduation/Reunification day; CBT + Mindfulness	Group; 14 classes + 6-hr CPR, First Aid and AED course; PI	Parental stress, anxiety, depression, self-esteem, contact with children and confidence in parenting skills	No	No	No	2
Dingle et al. (2023)	USA	RCT; control group; Random sampling	90 women (I = 49; C = 41)	Insight to well-being – acceptance-oriented, insight-based treatment approach; 3PrincipleModel (Mind + Consciousness + Thougths)	Group; 10 sessions; volunteers from various fields who received intensive training	Global mental health, emotion dysregulation, psychological inflexibility and trauma symptoms	No	No	No	3
Duwe and Clark (2015)	USA	Retrospective quasi-experimental; control group; convenience sampling	4,101 women (I = 1,081; C = 3,021)	Moving On – cognitive-behavioral program; CBT; based on RNR	Group; 12 weeks; professionals with a minimum of 2-year experience in working with offenders	Recidivism, communication skills, interpersonal relationships, emotional expression	Yes	No	Yes	4
Eaton-Stull et al. (2022)	USA	RCT; control group; random sampling	32 women (I = 17; C = 15)	Grief support groups – animal-assisted therapy	Group, 6 sessions, therapy dogs and handlers	Bereavement symptoms	No	No	No	4
Fedock et al. (2019)	USA	Quasi-experimental (N/A); purposive sampling	26 women with life sentences	Beyond violence; CBT + psychoeducation	Group; 20 sessions; experienced mental health provider	Mental health and anger expression	Yes	Yes	No	3
Ferszt et al. (2015)	USA	Non-experimental (N/A); purposive sampling	33 women	Path to freedom – mindfulness-based program; MBCT	Group; 12 sessions; trained facilitator	Stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep	No	No	No	3
Ghelbash et al. (2021)	Iran	RCT; control group; Random sampling	90 women (I = 45; C = 45)	Logotherapy	Group; 10 sessions; therapist	Hope	No	No	No	4
González-Menéndez et al. (2014)	Spain	RCT; control group; random sampling	37 women with current polydrug abuse or dependence (ACT = 18; CBT = 19)	ACT vs. CBT	Group; 16 sessions; 1 ACT therapist and 1 CBT therapist	Drug abuse, mental health	No	No	No	2
Grills et al. (2015)	USA	Quasi-experimental (N/A); convenience sampling	96 women: introductory course = 58; advanced course = 38)	Choice theory connections; CBT	Group; 140 instructional hours; certified CT trainers	Cognitive and behavioral change	Yes	No	No	4
Guttman and Doss (2025)	USA	Quasi-experimental (N/A); convenience sampling	3,034 Participants: 1,274 women	OurRelationship – digital version; web-based adaptation of integrative behavioral couple Therapy	Individual (tablets); N/A	Romantic relationship quality	No	No	No	2
Holland et al. (2024)	USA	Quasi-experimental control group; convenience sampling	90 individuals: 48 fathers and 42 mothers (I = 21; C = 21)	PCIT-based BPT; evidence-based behavioral program;	Group; 9 sessions; female psychology doctoral students for the mothers’ group	Parental stress, parental knowledge of behavioral principles and parental attributions for child misbehavior	No	No	No	3
Holman, Ellmo, et al. (2020)	USA	Experimental (N/A); criterion sampling	20 women with a history of serious mental illness	Animal-assisted therapy	Group; 8 sessions; supervised counseling interns + therapy dog and handler	Anxiety	Yes	Yes	No	2
Holman, Wilkerson, et al. (2020)	USA	Quasi-experimental control group; Criterion sampling	19 women placed in a mental health unit inside prison (SS = 11; CAT = 8)	SS (CBT) vs. canine-assisted therapy	Group; 8 sessions; trained counselors (+ therapy dog and handler for CAT)	Mental health symptomatology – anxiety, depression and PTSD	No	Yes	No	2
Kamptner et al. (2017)	USA	Quasi-experimental (N/A); N/A	430 parents/guardians/other caregivers: 194 men and 236 women	Psychotherapeutic attachment-based parent education course	Group; 4-week cycles, 4×/week; trained Clinical-Counseling Psychology master’s students	Parents’ reported tendencies to be abusive, perceived efficacy and satisfaction in parenting role, psychological distress, and knowledge of child development and positive guidance strategies	No	No	No	2
Karlsson et al. (2014)	USA	Quasi-experimental (N/A); Purposive sampling	14 women	Brief exposure-based group therapy targeting sexual trauma; CBT	Group; 8 sessions; licensed clinical social worker and two supervised Clinical Psychology doctoral students	Sexual victimization, PTSD, depression, anxiety	Yes	Yes	No	3
Karlsson et al. (2020)	USA	Quasi-experimental (N/A); Purposive sampling	32 women	SHARE; CBT	Group; 8 sessions; 3 therapists	Sexual abuse sequelae, PTSD, depression, and anxiety	Yes	Yes	No	3
Kivlighan and Paquin (2014)	USA	Longitudinal; (N/A); Purposive sampling	73 women	Trauma recovery and empowerment model	Group; 22 sessions; doctoral-level counseling psychologist	PTSD symptoms	Yes	No	No	1
Kızılkaya et al. (2022)	Turkey	Quasi-experimental N/A; Convenience sampling	54 women (N/A)	Psychoeducational program	Group; 8 sessions; N/A	Social and problem-solving skills, empathy, and communication	No	No	No	3
Kubiak et al. (2014)	USA	Mixed-methods; (N/A); purposive sampling	35 women	Beyond violence; CBT + Psychoeducation	Group; 20 sessions; residential substance abuse treatment staff members	Violence perpetration and aggressive behavior	Yes	Yes	No	3
Kubiak et al. (2016)	USA	RCT; control group; random sampling	42 women (I = 24; TAU = 18)	Beyond violence vs. TAU; CBT + Psychoeducation	Group; 20 sessions; trained professionals	Recidivism and drug use relapse	Yes	Yes	No	4
Lanza et al. (2014)	Spain	RCT; control group; random sampling	50 women with a diagnosis of SUD (ACT = 18; CBT = 19; C = 13)	ACT vs. CBT vs. waitlist control group (C);	Group; 16 sessions; 1 ACT therapist and 1 CBT therapist	Drug abuse and psychopathology	No	No	No	4
Law and Guo (2014)	Taiwan	RCT; control group; random sampling	48 women convicted of drug offenses (I = 24; C = 24)	Reality therapy-based drug treatment	Group; 12 sessions; coauthor	Self-control, self-determination, drug abuse, and recovery	No	No	No	3
Law and Guo (2015)	Taiwan	RCT; control group; random sampling	40 substance-involved women (I = 20; C = 20)	Reality therapy-based drug treatment	Group; 12 sessions; 2 counselors	Self-efficacy in decision-making and social skills	No	No	No	2
Law and Guo (2017)	Taiwan	RCT; control group; random sampling	44 women convicted of drug offenses (I = 22; C = 22)	Choice-based reality therapy	Group; 12 sessions; psychologists	Hope	No	No	No	3
Lo et al. (2020)	Australia	Pilot; (N/A); convenience sampling	24 women: pre-release group = 6; long-term sentence = 13; aboriginal = 5	Group-based resilience training; positive psychology intervention + CBT + Mindfulness	Group; 9 sessions; experienced members of correctional staff	Resilience, psychological distress and well-being	No	No	No	3
Lo et al. (2020)	Australia	Pilot; (N/A); convenience sampling			Aboriginal group: group; bi-weekly sessions over 5 weeks; 2 female aboriginal trained correctional staff members	Resilience, psychological distress and well-being	No	No	No	3
Mahoney et al. (2015)	UK	Qualitative; (N/A); consecutive sampling	15 women with a history of substance misuse	Substance-related offending behavior program; CBT; based on RNR	Group therapy; 4–6 months; psychologists and other mental health professionals within the prison team	Substance-related offending behaviors and self-awareness	Yes	No	Yes	5
Mahoney et al. (2020)	UK	RCT; control group; random sampling	86 women (I = 44; C = 42)	Survive and thrive – psychoeducational intervention for complex trauma	Group; 10 sessions; N/A	Symptoms associated with complex interpersonal trauma	Yes	Yes	No	2
Mak and Chan (2018)	Hong Kong	RCT; control group; purposive sampling	75 women with psychological distress (I = 40; C = 35)	PSY GYM; CBT + Positive psychology intervention	Group; 16 sessions; specialized clinical psychologists	Psychological distress and psychological well-being	Yes	No	No	3
Mak et al. (2018)	Hong Kong	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); purposive sampling	19 women	PSY GYM; CBT + positive psychology intervention	Group; 37 sessions; specialized clinical psychologists	Psychological distress and psychological well-being	Yes	No	No	3
McKeown and McCrory (2019)	UK	Experimental; (N/A); purposive sample	4 women diagnosed with personality disorder	Life minus violence – enhanced – high-dosage cognitive-behavioral group intervention; CBT	Group; 3/week therapy sessions for 7 modules; trained CBT professional	Aggression and emotional regulation	No	No	No	2
