DR 9000

· Use appropriate capitalization in title

· Purpose: Do not make predictive statements for the value of findings

· Research Question:

· Use RQ: format

· Reference list is needed beneath the Framework section

Prospectus Review: Prison Stakeholder Perspectives on Mental Health Care Access

Overall assessment: The draft has a sound core. The one-sentence research problem, the purpose, and the participant boundaries line up well, and your ethical caution about not interviewing incarcerated people is careful and well stated. Four problems run through the whole draft and should be fixed first:

1. No empirical citations. The Problem and Gap sections make claims about disparities and the literature with no supporting sources.

2. Terms drift between sections. "Factors" becomes "changes," technology appears without justification, and role comparison is promised but never built into the design.

3. An error in the inclusion criteria. The sample description mentions "family members," which falls outside your three roles.

4. Tense and voice. Phrases like "we gathered" and "the proposed study examined" read like a finished multi-author study rather than your proposal.

Initial here:

1. Title

Does it meet the criteria? Mostly. At 13 words it is under the 15-word limit, and it names the participants (stakeholders), the topic, and the population.

Concerns:

· It omits access, which is the central phenomenon in your problem, purpose, and research question.

· "Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Adults" doesn't say these adults are incarcerated. Read literally, "prison" modifies only "stakeholders."

· APA title case requires lowercase "on" and "and."

Suggested revision (15 words):

Prison Stakeholder Perspectives on Mental Health Care Access for Racial and Ethnic Minority Incarcerated Adults

2. Problem Statement

Initial here:

Does it meet the criteria? Not yet. A qualitative prospectus problem should be current, meaningful, and supported by recent literature, ideally from the last 5 years. This section names a topic but does not yet establish a problem.

Concerns:

· No citations. Nothing supports the existence or size of disparities in prison mental health access.

· Unclear wording. "The findings provide general background..." leaves the reader asking which findings.

· Purpose content in the wrong place. "This study aims to..." belongs in the Purpose section.

· Technology appears with no grounding. The problem never shows that technology (telehealth, electronic request systems, tablets) is a known access issue in corrections. This weakens alignment for every later section that names technology.

Why should the reader care? The draft doesn't answer this yet. To create stakes, cite current sources showing:

· the prevalence of mental health conditions among people in U.S. prisons;

· the disproportionate incarceration of Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous adults;

· documented differences in who gets diagnosed, treated, disciplined, or placed in restrictive housing;

· the consequences of untreated need, such as suicide risk, disciplinary outcomes, and reentry difficulties.

Use current Bureau of Justice Statistics reports and peer-reviewed correctional health literature. Two or three well-chosen sentences with citations will turn a topic into a problem.

3. Gap and Research Problem

Gap: partially meets the criteria. Your logic is sound: most studies look at community, youth, college, or insured samples, or ask incarcerated people directly. The combined perspective of administrators, clinicians, and volunteers is a defensible gap.

Initial here:

Gap concerns:

· "Has not been explored" is a strong claim. Support it with citations showing what has been done, and soften to "has received limited attention" unless your search was exhaustive.

· "Mixed research on racial and ethnic differences" needs citations showing the mixed findings.

· "The proposed study examined more recent empirical correctional literature" is confusing. A proposed study doesn't examine literature; your literature review does.

· Studies that interview incarcerated people are your closest neighbors. Say explicitly what stakeholder perspectives add that those studies cannot, such as institutional procedures, staffing constraints, and how decisions are made.

· "Role differences" appears here but is not carried into the purpose or research question (see below).

One-sentence research problem: meets the criteria. It is clear and specific, and it matches the purpose almost word for word. That is good alignment. One small issue: "factors affecting" implies causation, while your framework section says you are not making causal claims. "Factors perceived to influence" fixes this throughout.

4. Purpose (Goal)

Initial here:

Does it meet the criteria? Largely yes. It names the method (qualitative), the phenomenon, the participants, and the setting. The clarification that incarcerated adults are the population discussed but not interviewed is a real strength.

What to add:

· Design: "basic qualitative study," not only "qualitative."

· Data collection: "through semi-structured interviews."

· Setting scope: state prisons, federal prisons, or both? Private facilities? Are jails excluded? Say so.

· Role comparison: if comparing roles matters (the Gap and Significance sections both suggest it does), name it here. If it doesn't, remove it elsewhere.

· Intended contribution: one clause on what the understanding will inform.

Model sentence:

The purpose of this basic qualitative study is to explore how prison wardens, prison mental health counselors, and prison volunteers describe the structural, cultural, and technological factors they perceive as influencing mental health care access for racial and ethnic minority incarcerated adults in U.S. state and federal prisons.

Initial here:

5. Framework and Its Logical Connection to the Problem

Are the theories appropriate? Yes, with justification. Andersen's Behavioral Model (1995) is a well-established access framework. Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) fits a study about race, ethnicity, and incarceration.

