ArticleBMJ open2026
Evaluating outcomes of psychological support services in minimum security prisons in England: a quasi-experimental retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching and survival analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo test whether individuals identified as having a likely personality disorder and high reoffending risk, who opted in to psychologically informed support in minimum security prisons (Pathways Enhanced Resettlement Service (PERS)), were (a) less likely to return to more restrictive closed prison conditions, and (b) released to the community sooner, compared with matched non-PERS users.
designQuasi-experimental retrospective cohort design using routine PERS and UK Ministry of Justice administrative data, for all clients enrolled on PERS between 1 April 2019 and 30 April 2022.
settingFive minimum security male prisons in England.
participants258 PERS users matched for ethnicity, age at first offence and sentencing, education, sentence type, personality disorder screening, risk of reoffending scores and historical drug and alcohol use to 358 controls.
interventionPERS.
resultsPERS users waited longer for community release (HR=0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.71) and had a lower likelihood of return to closed conditions prisons (HR
conclusionsPERS supports individuals to remain in open conditions for longer; however, further evaluation is needed to understand why PERS users waited longer for release, and if this was associated with a more successful release, without return to prison or reoffence.
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.