Mejia et al. (2024)	USA	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); Purposive sampling	113 women	Female Offender Re-Entry Program; CBT; based on RNR	Individual and group sessions; N/A; recovery coaches and a mental health clinician	Substance use, psychiatric and trauma-related symptomatology, and psychosocial functioning	Yes	Yes	Yes	2
Messina et al. (2016)	USA	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); purposive sampling	91 women convicted of violent crimes: 29 incarcerated peer educators + 62 participants	Beyond violence; CBT + Psychoeducation	Group; 20 sessions; peer educators	Prevention of violence	Yes	Yes	No	4
Miller et al. (2014)	USA	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); purposive sampling	45 mothers	Parenting while incarcerated	Group; 12 sessions; certified interns from a local university and community partner agency staff	Parenting attitudes and skills	Yes	No	No	2
Nidich et al. (2017)	USA	RCT; control group; random sampling	22 women (I = 11; C = 11)	Transcendental meditation	1 individual session + 3 group follow-ups; 4 consecutive days; certified teachers	Trauma symptoms	No	No	No	3
Pankey et al. (2016)	USA	Pilot; (N/A); convenience sampling	6 women	Brief writing intervention	Group; 5-day writing intervention; researchers (health field)	Stress	No	No	No	1
Parisi et al. (2025)	USA	Qualitative; (N/A); purposive sampling	21 women	Thinking for a change: integrated cognitive behavior change program + Targeted Service Delivery approach; CBT; based on RNR	Group; 25 sessions + 5 therapeutic delivery strategies; trained facilitators	Skills to manage interpersonal conflicts	No	No	Yes	5
Pereira et al. (2023)	Brasil	Quasi-experimental; control group; convenience sampling	56 women (I = 15; C = 41)	Workshop interventions	Group; 3 months; researchers	Self-concept, empathy and basic values	Yes	No	No	1
Praetorius et al. (2017)	USA	Qualitative; (N/A); purposive sampling	132 women	Resolana program: case management + alcoholics anonymous, narcotics anonymous, and Al-Anon meetings + healthy relationship, communication and life-skills classes; Case management	Group; 2 intensive weeks + classes; nonprofit, community-centered agency workers	Intentionality, processing feelings, self-worth, solidarity, and emotional safety	Yes	Yes	No	4
Richner et al. (2023)	USA	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); purposive sampling	1,316 individuals: 656 women	Restorative justice intervention	Group; 8-hr session; RJI trained facilitators	Understand the impact of crimes on the victim(s) and the broader community	No	No	No	4
Riley et al. (2019)	Australia	Uncontrolled pragmatic pilot; (N/A); convenience sampling	59 women with a range of mental health symptomatology	Acceptance-based group therapy; ACT;	Group; 10 sessions; ACT trained therapist + aboriginal project officer	Depression, anxiety, and somatoform symptoms	No	No	No	3
Rocha et al. (2014)	Portugal	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); purposive sampling	28 women	Cognitive remediation training	Individual sessions; minimum of 20 sessions per participant; therapist	Neurocognitive functioning: cognitive flexibility, memory, and planning	No	No	No	2
Scudder et al. (2014)	USA	RCT; control group; random sampling	82 mothers (I = 42; C = 40)	PCIT-based class; Behavioral Intervention	Group; N/A; trained instructors	Parenting skills, parent-reported knowledge of child development, parenting stress, child abuse potential	No	No	No	5
Shortt et al. (2014)	USA	Quasi-experimental; control group; purposive sampling	47 mothers (Emotions = 29; C = 18)	Emotions: Taking care of yourself and your child when you go home; Psychoeducation	Group; 15 sessions; experienced masters-level interventionists	Emotional regulation and coaching, coping with the stress associated with maternal incarceration and transitioning home from prison	Yes	No	No	2
Sigler et al. (2020)	USA	Qualitative; (N/A); convenience sampling	58 women in segregated housing units	Healing trauma; CBT + Mindfulness + Expressive arts + Guided imagery	Group; 6 sessions; trained program coordinator	Trauma-related difficulties and aggressive behaviors	Yes	Yes	No	4
Sinaga et al. (2020)	Indonesia	Quasi-experimental; control group; proportionate stratified random sampling	88 women (I = 44; C = 44)	Group-based hope intervention	Group; 8 sessions; nurses	Depression symptomatology	No	No	No	1
Song et al. (2021)	China	Quasi-random trial; control group; N/A	80 women (MBCT = 25; theoretical = 30; C = 25)	Standard MBCT vs. theoretical learning group; based on RNR	Group; 8 weeks; MBCT-qualified teachers	Mindfulness, stress, depression, and anxiety	Yes	No	Yes	2
Stauss et al. (2018)	USA	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); Purposive sampling	16 Mothers	Letters to children	Group; 6 sessions; researchers	Communication and mother-child relationship	Yes	No	No	3
Stetina et al. (2020)	Austria	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); N/A	81 individuals with substance dependence syndrome: 50 men and 31 women	Dog-assisted group therapy	Group: 10-week program + weekly dog-assisted sessions; psychologist, pedagogue, therapy dog, and handler	Socio-emotional skills	No	No	No	1
Swopes et al. (2017)	USA	Quasi-experimental; Control group; Purposive sampling	95 women (I = 56; C = 39)	Helping women recover/beyond trauma; CBT + Psychoeducation + Expressive arts	Group; 4-month period; trained counselors	PTSD symptoms, self-efficacy related to substance use, negative posttraumatic cognitions	Yes	Yes	No	2
Teske et al. (2025)	USA	RCT; Control group; Random sampling	40 women (I = 20; C = 20)	Mindfulness-based ACT bibliotherapy	Group; 5-week; therapist	Anxiety and depression	No	No	No	1
Toews et al. (2018)	USA	Mixed methods; (N/A); N/A	18 women with subacute mental health diagnosis	Planting party – a nature-based therapeutic intervention	Group, 1-hr intervention, university landscape architecture faculty and students with members of the prison garden crew	Social-emotional well-being	No	No	No	2
Torkaman et al. (2020)	Iran	RCT; control group; random sampling	76 women (I = 35; C = 41)	Transactional analysis	Group; 8 sessions; psychologist, nursing PhD, and psychiatric nurse	Self-esteem	No	No	No	3
Tripodi et al. (2019)	USA	RCT; control group; random sampling	40 women with trauma and substance misuse history (SS = 20; C = 20)	Seeking safety; CBT	Group; 12 weeks, 2×/week; certified SS facilitator	Depression and PTSD symptomatology	Yes	Yes	No	3
Tripodi et al. (2022)	USA	Alternative treatment design; control group; purposive sampling	42 women (SS = 23; STAIR = 19)	SS vs. STAIR; CBT	Group; 25 modules; certified facilitator	Anxiety, depression, PTSD, and coping self-efficacy	No	Yes	No	3
Tsai (2024)	Taiwan	Mixed-methods, action research; (N/A); convenience sampling	20 women	Dance/movement therapy	Group; 6 sessions; board-certified dance/movement therapists, a counseling psychologist and a clinical psychologist	Emotional regulation and stress management	Yes	No	No	4
Turner et al. (2024)	Australia	Mixed methods; (N/A); Convenience sampling	15 women	Peace Education Program; based on the good lives model	Group; 10 modules; 6 retirees from professional backgrounds	Inner peace, self-identity, and self-regulation	No	No	No	4
Van der Meulen and Omstead (2021)	Canada	Observational; (N/A); convenience sampling	>30 women	Arts-based evaluation	Group; 9-week program, 2 hr/week; artists	Sense of community and artistic engagement	No	No	No	1
Walker et al. (2017)	UK	Quasi-experimental; control group; purposive sampling	113 women at risk of self-harm or suicide (I = 56; C = 57)	Psychodynamic interpersonal therapy	Individual; 4–8 sessions; trained mental health nurses, psychologists, occupational therapist, and clinical psychiatry trainees	Thoughts and actions of self-harm and suicide risk	No	No	No	3
Wendt and Fraser (2019)	Australia	Mixed methods; (N/A); convenience sample	13 women	Healthy relationships program; psychoeducation	Group; 8 modules; specialized social workers	Relationship skills, domestic violence awareness, and self-worth	Yes	No	No	5
Willy-Gravley et al. (2021)	UK	RCT; control group; random sampling	114 women (EMBER = 35; I = 43; general population control group = 35)	EMBER Yoga – Mindfulness-based emotional resilience program; MBCT	Group, 12 yoga classes, yoga therapy experienced teachers	Emotional regulation, body dissociation, and substance use relapse	Yes	Yes	No	2
S. Wright et al. (2014)	UK	Quasi-experimental; (N/A); N/A	70 women	Cracking up – psychoeducational comedy performance	Group; one comedy show; stand-up comedian	Mental health stigma, coping and help-seeking mechanisms	No	No	No	2