Does the alignment statement explain the logical connection? Partially. It describes what each framework does but not why they fit this problem with these participants.

Concerns:

· Intersectionality and secondhand accounts. Intersectionality centers the knowledge of people living at intersecting identities. You are applying it to stakeholders' accounts about those people. That can be defended, for example by framing it as analyzing how institutional actors construct and respond to intersecting identities, but you must say so explicitly. Otherwise a committee member will raise it.

· Andersen at the wrong level. Andersen's model is often applied to individual-level use. Point to its contextual and environmental components (health system and policy characteristics), which fit what wardens and counselors can actually speak to.

· Technology has no home. Neither framework addresses it directly. One option is to position technology as an enabling factor in Andersen's model, such as telehealth availability and electronic sick-call systems.

· Contradiction with your analysis plan. You call Andersen an "organizing model" but say coding is not based on "preconceived ideas." Say that coding will be inductive first, and that Andersen and intersectionality will be used during theme development and interpretation.

· Contradiction about voice. "In a way that respects incarcerated adults' voices" clashes with not interviewing them. Revise to something like "...while acknowledging that these accounts do not substitute for incarcerated adults' own perspectives."

6. Research Question

Initial here:

Does it meet the criteria for method, framework, and problem? Not yet. The open "what" form suits qualitative inquiry, and keeping one question across all three guides is good practice.

Concerns:

· "Changes" doesn't match "factors." The purpose and problem say factors. "Changes" implies something has shifted over time, which the study does not examine.

· "Some" is informal and limits the scope.

· Role comparison has no sub-question. If your Significance section claims role comparison, the question must support it.

Suggested revision:

RQ: How do prison wardens, prison mental health counselors, and prison volunteers describe the structural, cultural, and technological factors that influence mental health care access for racial and ethnic minority incarcerated adults in U.S. prisons?

Optional SQ: How, if at all, do these descriptions differ across stakeholder roles?

Initial here:

7. Nature of the Study

Does it explain the method appropriately? Yes in substance. A basic qualitative design fits a study of perspectives rather than lived experience, and you correctly avoid claiming phenomenology.

Concerns:

· "(ANALYTIC)" is unexplained. Remove it or define it.

· Add one or two sentences on why not other designs. Phenomenology doesn't fit because you aren't studying the participants' own lived experience. Case study doesn't fit because there is no bounded single site.

· Specify interview length, modality, and setting. For example: 45 to 60 minutes, by secure video or phone, outside working hours, away from the facility.

· State which version of thematic analysis you're using. Braun and Clarke (2022) is reflexive thematic analysis, and your trustworthiness approach should match it.

· Verify the Tisdell et al. (2025) reference details.

Initial here:

8. Data Collection and Instruments

Are they described, appropriate, and ethical? They are appropriate, and the ethics are thoughtful. The description needs more specifics.

Strengths:

· Role-specific guides tied to a single research question.

· Asking participants to distinguish what they observed from what they heard secondhand. This is excellent and should be kept.

· A no-identifiers instruction, with redaction of any identifiers that slip through.

Concerns:

· Tense and voice. "We gathered" should be future tense, first-person singular: "I will conduct."

· Unclear wording. "Not to tag any person in custody with law enforcement" is hard to parse. Revise to "not to name or describe identifiable individuals in custody."

· Instrument validation. Describe expert review and field testing of the three guides, not only a review "for consistency."

· Limits of confidentiality. State what happens if a participant discloses abuse, staff misconduct, or imminent risk, and how the consent form explains this.

· Pilot or field test. Describe one, especially for the warden guide.

Initial here:

9. Data Sources and Analysis Plan

Sufficient, ethical, appropriate? The analysis plan is strong. The sampling section has one error that must be fixed.

Critical error: "Adults 18 years of age or older who currently/family members who have served in/attended one of these roles" introduces family members, which falls outside the three stakeholder roles and breaks alignment. It reads like a leftover from an earlier draft. Rewrite it, for example:

Adults 18 or older who currently serve, or within the past [X] years have served, as a warden, prison mental health counselor, or prison volunteer in a U.S. adult prison for at least [X] months, with direct knowledge of mental health care access for racial and ethnic minority incarcerated adults.

Other concerns:

Initial here:

· Sample size. 12 to 15 participants means about 4 or 5 per role. That is thin for role comparison. Justify the number with information power (Malterud et al., 2016), which fits reflexive thematic analysis better than "saturation."

· Warden feasibility. Wardens are a small, hard-to-reach group. Add a contingency plan, such as including deputy or associate wardens, snowball referral, or professional associations.

· Deductive disclosure risk. There are few wardens per state, so report roles without states or facility types where combining details could identify someone.

· Define "volunteer." For example: chaplaincy, education, peer support, religious programming.

