The review, led by Amy Woods and Sarah Walker of La Trobe University’s School of Psychology and Public Health, together with Daniel Simsion of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, Anita Raspovic and Leah Brennan, followed the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline, with the protocol registered on the Open Science Framework. The team searched five major databases, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL and ProQuest, for peer-reviewed studies reporting on eating disorders or disordered eating among individuals with any forensic or correctional involvement. From 1,314 articles screened, only 29 met the inclusion criteria: 27 quantitative studies, one case study and one ethnography. That small body of evidence, spread across decades and jurisdictions, is what constitutes virtually the entire published record on the topic.

The risk factors that make this population vulnerable are well established in the broader eating disorder literature. Eating disorders and disordered eating occur at disproportionately high rates among people with elevated psychosocial risk, including Indigenous people, LGBTQIA individuals, and those with histories of trauma or mental illness. Each of these groups is overrepresented in prisons and forensic settings. Trauma and substance use, in particular, are strongly linked to disordered eating, and both are endemic in correctional populations. The review found that past trauma and past substance use frequently co-occurred with eating pathology in the studies it examined, reinforcing the picture of a population in which multiple vulnerabilities converge.

Prevalence figures varied across the included studies, but the overall trend was clear and concerning: rates of eating disorders and disordered eating trend high in forensic and correctional settings, particularly in women’s prisons. This aligns with community data showing that women experience eating disorders at higher rates than men, but the correctional context adds unique pressures, including restricted food access, loss of control over eating routines, body-focused stigma and the psychological strain of confinement, that may shape or exacerbate disordered eating behaviours in ways community research does not capture.

Perhaps the most alarming gaps concern who is missing from the evidence. The reviewed studies focused mostly on women in prisons, with limited data on men and, remarkably, no studies at all on transgender or gender-diverse individuals. Given that LGBTQIA people face elevated eating disorder risk in the community and are also overrepresented in the justice system, this absence represents a substantial blind spot. The review also found a lack of consistent data collection tools across studies, making it difficult to compare prevalence estimates or build a coherent epidemiological picture, and little research exploring the lived experience of incarcerated people with eating pathology or the perspectives of correctional and health staff who work alongside them.

The clinical consequences of this evidence vacuum are concrete. In community settings, eating disorders are typically supported through stepped levels of care, engagement with evidence-based treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy or family-based approaches, and adjunct recovery supports. These services remain largely inaccessible to people who are incarcerated, who made up the majority of individuals considered in the studies reviewed. Instead, the review found that eating disorder behaviours in institutional settings are being responded to through suicide and self-harm protocols, including seclusion and restraint. Such responses treat the visible symptom, food refusal or self-harm, without addressing the underlying disorder, and may in fact worsen distress in vulnerable individuals.

The authors highlight that no forensic or correctional specific eating disorder guidelines or validated screening tools exist anywhere in the literature they reviewed. This leaves correctional health services without an evidence base for identifying who needs help, deciding what treatment to provide, or training staff to recognise the often-hidden signs of disordered eating. The review’s recommendations are correspondingly direct: routine screening for eating disorders and disordered eating on entry and during incarceration, the development of evidence-based, eating-disorder-targeted interventions adapted to secure environments, and staff training so that correctional officers and health professionals can recognise and respond appropriately.

There is also a rehabilitation dimension that extends beyond individual suffering. The review notes a limited understanding of the links between eating pathology and criminal behaviour, and of how untreated eating disorders might influence criminogenic needs or rehabilitation outcomes. Because eating disorders carry among the highest mortality rates of any psychiatric illness, and because disordered eating intertwines with trauma, substance use and self-harm, leaving them unaddressed in custodial settings may undermine the broader goals of correctional health and rehabilitation. The authors argue that targeted research and the development of prevention and treatment protocols for forensic and correctional settings are urgently needed.

The review, conducted in partial completion of a Doctorate of Public Health at La Trobe University and supported by the Australian Eating Disorder Research and Translation Centre Publication Support Project, ultimately serves as both a map and a warning. It confirms that eating disorders and disordered eating are prevalent among people in the forensic and correctional system, that the evidence base is thin, fragmented and demographically narrow, and that the systems responsible for the health of incarcerated people currently lack the tools to respond. Until screening, inclusive research, trauma-informed care and setting-specific treatment protocols are developed, hundreds of thousands of people in custody worldwide with eating pathology will continue to go unidentified and untreated, their illness managed only through crisis protocols never designed for it.

Subject of Research: Prevalence and management of eating disorders and disordered eating among people in forensic and correctional settings

Article Title: Eating disorders and disordered eating in the forensic and correctional system: a scoping review

Article References: Woods, A., Walker, S., Simsion, D., Raspovic, A., & Brennan, L. (2026). Eating disorders and disordered eating in the forensic and correctional system: a scoping review. Journal of Eating Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-026-01761-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40337-026-01761-0

Keywords: eating disorders, disordered eating, forensic mental health, correctional health, prison, incarceration, scoping review, trauma, substance use, screening, women's prisons, rehabilitation

The authors argue that Aristotle’s philosophical insights provide a framework for understanding the human psyche in the context of criminal behavior. By invoking Aristotle, the researchers suggest that the pursuit of knowledge should not solely focus on actions but rather on the moral and mental faculties that drive those actions. This Aristotelian perspective leads to the conclusion that mental health considerations in forensic assessments are not just beneficial but entirely necessary for a holistic approach to understanding crime. The philosophical foundations laid by Aristotle, entwined with modern psychological understandings, offer new avenues for researching and addressing criminality.