Note. ACT = acceptance and commitment therapy; AED = automated external defibrillator; C = control; CAT = canine assisted therapy; CBT = cognitive-behavioral therapy; CPR = cardiopulmonary ressuscitation; EMBER = embodied, mindfulness-based emotional resilience; I = intervention; MBCT = mindfulness based cognitive-therapy; MMAT = Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; N/A = not applicable; PCIT = parent-child interaction therapy; PSY GYM = psychological gymnasium; PI = principal investigator; PIO parenting inside-out; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RJI = Restorative Justice Intervention; RNR = risk-need-responsivity; SHARE = survivors healing from abuse: recovery through exposure; SS = seeking safety; TAU = treatment as usual; TM = transcendental meditation; UK = United Kingdom; USA = United States of America.

Included Studies

Sample’s Characteristics

Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 37; 56%). Other studies were conducted in the United Kingdom (n = 7; 10.6%), Australia (n = 4; 6.1%), Taiwan (n = 4); 6.1%, Iran (n = 3; 4.5%), Spain (n = 2; 3%), Hong Kong SAR (n = 2; 3%), Canada (n = 1; 1.5%), Austria (n = 1; 1.5%), Brazil (n = 1; 1.5%), Indonesia (n = 1; 1.5%), mainland China (n = 1; 1.5%), Turkey (n = 1; 1.5%), and Portugal (n = 1; 1.5%).

The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 4 (McKeown & McCrory, 2019) to 4,101 participants (Duwe & Clark, 2015), with a total of 9,328 participants (M = 141.33; SD = 523.71). Four studies included both men and women (Holland et al., 2024; Kamptner et al., 2017; Richner et al., 2023; Stetina et al., 2020).

Some studies focused on specific subsamples, such as parents/caregivers; women at risk of self-harm or suicide; women placed in Segregated Housing Units as disciplinary sanctions; women with a self-reported history of sexual victimization; women convicted of violent crimes or with above cut-off scores in aggression measures; women with a substance abuse history or with mental health issues, such as PTSD or other symptomatology, reflecting treatment targets (see Table 1).

Study Design

Design

Quasi-experimental pre–posttest studies were the most common (n = 27; 41%). Other designs included RCTs (n = 17; 25.8%), qualitative methodologies (n = 6; 9.1%), and mixed-methods design (n = 5; 7.6%). A smaller number of experimental (n = 2; 3%) and pilot studies (n = 2; 3%), as well as retrospective quasi-experimental (n = 1; 1.5%), non-experimental (n = 1; 1.5%), longitudinal (n = 1; 1.5%), quasi-random trial (n = 1; 1.5%), observational (n = 1; 1.5%), uncontrolled pragmatic pilot (n = 1; 1.5%), and alternative treatment design (n = 1; 1.5%) were also represented (see Table 1).

Control Group

Of the totality of included studies, 26 (39.4%) employed study designs with clearly defined control groups. Of those, 17 (65.4%) were in the context of RCTs (e.g., Mahoney et al., 2020; Tripodi et al., 2019; Willy-Gravley et al., 2021) and were either comparing interventions to standard care (treatment as usual [TAU]; Kubiak et al., 2016), comparing Beyond Violence with TAU – or alternative therapies. The remaining 40 studies (61%) lack the inclusion of a control group (see Table 1).

Sampling

The samples were typically drawn using purposive (n = 23; 34.8%), convenience sampling (n = 16; 24.2%), or random sampling methods (n = 16; 24.2%). Criterion sampling (n = 3; 4.5%), multistage random sampling (n = 1; 1.5%), proportionate stratified random sampling (n = 1; 1.5%), and consecutive sampling (n = 1; 1.5%) were also utilized. Five studies provided no information on this matter (7.6%; see Table 1).

Treatment Modalities

Format

Most of the studies implemented group-based interventions (n = 61), while three implemented individual interventions (Guttman & Doss, 2025; Rocha et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2017). Two adopted a combined format (Mejia et al., 2024; Nidich et al., 2017).

Duration

The duration of the included studies varied from a single hour session (Toews et al., 2018) to 37 sessions (Mak et al., 2018). Twelve-sessions’ programs were the most prevalent duration type (n = 6), followed by 16 sessions (n = 5), 10 sessions (n = 4), and 20 sessions (n = 4) (see Table 1). Additionally, 18 interventions were module or time-based, varying from 7 (McKeown & McCrory, 2019) to 25 modules (Tripodi et al., 2022), and from 2-week intensive training (Praetorious et al., 2017) to year-long interventions (Billington et al., 2016; see Table 1).

Treatment Targets

The treatment targets will be presented in seven main categories: mental health, interpersonal skills, intrapersonal skills, parenting, trauma, substance use, violence prevention and recidivism. Forty-one studies addressed mental health, namely depression (n = 11), anxiety (n = 9), overall well-being (n = 7), emotional (des)regulation (n = 6), stress (n = 4), psychological distress (n = 3), and bereavement symptoms (n = 1). Interpersonal skills were addressed in 12 (i.e., communication, n = 4; empathy, n = 2; social and problem-solving skills, n = 4; romantic relationship quality, n = 1; and sense of community and artistic engagement, n = 1), while seven studies focused on intrapersonal skills, addressing resilience (n = 2), self-esteem (n = 1), self-efficacy in decision-making (n = 1), self-regulation (n = 1), hope (n = 1), executive functioning, such as cognitive flexibility, memory and planning (n = 1), cognitive and behavioral change (n = 1), and mindfulness (n = 1). Fourteen interventions focused on parenting, specifically on parenting attitudes and skills (n = 5), parental stress (n = 4), mother-child relationships (n = 3), and parents’ anxiety, depression, and self-esteem (n = 2). Trauma-related problematics were attended to in 16 studies, targeting PTSD (n = 8), general trauma symptoms (n = 5), sexual abuse sequelae or victimization (n = 2), and shame of trauma (n = 1). Substance use interventions include substance use treatment (n = 3), relapse prevention (n = 2), self-efficacy in recovery (n = 2), and substance-related offending (n = 1). Finally, 10 studies targeted violence prevention and recidivism, particularly aggression/anger (n = 3), prevention of violence (n = 2), recidivism (n = 2), understanding the impact of crimes on the victims and the community (n = 1), stigma of incarceration (n = 1), and domestic violence awareness (n = 1).

Type of Intervention/Intervention Models

Intervention theoretical models or approaches are grouped into six main categories: cognitive‑behavioral therapy (CBT), third wave therapies, other psychological theoretical frameworks, psychoeducational and didactic workshops, animal‑assisted therapies, and arts‑based and expressive interventions.

Twenty-four programs were based on CBT. Among interventions based on third wave therapies, four employed acceptance and commitment therapy, three mindfulness‑based cognitive therapy, two Mindfulness to the Parenting Inside‑Out program, and one Embodied, Mindfulness-Based Emotional Resilience yoga protocol for emotional resilience.

Other psychological theoretical frameworks included logotherapy (n = 1), integrative behavioral couple therapy (n = 1), parent–child interaction therapy (n = 2), trauma recovery and empowerment model (n = 1), reality therapy (n = 3), positive psychology (n = 3), transactional analysis (n = 1), dance/movement therapy (n = 1), and psychodynamic interpersonal therapy (n = 1). Finally, five studies employed animal‑assisted therapy.

Psychoeducational and didactic workshops included anger management education programs (n = 5), four of them through the program beyond violence, meditation or yoga components within broader parenting programs (n = 2), social and problem-solving skills programs (n = 1), psychoeducational complex‑trauma curriculum (n = 2; survive and thrive and helping women recover/beyond trauma), healthy relationships or domestic violence awareness programs (n = 2), nature‑based “Planting Party” workshop (n = 1), and comedy performance (n = 1; “Cracking Up”). Furthermore, one study focused on the Peace Education Program, another examined workshops focused on self-concept, empathy, and basic values, and three focused on parental classes, such as an attachment-based course.

Arts‑based and/or expressive interventions included transcendental meditation (n = 1), shared reading groups (n = 1), expressive arts embedded within trauma‑healing curricula (n = 1), arts‑based evaluation sessions (n = 1), nature-based therapy (n = 1), comedy performance (n = 1; “Cracking Up”) (n = 1), and writing letters to children (n = 1), among others.

Finally, one study focused on bridging the gap between prison and community through presentations in high schools; one used the three principle model; one focused on the Resolana Program, a holistic in-prison program aimed at the underlying issues of addiction; one focused on Restorative Justice; one was a cognitive remediation intervention; one focused on hope, and one addressed a nature-based intervention.

Interventions Responsiveness

From the total of the studies included, 29 (44%) detailed programs aimed to address the idiosyncratic life experiences and social roles of women, such as mothers, partners, or community members (see Table 1). Helping Women Recover/Beyond Trauma (Swopes et al, 2017), Female Offender Re-Entry Program (Mejia et al., 2024), or Substance-Related Offending Behavior Program (Mahoney et al., 2015) are examples of such programs.

Furthermore, 18 studies employed trauma-informed interventions, such as, Beyond Violence (Kubiak et al., 2014, 2016), aimed at preventing violence perpetration and reducing trauma-related symptoms; Seeking Safety (Tripodi et al., 2019) or SHARE: Survivors Healing from Abuse: Recovery Through Exposure (Karlsson et al., 2020).

Lastly, only five studies appear to comply with the RNR model (Duwe & Clark, 2015; Mahoney et al., 2015; Mejia et al., 2024; Parisi et al., 2025; Song et al., 2021). Additionally, one study (Turner et al., 2024) focuses on the good lives model and another (Praetorius et al., 2017) adopts case management as a fundamental practice to better align the goals of the intervention with the needs of each participant. The study by Mejia et al. (2024) seems to present a framework compatible with these three principles.