· Trustworthiness. Name your strategies for credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability: thick description, reflexive journal, audit trail, peer debriefing. Explain your position on member checking, since Braun and Clarke are cautious about it.

· Data management. Name the coding software, encrypted storage, and retention period, for example 5 years per university policy.

The analysis steps are correctly sequenced. Keeping contradictory accounts and analyzing both across the full dataset and by role are strengths.

Initial here:

10. Limitations, Challenges, and Barriers

Do they accurately represent the study? Yes, and this is one of the strongest sections. You correctly separate stakeholder perception from incarcerated adults' reality, and you plan to keep "don't know" responses as data.

What to add:

· Self-selection bias. Participants willing to discuss racial disparities may be more reform-minded than their peers.

· Your own positionality and how it might shape interviews and interpretation.

· Transferability language. Name transferability rather than only saying findings are not generalizable.

· Vague wording. "Role and facility reports are done with great caution" should say specifically what you will do.

· Section placement. Some ethics content here (storage, redaction) may belong in the data collection section.

11. Significance

Initial here:

Are the claims appropriate? Yes. The claims are hedged as potential implications, with no outcome or recidivism claims, which is appropriate.

Revisions:

· Fix the wording: "obtaining mental health care from racially and ethnically diverse incarcerated adults" should be "for" or "by."

· Name specific audiences: department of corrections administrators, correctional mental health directors, volunteer program coordinators, forensic psychology educators.

· Make the positive social change statement concrete: what could change, for whom, and how.

· Tie the significance explicitly back to the gap.

Alignment Table

Component	Strengths	Concerns	Revision Recommendations	Alignment
Title	13 words; names participants and topic	Omits "access" and "incarcerated"; APA casing	Use suggested 15-word title	Partial
Problem	Relevant, socially important topic	No citations; purpose content mixed in; technology not grounded; no stakes	Add 3–5 current sources on prevalence, disparities, consequences, and correctional telehealth; move "this study aims" to Purpose	Weak
Gap	Defensible stakeholder-perspective gap	Absolute claim unsupported; tense error; role comparison introduced but dropped	Cite existing studies; soften claim; state what stakeholder views add	Partial
Research problem	Clear, specific; mirrors purpose	"Affecting" implies causation	Use "perceived to influence"	Strong
Purpose	Phenomenon, participants, population boundaries clear	Design, data collection, setting scope, and role comparison not specified	Use model sentence; decide on role comparison	Strong (minor gaps)
Framework	Well-established, relevant theories	Intersectionality applied to secondhand accounts unjustified; technology has no framework home; missing references	Justify the intersectional lens; place technology under Andersen's enabling and contextual factors; add references	Partial
Theory-to-study connection	Links frameworks to interview topics	Inductive vs. organizing contradiction; "respects voices" contradiction	State inductive-then-theoretical analysis sequence; revise voice statement	Partial
Research question	Open, qualitative, single RQ across guides	"Changes" vs. "factors"; "some"; no role SQ	Use revised RQ and optional SQ	Weak to partial
Nature of study	Basic qualitative design correctly justified vs. lived experience	"(ANALYTIC)" unclear; no design comparison; interview logistics missing	Add design rationale and logistics; specify reflexive TA	Strong (minor gaps)
Data collection	Role-specific guides; observed vs. secondhand distinction; no-identifier rule	Tense and voice; unclear wording; no field test; reporting limits unaddressed	Future tense, "I"; describe expert review and pilot; state confidentiality limits	Partial
Sample and analysis	Rigorous Braun & Clarke steps; audit trail; keeps contradictions	"Family members" error; thin per-role n; warden feasibility; no trustworthiness framework	Rewrite inclusion criteria; justify n with information power; add recruitment contingency and trustworthiness strategies	Weak until criteria fixed
Limitations	Honest about perception vs. reality; codes "don't know"	Missing self-selection bias and positionality; vague phrasing	Add both; use "transferability"	Strong
Significance	Appropriately hedged; practice-relevant	Wording error; audiences and social change too general	Name audiences; make social change concrete; tie to gap	Strong (minor gaps)

Cross-Cutting Issues

Synthesis. The only citations in the draft are for frameworks and methods. Problem, Gap, and Significance need empirical correctional literature, ideally from the past 5 years, synthesized across sources rather than listed.

Consistent terminology. The draft uses "incarcerated adults," "imprisoned adults," "prisoners," and "persons in custody." Choose person-first "incarcerated adults" and use it throughout.

Tense and voice. Use future tense and first person singular when applicable ("I will..."). Minimize first person use particularly in chapter 1.

Ethics. Your protections for incarcerated people are strong. Strengthen the protections for participants: employment risk, deductive disclosure, and the limits of confidentiality. Clarify whether recruiting through professional networks instead of a department of corrections changes which approvals you need.

Feasibility. Recruiting wardens is the main risk. Build in a contingency plan now.

2