Public Health Research

Interventions to support men in prison or post-release

Back to all funding opportunities
Download Print document

Overview

  • Opportunity status:
    Open
  • Type:
    Programme
  • Opening date:
  • Closing date:
  • Reference ID:
    2024/211

Apply now

Apply for this funding opportunity through our online application form

Overview

Our Public Health Research (PHR) Programme is looking to fund research which evaluates the effectiveness of interventions in promoting the physical and mental health of men in prison or post-release. 

This is a two-stage, commissioned funding opportunity. To apply for the first stage you should submit an Outline Application. If invited to the second stage, you will then need to complete a Full Application.

Eligibility 

Please see our PHR Programme page and the research specification for further detail on what we will fund. 

Timeline

28 November 2024

Outline Application opening date

11 February 2025

Webinar 

25 April 2025

Outline Application closing date

Mid-May 2025

Notification of decline decision if out of remit or non-competitive

Early July 2025

Outline Application shortlisting decision

Early July 2025

Full Application opening date

End August 2025

Full Application closing date

November 2025

Full Application decision

Studies within a trial or review

This funding opportunity is eligible for a SWAT/SWAR (study within a trial or study within a review), which can help significantly improve methodology of future research as well as the host study. Find out about the benefits of SWATs/SWARs and how to include one in your application.

Webinar 

We are holding a webinar to support applicants seeking to apply to this funding opportunity and our other commissioned funding opportunities closing on the same date. This will be held on Tuesday 11 February 2025, 13:15 - 14:30, and will focus on each funding opportunity as well as general tips for applying. There will be a Q&A at the end. To sign up, please complete our online form.

Funding applications must be submitted via our Awards Management System. Click the link below to log in to the system and start your application.

Apply now

Research specification 

Research question

  • What interventions are effective in promoting the physical and mental health of men in prison or post-release? 

The evidence base underpinning interventions that are effective in supporting the health of people in prison and post-release is sparse. This is despite the fact that the prison population has considerably worse health outcomes and higher mortality rates than the general population. This funding opportunity for research focuses on men who are, or have been, in contact with the prison system – that is, men who are imprisoned and men who are post-release from prison. The NIHR Public Health Research (PHR) Programme has had 2 recent funding opportunities addressing other aspects of health in the context of the criminal justice system, namely: ‘Interventions to support women in prison or post-release’ and ‘Children and young people in contact with the criminal justice system’ attached to our ‘Continuing areas of research interest to the PHR Programme’ funding opportunity. 

As of mid-2023, the total UK prison population was approximately 95,500 people, of whom 96% were men. It is projected that the prison population will significantly increase in the coming years. 

There are stark health inequalities observed between those in prison and the general population, including an approximately 25-year difference in life expectancy between those 2 groups. Men in prison are more likely than the general population to have histories of drug and alcohol misuse, and in some cases this misuse continues in prison. A large proportion of the prison population smoke, with an estimated 80% of those arriving at prison to commence their sentence being smokers. There is no clear picture of the extent or nature of mental ill-health in prison, although it is estimated that roughly half of people in prison have depression. The incidence of self-harm in prisons is rising among older adult men, and people in prison are significantly more likely to die by suicide than people in the general population.  

People from ethnic minority backgrounds are overrepresented in the prison population: 27% of people in prison are from an ethnic minority background compared with 13% of the general population. Black men spend more of their original custodial sentence in prison than men from other ethnic groups. The prison population (like the general population) is also ageing. In 2002, the proportion of people in prison aged over 50 years was 7% and this rose to 17% in 2023. An older prison population poses significant challenges for the prison system in terms of delivering effective health-related interventions in prison and on release. There is also an over-representation of men entering the justice system who are neurodivergent (who have, for example, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorders, or a history of traumatic brain injury). 