Discussion

In the last decades, literature has been advocating for gender specificities regarding the pathways to incarceration, as well as the circumstances and effects of prison (Grills et al., 2014; Kubiak et al., 2016; Mejia et al., 2024), that is, gender differences in terms of vulnerabilities prior to the crime, during imprisonment, and after release. These vulnerabilities are shown to be related to adverse and traumatic experiences (e.g., Grills et al., 2014). However, programs traditionally developed to intervene with offenders (often based on male-centric models) tend not to consider gender factors and histories of victimization, which are very present in the trajectory of individuals that committed crimes, especially in the case of women (Bove & Tryon, 2018; Collica-Cox & Furst, 2020; Kubiak et al., 2014). This calls for gender-specific and trauma-responsive interventions, designed based on proper needs assessments, that address these gender factors. This systematic review aimed to analyze the recent literature regarding interventions delivered to imprisoned women, determining whether these initiatives align with the best practices recommended by recent literature, namely being gender-responsive, trauma-informed, and based on the RNR model. The focus on these intervention principles, as well as the inclusion of different study designs distinguish this review from previous ones, allowing for a more precise and broad perspective on the reality of psychological interventions with incarcerated women (Agarwal & Draheim, 2024; Ang et al., 2025; Bartlett et al., 2014; Criss & John, 2025; Macdonald et al., 2025; Rosenfeld et al., 2024; Van der Ploeg, 2024).

Firstly, we highlight the number of included papers. Although we reached a considerable pool of papers for a systematic review, considering our broad research question – psychological interventions for incarcerated women -, this pool is quite small, especially since some studies refer to the same intervention program, such as Beyond Violence (Fedock et al., 2019; Kubiak et al., 2014, 2016; Messina et al., 2016). In fact, if we consider the total number of women who participated in the included interventions, these represent only 1.26% (n = 9.328) of the total estimated incarcerated women in the world, which is over 740.000 (Fair & Walmsley, 2022).

Regarding methodological quality, most studies (n = 40; 60.6%) reported acceptable quality and a low risk of bias. However, 26 (39.4%) did not exhibit acceptable quality with 7 (10.6%) meeting only one criterion and 19 (28.8%) meeting 2, thus posing a bias risk. Several of the observed limitations are quite comprehensive in prison research, especially when conducted with women. Namely, the lack of a representative sample and the use of a convenience sample are common aspects since, in many cases, such as the Portuguese context, the prison administration decides upon the selection of participants, imposing limits in sample size, and access to participants. On the other hand, it is also common that the outcome assessors are not blind to the provided intervention, whether due to limited human and time resources, or due to other concerns related to the relational and support aspects of these interventions and studies. Additionally, the failure to present complete outcome data, related to experimental mortality and dropout rates, is a very prevalent issue in prison research, as there are many factors that can disrupt the participants’ attendance to the intervention (Loper & Tuerk, 2011). However, this remains an important aspect, as literature suggests that dropping out is associated with higher rates of recidivism (Olver et al., 2011).

Moreover, we have observed variations regarding the presence or absence of control groups, which significantly influenced methodological rigor, as well as the strength of the findings and the ability to draw causal inferences about the interventions’ efficacy. Of the totality of included studies, only 26 (36.4%) employed study designs with clearly defined control groups, thus allowing for more robust comparisons and stronger conclusions about the intervention effects (e.g., Dingle et al., 2023; Duwe & Clark, 2015). However, it is important to highlight the challenge that this methodological step brings to research with small groups, which is many times the case for the studies with imprisoned women (Tripodi et al., 2011).

Furthermore, most included studies were conducted in the United States, highlighting the country’s strong research focus on interventions for incarcerated women (e.g., Bridges et al., 2020; Guttman & Doss, 2025; Kamptner et al., 2017). Contributions from non-English-speaking countries, although fewer in number, provided valuable perspectives on interventions in diverse cultural and socioeconomic contexts. We highlight, for example, the studies by Law and Guo (2014, 2015, 2017), which provide an overview of the Taiwanese context. Nevertheless, these results call for the need to expand the literature on psychological interventions with incarcerated women worldwide, which, in turn, reflect the need to increase the interventions being delivered to these women (Collica-Cox & Furst, 2020).

Regarding intervention format, group-based programs were the most common, offering cost-effective delivery and peer interaction (e.g., Eaton-Stull et al., 2022; Fedock et al., 2019; Mak & Chan, 2018). Nevertheless, we might discuss whether these group-based interventions properly address individual needs. Although group interventions may have several advantages (Karlsson, 2015), caution must be exercised to ensure that they do not neglect individual needs and allow for working with emotions often difficult to be expressed in group interactions, such as shame and guilt (Mahoney et al., 2015; Mejia et al., 2024; Walker et al., 2017). Although much more complex to implement, in terms of time and human resources, individual formats allow for more flexible interventions, which may better respond to individuals’ specific needs, as advocated by gender-responsive approaches (Davies, 2019). Additionally, individual formats may also allow for a more accurate progress assessment, further aligning with trauma-informed principles (Davies, 2019; Walker et al., 2017). Indeed, according to a systematic review on the effectiveness of trauma-focused approaches among incarcerated individuals, individualized treatments led to more significant reductions in PTSD symptoms when compared to group-based interventions (Malik et al., 2023). Also, in the study by Mejia et al. (2024), the researchers mention working with recovery coaches to provide assistance throughout the intervention and to be aware of potential barriers to recovery, valuing this individual approach.

The reviewed studies encompassed a wide range of treatment targets addressing the specific needs of incarcerated individuals, such as mental health, interpersonal skills, intrapersonal skills, parenting, trauma, substance use and, finally, violence prevention, and recidivism. Although this set of intervention targets aligns with the gender-specific needs reported in previous studies, some ideas must be discussed. First, these needs are often worked in a fragmented way; that is, most studies focus on a particular issue, or a small constellation of issues, which leaves others unattended. As several studies recognize that criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs often co-occur, programs are more effective when they have multiple intervention targets (Mejia et al., 2024; Praetorius et al., 2017; Van Voorhis, 2022). Obviously, it is not possible to address all these needs in one single program, but the multimodal approaches with recognized efficacy must be reflected in the number of sessions of the programs. In the included studies, although the majority report 12 or less sessions, 19 of the 66 delivered group interventions were below this number of sessions. Such a multimodal format is not feasible to accomplish in a small number of sessions (Mahoney et al., 2015; Mak et al., 2018; Parisi et al., 2025). Nevertheless, the relevance of this result, we must consider the hypothesis that many carceral settings might offer several treatments, providing women with multiple treatments that in combination might have multiple targets. However, besides the fact that this diversity is not offered in many contexts, this fragmentation, itself, compromises a general availability of this multimodal response.

A related issue concerns the distinction between trauma-related and general mental health outcomes, as treatment targets. Across the included studies, authors varied widely in how they framed symptoms such as anxiety or depression: sometimes as trauma-related processes, sometimes as broader psychological outcomes. Given this inconsistency, our categorization followed the terminology used by each study to preserve methodological transparency. This variability underscores the need for clearer reporting of how trauma-specific mechanisms are defined and targeted within interventions for imprisoned women.

An important finding of this systematic review was that only 29 (44%) of the 66 papers are gender-responsive. Considering all the literature advocating for the advantages of this approach, this result is quite disappointing. Although gender-responsive interventions show larger effect sizes in reducing recidivism than gender-neutral (Bridges et al., 2020; Collica-Cox & Furst, 2020; Gobeil et al., 2016; Messina et al., 2016), our findings show that this is not the predominant paradigm of the interventions currently delivered in female prisons.

Additionally, these gender responsive interventions call for the recognition of the pathways of trauma (e.g., Auty et al., 2022; Bove & Tryon, 2018; Gobeil et al., 2016; Shortt et al., 2014; Song et al., 2021; Tsai, 2024). Our results also show that only 18 (27.3%) of the 66 interventions were trauma-informed, despite the effectiveness of this approach in responding to female prisoners’ specific needs, such as the subjective experiences of anxiety, depression, and PTSD (Holman, Ellmo, et al., 2020a; Mejia et al., 2024; Swopes et al., 2017; Tripodi et al., 2022; Willy-Gravley et al., 2021). From these 18, 16 (88.9%) are also gender-responsive, whereas the other 2 solely comply with trauma-informed principles. Thus, from the 29 gender-responsive interventions, only 16 (55.2%) explicitly state trauma-informed concerns (e.g., Sigler et al., 2020; Swopes et al., 2017; Tripodi et al., 2019; Willy-Gravley et al., 2021).

