ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2026
Reconstructing infectious disease prevention mechanisms in carceral settings in transitional states: lessons from the Chinese experience.
Article in International journal for equity in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aims to examine how infectious disease prevention mechanisms are constructed and operationalized within carceral settings in transitional states, using China as a representative case. It focuses on the discursive and structural strategies employed by stakeholders to navigate institutional challenges in epidemic control and to delineate responsibilities across health and justice sectors, while also considering the ethical implications of these strategies and upholding the dignity and rights of individuals affected.
methodsGuided by the epidemiological triangle model, the study adopts a dual-method qualitative design. First, it conducts a normative analysis of Chinese legal and administrative frameworks related to prison-based disease prevention. Second, it integrates empirical fieldwork based on 21 semi-structured interviews with correctional staff, health administrators, and incarcerated individuals across three provinces, supported by thematic and content analysis.
resultsFindings reveal that China's carceral health governance has undergone a three-stage transformation-from institutional neglect to legal formalization, and ultimately to preventive risk management. Stakeholders engage in discursive boundary work by aligning prison health efforts with national public health objectives, while structural boundary work manifests in spatial segregation, surveillance routines, and inter-agency protocols. Digital surveillance and health monitoring systems, as part of these structural strategies, have contributed to improving public health outcomes in carceral settings by enabling real-time data sharing and timely intervention. However, these systems also raise ethical concerns: individuals with drug use histories or criminal records often worry that such monitoring, linked to stigmatized or criminalized practices, may be used for punitive purposes or excessive control rather than solely for health protection. Despite advances, gaps remain in enforcement consistency, resource allocation, and the legal clarity of emergency mandates. Additionally, carceral settings have long been plagued by systemic issues such as overcrowding, inadequate basic health services, and the erosion of human dignity, which create favorable conditions for the rapid spread of infectious diseases-these structural deficiencies are key drivers of high disease transmission rates in such environments.
conclusionsThe study highlights boundary work as a central mechanism for institutional adaptation in prison health governance. China's evolving approach offers scalable insights for other transitional states, emphasizing the need for integrated, context-aware strategies that reconcile biopolitical control with human rights considerations, and explicitly address ethical dilemmas arising from surveillance and other intervention measures. Effective prison health reform requires not only legal mandates but also infrastructural investment to address overcrowding and inadequate health services, intersectoral cooperation, sustained political commitment, and a fundamental commitment to restoring and upholding the human dignity of individuals in carceral settings. It also necessitates establishing safeguards to ensure that monitoring tools are used strictly for health purposes and do not become instruments of unfair control or discrimination.
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.