Aspects of the prison system may worsen existing health problems and can increase health inequalities, for example by leading to reduced opportunities for physical activity, limited dietary choice, and restricted or negative social interactions. Reduced access to worthwhile activities may also impact negatively on physical and mental health. Simultaneously, prison can be viewed as an opportunity to deliver interventions that could have a positive and lasting impact on health outcomes, such as by facilitating smoking cessation, testing or screening for health conditions, or addressing alcohol and substance misuse. There is relatively little data on interventions in justice settings that are effective at improving the physical and mental health outcomes of men. Moreover, it is not clear whether (or to what extent) positive changes in health behaviours are maintained after release. It is acknowledged that the context of imprisonment, including challenges of staff resource, varies across the prison estate, and this may impact the nature and extent of potential interventions.

The PHR Programme wishes to commission research on the effectiveness of interventions in promoting the physical and mental health of men in prison or post-release. The PHR Programme is predominantly interested in interventions operating at a population or group level rather than at an individual level, and which should address health inequalities and the wider determinants of health.

The PHR Programme recognises that this funding opportunity is broad, and that the prison estate, as well as the prison population, is heterogeneous. Interventions are likely to impact different (sub)populations in different ways and the PHR Programme encourages researchers to explore such inequalities of impact in their study design. Of particular importance to the PHR Programme is an understanding of inequalities in access to, and engagement with, services by people from ethnic minority backgrounds in the UK. 

Suggested areas of research could include, but are not limited to, evaluation of:

  • interventions that focus on mental ill-health among men in prison or post-release; and interventions aimed at reducing self-harm, suicide, and substance and alcohol misuse for men in prison or post-release
  • trauma-informed and trauma-specific interventions relating to men in prison or post-release
  • interventions that address the multiple, interacting disadvantages that affect the most marginalised men in prison and post-release
  • interventions that focus on the physical health of men in prison or post-release, for example interventions seeking to reduce obesity, address multiple long-term conditions, manage dementia, address blood-borne viruses, or address sexual or dental health 
  • interventions promoting access (increased access and equity of access) to physical activity including sport or exercise, and purposeful activities, for men in prison
  • interventions impacting diet and food quality of men in prison, for example access to nutritious food, cooking skills, or food budgeting
  • the impact of non-accredited interventions on the health and well-being of men in prison or post-release (that might also reduce reoffending and support desistance)
  • interventions that seek to meet the needs of, and improve health outcomes for, men in prison and post-release who may be neurodivergent or have a learning disability 
  • peer or family support interventions that seek to improve health outcomes for men in prison or post-release, for example through building social capital and re-establishing support networks
  • multisectoral interventions; interventions that provide continuity of care for men, spanning the prison setting and post-release; interventions that support the transition between prison and post-release
  • interventions that seek to improve the physical and mental health outcomes for those men facing long-term sentences in prison.

A range of study designs and outcome measures can be used. Researchers will need to clearly describe and justify their choice of health and well-being outcomes, target population group, and life-course stage, as well as the rationale for their methodological approach. Researchers are encouraged to consider additional outcome measures including those relating to the broader determinants of health and health inequalities, for example the impact on education, training and employment, or accommodation, which should be specified and justified. Researchers will also need to specify key outcomes and how these will be measured in the short, medium, and long term.

Applicants should be aware of the challenges of conducting research in a prison environment, and are encouraged to consider and describe ethical concerns and how ethical approvals will be obtained.

Application guidance

Please read our Domestic Outline Application guidance to help you complete all aspects of your application. You must read this alongside the information below, which details specific requirements our PHR Programme looks for in applications. You can also check our PHR Programme page for details about the Programme’s scope and remit. 

Research Plan

Your Research Plan must be a maximum of four A4 pages. Please include the following when writing your Research Plan.

Methodology/plan

Include the below detail in your methodology/plan:

Please provide the precise aims and research questions your project will address, justifying these by referencing relevant literature. You may like to present these in a PICOST format (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome/s, Setting and Timing).

Summarise your project plan plus any additional points required to support statements made in the previous sections of your application. Include any key references required to justify the points made (for example the use of particular outcome measures or methods of analysis). 