Finally, despite the RNR model’s longstanding influence in correctional rehabilitation, explicit RNR grounding – particularly in a gender-responsive form – was rare in the studies included. Only five (7.6%) interventions were clearly based on RNR principles, and four (6%) of these incorporated gender-responsive elements (Duwe & Clark, 2015; Mahoney et al., 2015; Mejia et al., 2024; Parisi et al., 2025; Song et al., 2021). This scarcity reflects a broader pattern: although RNR has often been treated as the dominant “what works” framework (Bonta & Andrews, 2023), its translation to women has been limited and uneven (Messina & Esparza, 2022; Van Voorhis, 2022). A key reason is that RNR was originally developed and validated primarily in male samples, prompting concerns that gender-neutral applications may overlook the relational, contextual, and trauma-related factors that shape women’s pathways into, and experiences within, the criminal justice system (Van Voorhis, 2022). As a result, many interventions for women target specific needs – such as trauma recovery, emotional regulation, or relational functioning – but do so without explicitly locating these components within a structured RNR framework, or specifying how women’s life circumstances and trauma sequelae should be incorporated into responsivity and delivery (Van Voorhis, 2022). This matters because, without clear articulation of risk, criminogenic needs, and responsivity factors – including gendered and trauma-liked considerations – programs may struggle to demonstrate consistent recidivism reductions or to target the drivers of offending in a systematic, testable way (E. M. Wright et al., 2012). At the same time, a more complex view of RNR is warranted. Recent synthesis work has challenged the strength and independency of the evidence base underpinning RNR claims, highlighting inconsistencies across meta-analyses and raising concerns about study quality, transparency, and potential authorship bias (Fazel et al., 2024). Importantly, however, these conclusions have been contested. Commentaries argue that parts of the umbrella review operationalized RNR principles too narrowly – risk was not consistently assessed as risk-treatment matching, and the need principle was partly inferred from predictive performance of risk tools rather than from whether programs successfully target criminogenic needs – thereby underestimating RNR’s theoretical coherence and practical value (McGuire et al., 2025). Taken together, this debate suggests that the central question is not whether RNR should be abandoned, but how it can be specified and evaluated more rigorously – particularly for women – using transparent, independent designs and outcomes that reflect both rehabilitation targets and women’s gendered contexts (Fazel et al., 2024; McGuire et al., 2025). In line with this, our systematic review highlights a clear gap between recommended best practices and the reality of current interventions. Future programs would benefit from implementing RNR principles more explicitly while integrating gender-responsive and trauma-informed evidence within responsivity – so that women’s trauma histories, relational needs, caregiving responsibilities, and structural vulnerabilities are treated as core design parameters rather than peripheral adaptations (Phillips et al., 2022; Van Voorhis, 2022). The invisibility of several female characteristics related to their specific needs and functioning (such as trauma-based reactions of acting out, discrete mental health needs that are only noticed when exacerbated into critical events, etc.) may give the illusion that gender-responsive interventions are unnecessary and, in turn, discourage the further development of effective service delivery models for women (Van Voorhis, 2022). In correctional systems, commonly characterized by chaotic functioning, what is not assessed is often not seen or taken into consideration (Van Voorhis, 2022). If we are not intentionally looking for something, it may seem not to be lacking. However, the experience of prior adversity may impair individuals’ capacity to benefit from structured rehabilitation efforts, reducing their effectiveness in preventing recidivism, which is, as stated, particularly common among women who committed crimes. This underscores the growing emphasis on gender-responsive and trauma-informed interventions designed to address these underlying vulnerabilities more directly.

Prison should serve not merely as a space of confinement, but as a potential platform for change (Bove & Tryon, 2018), by an opportunity to intervene addressing women’s unique needs (Collica-Cox & Furst, 2020; Grills et al., 2014), in terms of changing lifelong patterns of violence, addiction, and unsatisfying relationships and building productive lives with greater emotional literacy and increased prosocial behavior. This systematic review shows that this opportunity has not yet been seized, not in terms of systematic, worldwide widespread intervention, nor in terms of the degree of intentionality and specialization that interventions of this nature should address to provide the most effective results.

A final idea to discuss relates to the conceptual ambiguity within the trauma literature, which presents a challenge for interpreting the findings of this review, namely the distinction, presented in the introduction, regarding the concepts of trauma-informed care/practice, trauma-informed treatment, and trauma-focused treatment. As we stated, primary studies rarely articulate these distinctions consistently or in a theoretically transparent manner. As such, within this review, differentiating these categories was not methodologically feasible. The level of intervention detail varied substantially across studies, and many provided insufficient information to support reliable classification beyond the authors’ chosen terminology. Because this review synthesized evidence across broader frameworks – gender-responsive, trauma-informed, and RNR-aligned approaches – introducing additional sub-categorizations would have required subjective reinterpretation and risked compromising analytic consistency. Accordingly, we adopted a conservative strategy by coding trauma-related frameworks strictly as reported.

A parallel issue arises regarding gender terminology. Terms such as gender-sensitive, gender-informed, and gender-responsive are frequently used with limited definitional precision, despite indicating different degrees of integration of gendered pathways and needs. While gender-sensitive approaches acknowledge that gender shapes experiences of risk, need, and engagement, gender-responsive interventions explicitly tailor program content and delivery to women’s lived experiences and relational contexts (Bloom et al., 2003; Covington, 2008). Yet, as with trauma terminology, inconsistent reporting prevented systematic differentiation in the present review. For coherence and methodological transparency, gender-related classifications were therefore extracted exactly as reported by the primary authors.

Taken together, these challenges point to a broader field-wide issue: the absence of clear conceptual boundaries and consistent reporting practices in studies of interventions for justice-involved women. This limits cross-study comparability, constrains the precision of evidence syntheses, and hampers the cumulative development of theory-driven intervention models. Strengthening the conceptual and reporting coherence of trauma- and gender-related frameworks represents an essential next step for advancing scholarship in this area.

Limitations

Despite the contributions of this work, some limitations need to be addressed. First, the inclusion criteria may have led to the omission of several interventions. However, given our focus on empirically validated interventions clearly described in the articles, those criteria were methodologically relevant and necessary for this review. A related limitation of this review is that the classification of interventions as gender-responsive, trauma-informed, or RNR-aligned relied solely on explicit statements in the primary studies. Because we did not independently audit the theoretical fidelity or accuracy of intervention frameworks, it is possible that some interventions may incorporate components consistent with these models without explicitly naming them. Our decision was intentional, as inferring such classifications would introduce subjectivity, exceed the scope of a systematic review, and risk misrepresenting the original authors’ intended descriptions. Thus, our findings reflect what the literature currently reports, rather than an external evaluation of the adequacy or completeness of these frameworks within each intervention. In line with this, we would like to encourage the authors to clearly state if their interventions are aligned with TI, GR, and RNR principles, or any other framework, to allow for more accurate research reports. In addition, the restriction to papers written in Portuguese and English might also have left out interventions described in other languages. Another limitation relates to the interventions’ heterogeneity, in terms of intervention targets, implementation modalities and formats, and theoretical frameworks. Although this diversity was itself a goal of this review, at the same time, it adds additional complexity to the task of describing the results and selecting the core information to highlight. Another limitation is the lack of assessment of the interventions’ effectiveness in the included articles. This goal is crucial but could not be adequately addressed in this paper without losing the degree of detail necessary to respond to the core question of this review. As such, assessing the effectiveness of these interventions should be addressed in future research.

Conclusion

Despite our disconcerting findings, aligned with the most recent literature, we advocate that developing and implementing RNR, gender-responsive, and trauma-focused interventions, correctional systems can not only improve the well-being of incarcerated women but also support their successful reintegration into the community, contributing to better long-term outcomes (Bove & Tryon, 2018; Mejia et al., 2024). We realize that the adoption of these frameworks brings additional challenges in prison settings (e.g., Kubiak et al., 2014), since they tend to be, in their current formats and practices, dangerous and disempowering (Holman, Wilkerson, et al., 2020) and not characterized by the safety and security necessary to create trauma-informed environments (Auty et al., 2022). However, studies revealed that it is possible to deliver interventions focusing on gender and trauma (e.g., Kubiak et al., 2014; Mejia et al., 2024). In fact, beyond these challenges, trauma-informed practices may be, in some way, an extension and implementation of good practices in the prison context (Auty et al., 2022; see Table 2 regarding the critical findings).

Table 2.

Critical Findings.

Critical findings
- There is a gap between best practices recommended for imprisoned women and the actual interventions they receive. - The literature on intervention with women who commit crimes is scarce and mostly from English-speaking regions, not covering the diversity of geographical, cultural, and juridical contexts worldwide. - Most interventions with imprisoned women are delivered in groups, although individual work is relevant to this group’s needs. - Intervention targets reflect gender specificities, but not with multiple targets as is recommended by the literature on risk factors for people with traumatic experiences. - Most studies on the interventions with imprisoned women present methodological limitations. - Few studies reported that they adhered to any of the key principles of being gender-responsive, trauma-informed, or aligned with the risk-need-responsivity model, let alone including all of these important components.

Critical findings

- There is a gap between best practices recommended for imprisoned women and the actual interventions they receive.
- The literature on intervention with women who commit crimes is scarce and mostly from English-speaking regions, not covering the diversity of geographical, cultural, and juridical contexts worldwide.
- Most interventions with imprisoned women are delivered in groups, although individual work is relevant to this group’s needs.
- Intervention targets reflect gender specificities, but not with multiple targets as is recommended by the literature on risk factors for people with traumatic experiences.
- Most studies on the interventions with imprisoned women present methodological limitations.
- Few studies reported that they adhered to any of the key principles of being gender-responsive, trauma-informed, or aligned with the risk-need-responsivity model, let alone including all of these important components.

