Feed

Background/Objectives: Incarcerated people experience high rates of trauma, psychological distress, and social marginalization. Yoga has been introduced in prisons as a trauma-sensitive mind-body practice, yet its rehabilitative contribution remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence on the feasibility and effectiveness of yoga interventions delivered in correctional settings. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines and a preregistered PROSPERO protocol, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus for peer-reviewed publications from May 2012 to November 2025. Eligible studies involved structured yoga interventions for incarcerated populations and reported psychological, behavioral, or institutional outcomes. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results: Ten studies reported in twelve publications and involving 1815 incarcerated individuals met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included Hatha-based protocols, Krimyoga, trauma-informed approaches, and multicomponent programs. Across randomized, quasi-experimental, and pre-post designs, yoga was feasible and acceptable. Reported benefits included reduced psychological distress, negative affect, anger, and trauma-related symptoms, as well as improved mood, self-regulation, and mindfulness. Evidence specific to women and girls was limited, but the available trauma-informed and gender-responsive studies suggested potential reductions in post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety, alongside increases in self-compassion. One large quasi-experimental cohort found lower reincarceration rates among yoga participants, although institutional outcomes were otherwise limited. Evidence was constrained by small samples, heterogeneous intervention formats, short follow-up, and variable outcome measures. Conclusions: Yoga appears to be a promising adjunct to rehabilitation in correctional settings. However, methodological limitations prevent firm conclusions. Larger, well-controlled studies with standardized outcomes and longer follow-up are needed to clarify effectiveness and support integration into correctional health and rehabilitation policy.