As the researchers delve into the psychology of offenders, the paper addresses a crucial point: many criminal acts result from mental health disorders that often go unrecognized in typical criminological analysis. By failing to consider the mental health dimensions of criminal behavior, the field risks adopting a narrow perspective that overlooks essential factors contributing to a person’s criminality. This oversight could lead to ineffective interventions and sentencing, highlighting the vulnerability of the justice system to shortcomings in understanding offender psychology.

The implications of this research extend well beyond academic theory; they demand a practical overhaul in how criminal justice systems handle offenders exhibiting mental health issues. There is a clear call-to-action for policymakers and criminal justice professionals to embrace a model that integrates mental health assessments into standard practice. As detailed in the study, offenders who experience untreated mental disorders often re-offend, resulting in a never-ending cycle of crime and punishment that does little to rehabilitate individuals.

The statistical data presented in the research adds weight to its arguments: rates of re-offending decrease significantly when mental health issues are adequately addressed. This insight poses a critical challenge to the prevailing punitive systems that ignore the therapeutic needs of offenders. Instead, a rehabilitative approach focusing on mental well-being could not only reduce recidivism but also contribute to overall public safety, adding a compelling layer of evidence to the argument that mental health should be a core concern in criminological studies.

Moreover, the study emphasizes the importance of training for law enforcement and judicial personnel on the nuances of forensic mental health. Understanding these complexities allows professionals to differentiate between mentally ill individuals and those who are engaging in criminal behavior devoid of psychological impairment. Such distinctions can lead to more informed decisions during arrests, charges, and sentencing, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of the criminal landscape.

In a significant societal context, the authors elucidate how public perception regarding crime and mental health is often steeped in stigma and misinformation. They argue for educational initiatives aimed at dispelling myths about the relationship between mental illness and criminality. The research posits that enhancing societal understanding can pave the way for more empathetic and effective approaches to dealing with offenders who suffer from mental health disorders, ultimately benefitting the community at large.

The authors further propose that the integration of mental health strategies into criminology may provide answers to some of the legal system’s most perplexing challenges. For instance, what constitutes criminal intent can often be obscured by mental health issues. By applying insights from forensic psychology, the authors suggest renewed clarity can emerge in legal determinations of culpability. This alignment could align justice more closely with ethical principles, reducing missteps that occur when courts fail to account for mental health dynamics within criminal behavior.

As the authors conclude their research, they express optimism about the future of criminology that embraces a more holistic approach. By recognizing the significant role that forensic mental health plays, they predict a shift in how crimes are analyzed and addressed. This paradigm shift could revolutionize not only academic discourse but also practical applications in law enforcement, rehabilitation, and policy-making. The potential for a more compassionate justice system that recognizes the complexity of human behavior is, indeed, a worthier pursuit.

As scholars and practitioners navigate these evolving ideas, the call for cross-disciplinary collaboration becomes increasingly vital. Integrating insights from psychology, sociology, and criminology will allow for broader perspectives on crime and justice issues. Engaging various stakeholders, including mental health professionals, educators, and community advocates, this multidisciplinary approach holds promise for developing innovative rehabilitation programs tailored to the needs of individualized offenders.

As research trends progress, it will be exciting to see how these philosophies challenge existing paradigms within criminal justice. Will the emergent focus on mental health reshape the courtroom, the community perception of offenders, or the policies that govern treatment and rehabilitation? The answer to this riddle is intertwined with collective commitment to re-evaluating and revitalizing the frameworks within which society views crime and mental health.

In essence, DeLisi, Stickle, and Dooley’s work signifies a pivotal moment in criminological research—a moment that urges all participants in the justice system to reflect critically upon their roles and methodologies. By adopting a forward-thinking approach that prioritizes mental health, the journey towards understanding crime could transform, fostering a justice system that is not only more effective but also more just.

The insights curated in this profound body of work will undoubtedly influence future inquiries and inspire a generation of researchers to embrace new inquiries into the intertwined dynamics of mental health and law. As the dialogue continues to expand, the hope remains that a more integrated approach will emerge, leading to lasting changes in how perpetrators of crime are understood, treated, and rehabilitated in society. The implications extend beyond academic interests; they touch the very foundations of justice and humanity itself, calling for a systemic change essential for a future where mental health is no longer an afterthought but a central tenet of criminological practice.

In summary, the paper by DeLisi, Stickle, and Dooley serves as a catalyst for rethinking the norms and practices that shape the fields of criminology and forensic mental health. It not only underlines an academic pursuit of knowledge but also demands societal commitment to a more comprehensive understanding of crime. The authors envision a future where forensic mental health stands as an integral pillar of criminology, fundamentally altering both disciplinary dialogues and practical implementations in the quest for justice.

Subject of Research: The intersection of forensic mental health and criminology.

Article Title: Aristotle’s Prophecy: The Overlooked Importance of Forensic Mental Health to Criminology.

Article References:

DeLisi, M., Stickle, B. & Dooley, B.D. Aristotle’s Prophecy: The Overlooked Importance of Forensic Mental Health to Criminology.
Am J Crim Just 50, 781–794 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-025-09837-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-025-09837-4

Keywords: Forensic mental health, criminology, criminal behavior, rehabilitation, recidivism, interdisciplinary collaboration, moral philosophy, psychological insights.