References
Please upload one page of references in the ‘Uploads’ section of the application.

Research design

  • for primary research: clearly summarise your study design. Include all of its components (for example primary and secondary outcomes, process and economic evaluations) and relevant time points for baseline and follow-up data collection for each component. You should reference established research techniques, providing details of how exposure to the intervention will be determined or defined. You should fully explain and justify any adaptations of these for the purposes of the research proposed
  • for evidence synthesis: if you are proposing a systematic review and/or an evidence synthesis, you should provide details regarding the size of the available literature base, along with details of the search and review strategy

If your application proposes to carry out feasibility and/or pilot studies or is staged (for example, full effectiveness evaluations with a built in pilot phase), you should include clear criteria against which to judge whether progression to the next stage is justified. If you are proposing an evaluation of effectiveness, you should detail any prior scoping, feasibility and/or pilot work and, where appropriate, how the progression criteria of any feasibility and/or pilot study has been met. There are no set progression criteria to use but you should aim to explain whether the uncertainties which need to be addressed have been determined, or how they will be. This will give confidence that a full evaluation is feasible. 

Examples of progression criteria could include (but are not limited to):

  • can/did you recruit people/centres within a reasonable timespan and retain them to follow-up?
  • is/was the intervention sufficiently acceptable and feasible to implement?
  • can the intervention be delivered with reasonable fidelity?
  • do you have commitment to fund the intervention for the duration of the study?
  • can the outcome measures be measured across your target population?
  • is the underlying question still the same/has the context changed?

Please note that the criteria listed above should be used as a guide only. It does not represent a comprehensive list of all the progression criteria that should be included within an application for a feasibility/pilot study. It is also not a comprehensive list for which feasibility will need to be evidenced in an application for an evaluation of effectiveness. 

Evaluation

You should include details of the intervention(s) or policy under evaluation, such as:

  • its components and their frequency and intensity
  • theoretical basis
  • specific techniques used
  • modes of delivery
  • who will deliver the intervention 

You may like to refer to the TiDIER guidance on reporting interventions (Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). Providing a clear description of what is being evaluated or studied is key to justifying the need, value and importance of a study. It is also essential to explain to our Funding Committee how your study design is fit for purpose. We have a broad view on what constitutes an ‘intervention’ or policy under evaluation. 

Logic Model

Please upload a 1 page logic model depicting your theory of change, to help explain the intervention being evaluated.

Control/comparator group

Please state what comparator(s) will be used in your study. Justify its appropriateness for answering the research question, and describe how it will be selected.

Study population

Which population(s) will be the target for the intervention and the participants in the research? How will the population(s) be recruited and retained?

Setting

Where will the research be undertaken and the intervention delivered?

Outcome measures

Please state and justify the primary and secondary outcome measures.

Methods for data collection

For each outcome, process or economic study component proposed, please state the source of the data that will be analysed. Where this is primary data collection, please state the quantitative and/or qualitative method used where appropriate. Where this is secondary data, please describe the characteristics of the dataset and the process by which access will be obtained.

Primary outcomes must be health related. The PHR Programme will accept proxy measures for health as long as they are appropriately defined and the link to health is clearly justified. You are encouraged to consider additional outcome measures including those relating to the broader determinants of health and health inequalities, which should be specified and justified. When describing your approach to health inequalities, please give details of relevant health inequalities related to your study; the nature of the inequality and the definition of the population groups. 

Sample size

Please describe and justify the proposed sample size for each element of the study. Justify the values used in the calculation by giving their source and/or some sensitivity around assumed values.

Data and analysis

Please detail how you will analyse each study data set. Clearly state the purpose of any analysis. You must state the proposed type and frequency of analyses including the selection of participants who will be included in the analyses. Describe any planned interim and sub-group analyses, sensitivity analysis and how missing data will be handled.