Such an approach regarding prison intervention, particularly with women, also implies and feeds a change in the paradigm of who the people who commit crimes are and what it is that they need. This shift implies changing the questioning from what is wrong with people who committed crimes to what happened to them (Auty et al., 2022), changing the mindset of criminal justice from how they shall pay for their crimes to what we must do for and with them (see Table 3 with the implications for practice, policy, and research).

Table 3.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research
- The penal system must be reconsidered so that responses to imprisoned women align with current evidence on what works with this group. - Evidence-based interventions for imprisoned women should be delivered globally, and results disseminated widely to inform cross-cultural outcomes. - More scientific literature is needed on the interventions for imprisoned women. - Intervention for imprisoned women should address this group’s specificities in terms of needs, vulnerabilities, and responsiveness, thus being gender-responsive, trauma-informed, and based in a gender-sensitive risk-need-responsivity model.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

- The penal system must be reconsidered so that responses to imprisoned women align with current evidence on what works with this group.
- Evidence-based interventions for imprisoned women should be delivered globally, and results disseminated widely to inform cross-cultural outcomes.
- More scientific literature is needed on the interventions for imprisoned women.
- Intervention for imprisoned women should address this group’s specificities in terms of needs, vulnerabilities, and responsiveness, thus being gender-responsive, trauma-informed, and based in a gender-sensitive risk-need-responsivity model.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Andreia de Castro Rodrigues

Ana Rita Cruz

Sofia Knittel

Marta Sousa

Olga Cunha

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is funded with national funds from FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, I.P., in the context of the R&D Unit: UID/04810/2025 – William James Center for Research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Andreia de Castro Rodrigues, PhD, is an assistant professor, the co-director of the Master’s in Forensic Psychology at Ispa, and a researcher at WJCR. Currently, she is the PI of a project funded by the La Caixa Foundation (SR23-00172), dedicated to characterizing Portuguese female prisoners and their gender-specific needs.

Francesca Candus has a master’s in legal, forensic, and criminological psychology from “La Sapienza” University of Rome, Italy. She made an internship at WJCR, in the project funded by the La Caixa Foundation (SR23-00172), dedicated to characterizing Portuguese female prisoners and their gender-specific needs.

Ana Rita Cruz, PhD, is an assistant professor at the School of Psychology and Life Sciences, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal, and a researcher at Hei-Lab. She is currently the PI of a project funded by the La Caixa Foundation (FP24-1B011), dedicated to characterizing the needs of older prisoners.

Loraine Gelsthorpe, PhD, is a full professor at the Institute of Criminology of the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. Formerly director of the Institute of Criminology & Director of the Cambridge ESRC Doctoral Training Partnership, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. Founding director of the Centre for Community, Gender and Social Justice and co-founder of the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Global Human Movement.

Sofia Knittel has a master’s in clinical psychology (from Ispa), with her dissertation dedicated to the attitude of prison guards toward female criminality. Currently, she is the PI of a project funded by the La Caixa Foundation (SR23-00172), dedicated to characterizing Portuguese female prisoners and their gender-specific needs.

Marta Sousa, PhD, is an assistant professor at Lusófona University, Oporto, Portugal, and a researcher at Hei-Lab.

Emma Thouars da Silva has a master’s in forensic psychology (from Ispa), with her dissertation published in a paper, dedicated to self-control and psychopathy in women convicted of violent crimes. Currently, she is the PI of a project funded by the La Caixa Foundation (SR23-00172), dedicated to characterizing Portuguese female prisoners and their gender-specific needs.

Olga Cunha, PhD, is an assistant professor at the School of Psychology at the University of Minho and a researcher at the Psychology Research Center (CIPsi) in Braga, Portugal.

References

Agarwal

Draheim

A.A.

(2024). Seeking safety for women in incarceration: a systematic review. Archives of Women’s Mental Health 27, 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-023-01411-3

Anderson

J. D.

Pitner

R. O.

Wooten

N. R.

(2020). A gender-specific model of trauma and victimization in incarcerated women. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 30(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2019.1673272

Ang

Saat

Shittu

(2025). Prison-based psychological and social interventions to improve the well-being of women prisoners: A systematic review. Mental Health & Prevention, 37, 200405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2025.200405

Auty

Cope

Liebling

(2017). Psychoeducational programs for reducing prison violence: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.018

*Bahrami

Mazaheri

M. A.

Hasanzadeh

(2016). Effect of anger management education on mental health and aggression of prisoner women. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 5(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9531.184563

Balis

A. F.

(2021). Female prisoners and the case for gender-specific treatment and reentry programs. In Greifinger

R. B.

(Eds.), Public health behind bars: From prisons to communities (pp. 357–368). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1807-3_23

Bartlett

Hollins

(2018). Challenges and mental health needs of women in prison. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 212(3), 134–136. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2017.42

Bartlett

Jhanji

White

Harty

Scammell

Allen

(2015). Interventions with women offenders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health gain. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 26(2), 133–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2014.981563

Bartlett

Walker

Harty

M. A.

Abel

K. M.

(2014). Health and social care services for women offenders: current provision and a future model of care. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 25(6), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2014.944202

10.

Beaudry

Perry

Fazel

(2021). Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Psychiatry, 8, 759–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00170-X

11.

*Billington

Longden

Robinson

(2016). A literature-based intervention for women prisoners: Preliminary findings. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 12(4), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-09-2015-0031

12.

Bloom

Covington

(2008). Addressing the mental health needs of women offenders. In Gido

Dalley

(Eds.), Women’s mental health issues across the criminal justice system (pp. 160–176).

13.

Bloom

Owen

Covington

(2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. National Institute of Corrections.

14.

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2023). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003292128

15.

*Bove

Tryon

(2018). The power of storytelling: the experiences of incarcerated women sharing their stories. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(15), 4814–4833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18785100

16.

*Bridges

A. J.

Baker

D. E.

Hurd

L. E.

Chamberlain

K. D.

Hill

M. A.

Karlsson

Zielinski

M. J.

(2020). How does timing affect trauma treatment for women who are incarcerated? An empirical analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(6), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820903071

17.

Byrne

Ghráda

Á. N.

(2019). The application and adoption of four “third wave” psychotherapies for mental health difficulties and aggression within correctional and forensic settings: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 46, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.01.001

18.

Canada

Barrenger

Robinson

Washington

Mills

(2020). A systematic review of interventions for older adults living in jails and prisons. Aging & Mental Health, 24(7), 1019–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1584879

19.

Castro Rodrigues

de, Andrade

Gonçalves

R. A.

Cruz

A. R.

Cunha

. (2022). In or out: Justice-involved women characterization and their perceptions about penal sanctions. Women & Criminal Justice, 35, 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2022.2126743

20.

Chen

(2023). Empowering female offenders: A model and framework for practice. In Mayer

C.-H.

Vanderheiden

Braun-Lewensohn

Chen

Sueda

Mangolothi

Safdar

Kim

(Eds.), Women’s empowerment for a sustainable future: Transcultural and positive psychology perspectives (pp. 197–211). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25924-1_13

21.

*Collica-Cox

Furst

(2019). Parenting from a county jail: parenting from beyond the bars. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 40(7), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2019.1565877

22.

*Collica-Cox

Furst

(2020). Prisoner parenting: parenting from a federal jail. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 26(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345820916475

23.

Covington

S. S.

(2008). Women and addiction: A trauma-informed approach. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40(Suppl. 5), 377–385.

24.

Covington

S. S.

(2022). Creating a trauma-informed justice system for women. In Brown

S. L.

Gelsthorpe

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook on what works with girls and women in conflict with the law: A critical review of theory, practice, and policy (pp. 172–184).

25.

Covington

S. S.

Burke

Keaton

Norcott

(2008). Evaluation of a trauma-informed and gender-responsive intervention for women in drug treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 2008(Suppl 5), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2008.10400666

26.

Criss

John

(2025). Therapeutic interventions for mental wellness in correctional facilities: A systematic review. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 69(2–3), 224–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X231159884

27.

Crocker

A. G.

Leclair

(2025). From risky individuals to risky systems: a conceptual framework for the next generation of forensic mental health research. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 16, 1739679. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1739679

28.

Daly

(1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women's Studies, 2, 11–52. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959193.n69

29.

Davies

(2019). An examination of individual versus group treatment in correctional settings. In Polascheck

D. L. L.

Day

Hollin

C. R.

(Eds.). The Wiley international handbook of correctional psychology (pp. 575–589). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119139980.ch36

30.

*Dingle

Flowers

Bowen

(2023). Insight to wellbeing: A pilot randomized trial of a 3 principles intervention to the alleviation of psychological suffering among incarcerated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 62(8), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2023.2261915

31.

*Duwe

Clark

(2015). Importance of program integrity: outcome evaluation of a gender-responsive, cognitive-behavioral program for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12123

32.

*Eaton-Stull

Hotchkiss

Jones

Lilien

(2022). Bereavement behind bars: grief support groups with and without therapy dogs for incarcerated females. Bereavement, 1, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.54210/bj.2022.13

33.

