Prison brings lost freedom, uncertain court cases, and long separations from family. Prisoners are at higher risk of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and many struggle after release. A new review suggests that the way prisoners cope with that stress is closely tied to their mental health and their chances of settling back into society.
Researchers at Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta in Indonesia carried out a scoping review of research on coping among prisoners and former prisoners. The findings appear in The Open Psychology Journal. The team searched three databases in March 2025 for peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2025.
The search found 559 articles, and 20 met the criteria for inclusion. They came from more than 10 countries, led by the US with five studies, the UK with three, and Australia, Indonesia, and the Philippines with two each. Samples ranged from five former offenders to 518, and most studies used questionnaires rather than interviews.
A scoping review maps what research exists on a topic rather than pooling the results into a single estimate. Coping strategies are the thoughts and actions people use to manage stress. Adaptive coping tackles a problem or puts it in a more manageable light, while maladaptive coping offers short-term relief but tends to make matters worse.
Prisoners used both kinds. Denial, withdrawal, aggression, and substance use were commonly linked to higher psychological distress, and coping centred on managing emotions rather than the problem itself was repeatedly tied to poorer well-being. Studies of people leaving prison suggested that avoidance and substance misuse may raise the risk of reoffending.
Adaptive strategies told a different story. Problem-solving, reframing events in a more positive light, drawing on religious or spiritual beliefs, and seeking support from others were linked to better well-being and smoother reintegration. Avoidance gave mixed results, and in some studies appeared helpful once emotional coping was taken into account.
Coping also varied by group. Young offenders leaned towards emotional and detached responses and reported more distress, older prisoners favoured acceptance and quiet reflection, and women more often turned to emotional and spiritual coping shaped by separation from their families. Support from family and friends was the most consistent factor in healthy coping, with faith, education, and a supportive prison climate also helping.
The authors suggest that prisons combine problem-solving training with cognitive behavioural therapy, emotion regulation training, group counselling, and religious mentoring, alongside vocational education and family visits. Inmates in open prisons with access to support and work programmes were more likely to cope constructively.
The study has clear limits. As a scoping review, it describes patterns rather than measuring the size of effects, and the 20 studies varied widely in design, size, and setting. It did not separate findings by type of offence or subgroup, relied on published work that may favour positive results, and included one study of prison officers rather than prisoners.
The findings fit a long-standing view in stress research that people fall back on managing their emotions when a problem feels impossible to change. Earlier work has also tied adaptive coping to better well-being during a sentence. The authors call for studies that follow prisoners from their first days inside through to life after release.
How prisoners deal with stress appears to matter for their mental health both during their sentence and after they walk free.
