ReviewLancet regional health. Americas2026
US jail and prison institutional research policies: a lever in access to research for incarcerated people.
Review in Lancet regional health. Americas, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Incarcerated people are often excluded from health research, limiting the evidence available to address the specific needs of this population. US federal regulations provide a foundation for research involving incarcerated people, but many prison and jail systems have developed institution-specific policies that further govern research. Carceral research policies may represent an underexamined mechanism for regulating research access in prisons and jails. We analyzed US carceral research policies and found substantial variation across systems, including approaches to ethical oversight and institutional discretion over research activities and dissemination of research findings. The wide variation in policies, power facilities have over research access, and potential censoring of findings highlights the need for more standardized practices. We propose policy changes that would better align carceral research policies with best practices in research governance, facilitating ethical research access and strengthening the evidence needed to address the health needs of this marginalized population.
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.