Fair

Walmsley

(2022). World female imprisonment list. ICPR.

34.

Fallot

R. D.

Harris

(2009). Creating Cultures of Trauma Informed Care (CCTIC): A planning protocol. Alliance for Hope International.

35.

Fazel

Hayes

A. J.

Bartellas

Clerici

Trestman

(2016). Mental health of prisoners: prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(9), 871–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30142-0

36.

Fazel

Hurton

Burghart

DeLisi

(2024). An updated evidence synthesis on the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model: Umbrella review and commentary. Journal of Criminal Justice, 92, 102197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102197

37.

*Fedock

Kubiak

Bybee

(2019). Testing a new intervention with incarcerated women serving life sentences. Research on Social Work Practice, 29(3), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973151770027

38.

*Ferszt

G. G.

Miller

R. J.

Hickey

J. E.

Maull

Crisp

(2015). The impact of a mindfulness based program on perceived stress, anxiety, depression and sleep of incarcerated women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(9), 11594–11607. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120911594

39.

Ford

J. D.

Courtois

C. A.

(Eds.). (2020). Treating complex traumatic stress disorders in adults: Scientific foundations and therapeutic models (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

40.

Galway

Swales

Wane

(2022). The efficacy of offence-specific interventions in reducing risk and recidivism in women: a systematic review. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 33(3), 291–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2022.2053185

41.

Gharagozloo

Moridi

Alimardi

Behboodi Moghadam

(2025). Sexual and reproductive health needs of incarcerated women in Iran. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 6406. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-91200-y

42.

*Ghelbash

Yektatalab

Momennasab

Foruhi

(2021). Effect of group-based logotherapy on imprisoned women’s level of hope: A randomized controlled trial (RCT). International Journal of Prisoner Health, 17(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-05-2020-0032

43.

Gobeil

Blanchette

Stewart

(2016). A meta-analytic review of correctional interventions for women offenders: Gender-neutral versus gender-informed approaches. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815621100

44.

*González-Menéndez

Fernandéz

Rodríguez

Villagrá

(2014). Long-term outcomes of acceptance and commitment therapy in drug-dependent female inmates: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70033-X

45.

*Grills

Villanueva

Anderson

Corsbie-Massay

C. L.

Smith

Johnson

Owens

(2015). Effectiveness of choice theory connections: a cross-sectional and comparative analysis of California female inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(7), 757–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13520129

46.

*Guttman

Doss

B. D.

(2025). Impact of a digital relationship intervention for jailed individuals. Family Process, 64(1), e13081. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.13081

47.

Hidayati

Suryani

Rahayuwati

Fitrasanti

Ahmad

(2023). A scoping review of correctional-based interventions for women prisoners with mental health problems. Social Sciences, 12(8), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12080452

48.

*Holland

Headley

Victory

Kirby

Koontz

(2024). Group behavioral parent training in an incarcerated setting. Children and Youth Services Review, 158, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107381

49.

*Holman

L. F.

Ellmo

Wilkerson

Johnson

R. S.

(2020). Quasi-experimental single-subject design: comparing seeking safety and canine-assisted therapy interventions among mentally ill female inmates. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 41(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaoc.12074

50.

*Holman

L. F.

Wilkerson

Ellmo

Skirius

(2020). Impact of animal assisted therapy on anxiety levels among mentally ill female inmates. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 15(4), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2020.1729918

51.

Hong

Q. N.

Fàbregues

Bartlett

Boardman

Cargo

Dagenais

Gagnon

M.-P.

Griffiths

Nicolau

O’Cathain

Rousseau

M.-C.

Vedel

Pluye

(2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221

52.

*Kamptner

N. L.

Teyber

F. H.

Rockwood

N. J.

Drzewiecki

(2017). Evaluating the efficacy of an attachment-informed psychotherapeutic program for incarcerated parents. Journal of Prison Education and Reentry, 4(2), 62–81. https://.doi.org/10.15845/jper.v4i2.1058

53.

*Karlsson

M. E.

(2015). Evaluating a brief sexual violence therapy group for incarcerated women. University of Arkansas.

54.

*Karlsson

M. E.

Zielinski

M. J.

Bridges

A. J.

(2020). Replicating outcomes of Survivors Healing from Abuse: Recovery through Exposure (SHARE): A brief exposure-based group treatment for incarcerated survivors of sexual violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(3), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000504

55.

*Kivlighan

D. M.

Jr. Paquin

J. D.

(2014). Whose perceptions matter more: mine or my group’s? An actor–partner interdependence analysis disaggregating between-person and between-session effects of group climate perceptions on intimate behaviors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(3), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000025

56.

*Kızılkaya

Ünsal

Karaca

(2022). The effect of psychoeducation on the social skills and problem-solving skills of female prisoners. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing/ Psikiyatri Hemsireleri Dernegi, 13(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.14744/phd.2021.92653

57.

*Kubiak

S. P.

Fedock

Kim

W. J.

Bybee

(2016). Long-term outcomes of a RCT intervention study for women with violent crimes. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7(4), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1086/689356

58.

*Kubiak

S. P.

Fedock

Tillander

Kim

W. J.

Bybee

(2014). Assessing the feasibility and fidelity of an intervention for women with violent offenses. Evaluation and Program Planning, 42, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalproglan.2013.08.001

59.

Kulkarni

S. P.

Baldwin

Lightstone

A. S.

Gelberg

Diamant

A. L.

(2010). Is incarceration a contributor to health disparities? Access to care of formerly incarcerated adults. Journal of Community Health, 35, 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-010-9234-9

60.

*Lanza

P. V.

Garcia

P. F.

Lamelas

F. R.

González-Menéndez

(2014). Acceptance and commitment therapy versus cognitive behavioral therapy in the treatment of substance use disorder with incarcerated women. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(7), 644–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22060

61.

*Law

F. M.

Guo

G. J.

(2014). Who is in charge of your recovery? The effectiveness of reality therapy for female drug offenders in Taiwan. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(6), 672–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12474976

62.

*Law

F. M.

Guo

G. J.

(2015). The impact of Reality Therapy on self-efficacy for substance-involved female offenders in Taiwan. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(6), 631–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13518385

63.

*Law

F. M.

Guo

G. J.

(2017). Choice and hope: A preliminary study of the effectiveness of Choice-based Reality Therapy in strengthening hope in recovery for women convicted of drug offences in Taiwan. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(3), 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15596392

64.

*Lo

Iasiello

Carey

van Agteren

(2020). Improving the wellbeing of female prisoners via psychological skills training: a feasibility study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(15), 1571–1586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20928029

65.

Loper

A. B.

Tuerk

E. H.

(2011). Improving the emotional adjustment and communication patterns of incarcerated mothers: Effectiveness of a prison parenting intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-010-9381-8

66.

Macdonald

Macpherson

Leppan

Tran

Cunningham

Hajarizadeh

Grebely

Farrell

Altice

Degenhardt

(2025). Interventions to reduce harms related to drug use among people who experience incarceration: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health, 9, E684–E699. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00160-9

67.

*Mahoney

Chouliara

Karatzias

(2015). Substance Related Offending Behaviour Programme (SROBP): an exploration of gender responsivity and treatment acceptance issues for female prisoners. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 26(6), 798–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1062993

68.

*Mahoney

Karatzias

Halliday

Dougal

(2020). How important are Phase 1 interventions for complex interpersonal trauma? A pilot randomized control trial of a group psychoeducational intervention. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 27(4), 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2447

69.

*Mak

V. W.

Chan

C. K.

(2018). Effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and positive psychological intervention (PPI) on female offenders with psychological distress in Hong Kong. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 28(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2047

70.

*Mak

V. W.

S. M.

Kwong

R. W.

W. L.

(2018). A gender-responsive treatment facility in correctional services: The development of psychological gymnasium for women offenders. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(4), 1062–1079. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16667572

71.

Malik

Facer-Irwin

Dickson

Bird

MacManus

(2023). The effectiveness of trauma-focused interventions in prison settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 844–857. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211043890

72.

McGuire

Seto

M.C.

Davies

Lösel

(2025). Significantly off target: a commentary on Fazel et al.’s (2024) umbrella review of research on the risk–need–responsivity framework. Journal of Experimental Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-025-09707-3

73.

*McKeown

McCrory

(2019). Life Minus Violence-Enhanced (LMV-E) with women in custody: single-case experimental design. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 5(4), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-08-2019-055

74.

*Mejia

M. C.

Kowalchuk

Gonzalez

Sunny

Scamp

(2024). Expanding treatment, recovery, and reentry services for female offenders: improving outcomes through client-centered interventions. Community Mental Health Journal, 60(4), 713–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-023-01223-w

75.

*Messina

N. P.

Braithwaite

Calhoun

Kubiak

(2016). Examination of a violence prevention program for female offenders. Violence and Gender, 3(3), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2015.0048

76.

Messina

N. P.

Esparza

(2022). Poking the bear: The inapplicability of the RNR principles for justice-involved women. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 140, 108798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2022.108798

77.

Messina

N. P.

Grella

C. E.

Cartier

Torres

(2010). A randomized experimental study of gender-responsive substance abuse treatment for women in prison. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.09.004

78.

