ArticleBMC public health2026
Hunger strikes among asylum seekers in Australian immigration detention: prevalence, precipitants, characteristics, and management.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHunger strikes are commonly reported in places of detention, and Australia has some of the most restrictive immigration detention policies globally. Despite this, little is known about hunger strikes among immigration detainees in Australia. We aimed to examine the prevalence, precipitants, characteristics, and management of hunger strikes among asylum seekers in Australian onshore immigration detention.
methodsVia Freedom of Information, we obtained incident reports for all hunger strikes recorded in Australian onshore immigration detention between 3 October 2009 and 26 May 2011. Our primary methodological approach was content analysis. Data relating to hunger strike prevalence, detention type, location, gender, precipitating factors, and management of hunger strikes were extracted from each report. Hunger strike episode rates per 1000 asylum seekers were calculated using average adult population figures for 1) the entire onshore immigration detention network; 2) each held detention type (i.e., Immigration Detention Centres [IDCs], Immigration Transit Accommodation [ITA], Immigration Residential Housing [IRH], and Alternative Places of Detention [APODs]); and 3) each facility.
resultsThree hundred twenty eight hunger strikes were included in the analyses. The hunger strike episode rate was 76/1000 asylum seekers (95% CI 59 – 94). On average, hunger strike episode rates were highest in IDCs (86/1000, 95% CI 68 – 104), followed by APODs (36/1000, 95% CI 24 – 48). Individual facility rates of hunger strikes ranged from 21/1000 asylum seekers (95% CI 12 – 31) in Christmas Island APODs to 317/1000 asylum seekers (95% CI 282 – 352) in Maribyrnong IDC. Compared with the average across all other facilities, hunger strike episodes were most commonly reported in Curtin IDC (126) (p < 0.001). The most reported precipitant was protest (75%). Details regarding the management of hunger strikes were noted in 7% of reports.
conclusionsOur findings highlight concerningly high rates of hunger strikes among detained asylum seekers in Australia compared to other detained populations, with protest the most common trigger. Hunger strike management was inconsistent with international best practice. These findings highlight the deleterious impact of immigration detention on the physical and mental health of those detained. Further investigation, and policy and practice development consistent with ethical and human rights frameworks are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.