Health economics

Understanding the value of public health interventions – whether the outcomes justify their use of resources – is integral to the PHR Programme. The main outcomes for the economic evaluation are expected to include health (including health-related quality of life) and impact on health inequalities, with consideration of broader outcomes welcomed. Your economic evaluation should make clear where resources relate to different economic sectors and budgets. We encourage different approaches to economic evaluation as long as they assess the value and distributive impact of interventions. If your application does not assess distributive impact of interventions or does not include an economic component, you should provide appropriate justification.

Stakeholder engagement

You are strongly encouraged to ensure that a wide range of stakeholders are meaningfully involved in the design and planning of the research and throughout the work. Examples of stakeholders include decision-makers, commissioners, members of the public*, and people with lived experience. You might do this through involving them as costed/rewarded members of the research team. 
*Please note there is a detailed section on public involvement within your study that does not need to be repeated here.

Project timescale and milestones

Please provide a clear indication of the study timescale and dates by which key milestones should be achieved.

Flow Diagram

Please upload a one page flow diagram detailing your study timelines and milestones.

Please state how your study will be managed, and who will manage it. Refer to the roles of specific applicants as appropriate. 

Where applicable, this section should also describe how any conflicts of interest will be managed, such as involving stakeholders with a financial or non-financial interest in the intervention in the study team.

Understanding the value of public health interventions – whether outcomes justify their use of resources – is integral to the PHR Programme, where resources relating to different economic sectors and budgets are potentially relevant. The main outcomes for economic evaluation are expected to include health (including health-related quality of life), death and the impact on health inequalities as a minimum, with consideration of broader outcomes welcomed. Different approaches to economic evaluation are encouraged as long as they assess the value and distributive impact of interventions. Applications that do not include an economic component should provide appropriate justification.

Researchers are encouraged to explain how they will share their findings with policy makers, public health officers, special interest groups, charities, community audiences and other relevant stakeholders. Researchers are expected to be aware of other studies in this area development in practice, and ensure their proposed research is complementary. 

Research governance and ethical approval

Please indicate what research governance issues will need to be addressed in your research and state how you will seek and obtain ethical approval. You must either comply with the research ethics framework formulated by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) or obtain approval via the National Research Ethics Service (NRES). 

Please note that we will check all proposals recommended for funding which involve a clinical trial. We check for potential overlaps using WHO trials before we communicate any funding decision. Consequently, a funding recommendation may not be taken forward if a major overlap is identified at this stage. It is therefore important that you highlight any potential overlaps before your application is considered by the Funding Committee. You should then explain how you expect your proposed research will add to the body of knowledge, referring to current policy and practice.

Application process

Find out how to apply for this funding opportunity and what you need to do to get your application ready.

How to apply 

When you are ready to apply, you will need to log in to our application system to apply. This funding opportunity is on our new Awards Management System and you will need to create a new account to apply.

The closing date is 25 April 2025 at 1pm. Applications received after 1pm on the closing date will not be considered. 

Please read the following guidance before submitting an application:  

  • all the application guidance detailed in the 'Application guidance' section in this funding opportunity

Download application form template

You can download a Word document template of the application form below. Please use this template as a guide only, to help you prepare your application. For example, to see how many characters are accepted in each section and to see how information in the form is laid out. Please do not try to use this as an application form; it cannot be submitted as an application. You must submit your application online via our Awards Management System.

domestic-outline-application-form-template.docx

DOCX
Last updated: 27 November 2024
Download document (27.86 KB)

Research inclusion and reasonable adjustments

At NIHR we are committed to creating a diverse and inclusive culture. We encourage applications from people from all backgrounds and communities bringing diverse skills and experiences. If you need any reasonable adjustments throughout the application process, please contact the programme team via the information in the Contact Details tab.

Research Support Service

Got a research idea and not sure how to turn it into a funding application? The free NIHR Research Support Service (RSS) supports researchers in England to apply for funding. It can help you develop and deliver clinical and applied health, social care and public health research post award.

Please speak to the NIHR Specialist Centre for Public Health (SCPH) about the design of your research as soon as possible by completing their online form. A successful application takes a long time (several months) to develop.