*Miller

A. L.

Weston

L. E.

Perryman

Horwitz

Franzen

Cochran

(2014). Parenting while incarcerated: tailoring the Strengthening Families program for use with jailed mothers. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.013

79.

*Nidich

Seng

Compton

O’Connor

Salerno

J. W.

Nidich

(2017). Transcendental meditation and reduced trauma symptoms in female inmates: A randomized controlled study. The Permanente Journal, 21, 16-008. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/16-008

80.

Olver

M. E.

Stockdale

K. C.

Wornith

J. S.

(2011). A meta-analysis of offender treatment attrition and its relationship to recidivism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022200

81.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

Boutron

Hoffmann

Mulrow

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

Akl

Brennan

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

Loder

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

. . . Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

82.

*Pankey

Kelly

P. J.

Ramaswamy

(2016). Stress reduction through a brief writing intervention with women in jail. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 22(3), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345816654230

83.

*Parisi

Blank Wilson

Farkas

Brown

Villodas

Phillips

(2025). Examining facilitator experiences delivering an intervention to system-involved women with mental illnesses. Qualitative Social Work, 24(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250241255868

84.

*Pereira

Sampaio

Anacleto

(2023). Promoção da empatia, autoconceito e valores básicos: uma intervenção no cárcere feminino. Ciências Psicológicas, 17(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v17i2.2823

85.

Phillips

Miles

Smyth

(2022). The importance of being trauma and gender-informed when working with women within the criminal justice system: A literature review. Psychology of Women & Equalities Review, 5(1), 2–17.

86.

Pollock

J. M.

Pollock

J. M.

(1998). Counseling women in prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

87.

*Praetorius

Terry

Burse

(2017). “Thank you for letting it be about me”: women’s perceptions of holistic programming in a jail. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2017.1294639

88.

*Richner

K. A.

Pavelka

McChargue

D. E.

(2023). A restorative justice intervention in United States prisons: implications of intervention timing, age, and gender on recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 67(12), 1193–1210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221086555

89.

*Riley

B. J.

Smith

Baigent

M. F.

(2019). Mindfulness and acceptance–based group therapy: an uncontrolled pragmatic pre–post pilot study in a heterogeneous population of female prisoners. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(15–16), 2572–2585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19858487

90.

Roberts

Onwumere

Forrester

Huddy

Byrne

Campbell

Jarret

Phillip

Valmaggia

(2017). Family intervention in a prison environment: a systematic literature review. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 27, 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2001

91.

*Rocha

N. B.

Marques

A. B.

Fortuna

R. B.

Antunes

Hoaken

P. N.

(2014). Effectiveness of cognitive remediation for female inmates: A pilot study. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 25(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2014.884617

92.

Rosenfeld

Callahan

Carboni-Jiménez

Rice

Nassar

E.-L.

Boruff

Thombs

(2024). Effectiveness of psychological interventions for incarcerated individuals with depression or posttraumatic stress disorder: a systematic review. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 23(4), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2024.2389237

93.

*Scudder

A. T.

McNeil

C. B.

Chengappa

Costello

A. H.

(2014). Evaluation of an existing parenting class within a women’s state correctional facility and a parenting class modeled from Parent–Child Interaction Therapy. Children and Youth Services Review, 46, 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.08.015

94.

*Shortt

J. W.

Eddy

J. M.

Sheeber

Davis

(2014). Project home: a pilot evaluation of an emotion-focused intervention for mothers reuniting with children after prison. Psychological Services, 11(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034323

95.

*Sigler

Messina

Calhoun

(2020). A qualitative review of a trauma intervention for women in a segregated housing unit. Age, 35, 8–73.

96.

*Sinaga

M. R. E.

Andriany

Nurrahima

(2020). Effect of group-based hope intervention on depression in female inmates. Belitung Nursing Journal, 6(4), 116–121. https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1098

97.

*Song

Zhao

Lou

Wang

Zheng

(2021). Comparison of mindfulness with and without practice among women in custody. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(8), 1111–1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820974409

98.

Sousa

Gouveia

Freitas

Caridade

Cunha

(2024). The effectiveness of psychological interventions for women who committed child sexual abuse: An empty systematic review. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 26, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241277274

99.

*Stauss

Sparks

Thomas

Grant

(2018). Letters to children: Findings of a program to enhance communication of incarcerated mothers and their children. Corrections, 3(4), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2017.1381054

100.

Steffensmeier

Allan

. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 459–487.

101.

Steiner

Meade

(2016). Assessing the link between exposure to a violent prison context and inmate maladjustment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(4), 328–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986216660009

102.

*Stetina

B. U.

Krouzecky

Emmett

Klaps

Ruck

Kovacovsky

Bunina

Aden

(2020). Differences between female and male inmates in Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT) in Austria: do we need treatment programs specific to the needs of females in AAT?. Animals, 10(2), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020244

103.

Stijelja

Mishara

(2022). Preventing suicidal and self-injurious behavior in correctional facilities: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine, 51, 101560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101560

104.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach (HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884).

105.

Summers

Pemberton

Long

(2024). Examining the effectiveness of interventions for criminal justice-involved women: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 52(5), 690–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241304753

106.

*Swopes

R. M.

Davis

J. L.

Scholl

J. A.

(2017). Treating substance abuse and trauma symptoms in incarcerated women: an effectiveness study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(7), 1143–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515587668

107.

*Teske

Korevec

Schriver

J. L.

(2025). Mindfulness-based bibliotherapy for the treatment of anxiety and depression in incarcerated women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 52(4), 540–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241313384

108.

*Toews

Wagenfeld

Stevens

. (2018). Impact of a nature-based intervention on incarcerated women. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 14(4), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-12-2017-0065

109.

*Torkaman

Farokhzadian

Miri

Pouraboli

(2020). The effect of transactional analysis on the self-esteem of imprisoned women: a clinical trial. BMC Psychology, 8, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0369-x

110.

Tripodi

S. J.

Bledsoe

S. E.

Kim

J. S.

Bender

(2011). Effects of correctional-based programs for female inmates: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509352337

111.

*Tripodi

S. J.

Killian

M. O.

Gilmour

Curley

Herod

(2022). Trauma-informed care groups with incarcerated women: An alternative treatment design comparing seeking safety and STAIR. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 13(3), 511–531. https://doi.org/10.1086/712732

112.

*Tripodi

S. J.

Mennicke

A. M.

McCarter

S. A.

Ropes

(2019). Evaluating seeking safety for women in prison: A randomized controlled trial. Research on Social Work Practice, 29(3), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517706550

113.

*Tsai

P. S.

(2024). DMT Groups for Female Inmates with Drug Dependence at a Detention Center in Taiwan. American Journal of Dance Therapy, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10465-023-09396-3

114.

*Turner

Thomas

Menih

Collins

(2024). Inner peace: Evaluating a complementary program promoting intra-personal peace at Adelaide Women’s Prison, Australia. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 69(15), 2084–2102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X241246099

115.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2011). The Bangkok Rules: United Nations rules for the treatment of women prisoners and non-custodial measures for women offenders.

116.

*Van der Meulen

Omstead

. (2021). The limits of rehabilitation and recidivism reduction: Rethinking the evaluation of arts programming in prisons. The Prison Journal, 101(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520978477

117.

Van der Ploeg

Rameckers

S. A.

van Emmerik

A. A

. (2024). The efficacy of psychological interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in incarcerated forensic populations: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 17(8), 1789–1798. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001771

118.

Van Voorhis

. (2022). Defining and evaluating gender-responsive treatment. In Brown

S. L.

Gelsthorpe

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook on what works with girls and women in conflict with the law: A critical review of theory, practice, and policy (pp. 135–156) Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119874898.ch10

119.

Villafaina-Domínguez

Collado-Mateo

Merellano-Navarro

Villafaina

(2020). Effects of dog-based animal-assisted interventions in prison population: a systematic review. Animals, 10(2129), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112129

120.

*Walker

Shaw

Turpin

Reid

Abel

(2017). The WORSHIP II study: a pilot of psychodynamic interpersonal therapy with women offenders who self-harm. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 28(2), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1301529

121.

*Wendt

Fraser

(2019). Promoting gender responsive support for women inmates: a case study from inside a prison. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 15(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-03-2018-0011

122.

*Willy-Gravley

Beauchemin

Pirie

Gomes

Klein

(2021). A randomized controlled trial of yoga with incarcerated females: impacts on emotion regulation, body dissociation, and warnings of substance relapse. Social Work Research, 45(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svaa023

123.

Winicov

(2019). A systematic review of behavioral health interventions for suicidal and self-harming individuals in prisons and jails. Heliyon, 5(9), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02379

124.

*Wright

Twardzicki

Gomez

Henderson

(2014). Evaluation of a comedy intervention to improve coping and help-seeking for mental health problems in a women’s prison. International Review of Psychiatry, 26(4), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2014.924096

125.

Wright

E. M.

Van Voorhis

Salisbury

E. J.

Bauman

(2012). Gender-responsive lessons learned and policy implications for women in prison: A review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1612–1632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812451088

126.

Yoon

I. A.

Slade

Fazel

(2017). Outcomes of psychological therapies for prisoners with mental health problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(8), 783. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000214