Health and Justice最新文献

Background: Correctional settings are hotspots for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Social and biological risk factors contribute to higher rates of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among justice-involved individuals. Rapidly identifying new cases in congregate settings is essential to promote proper isolation and quarantine. We sought perspectives of individuals incarcerated during COVID-19 on how to improve carceral infection control and their perspectives on acceptability of wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) accompanying individual testing.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 adults who self-reported being incarcerated throughout the United States between March 2020 and May 2021. We asked participants about facility enforcement of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 guidelines, and acceptability of integrating WBS into SARS-CoV-2 monitoring strategies at their most recent facility. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the study sample and report on acceptability of WBS. We analyzed qualitative data thematically using an iterative process.

Results: Participants were predominantly Black or multiple races (50%) and men (75%); 46 years old on average. Most received a mask during their most recent incarceration (90%), although only 40% received counseling on proper mask wearing. A quarter of participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 at intake. Most (70%) believed they were exposed to the virus while incarcerated. Reoccurring themes included (1) Correctional facility environment leading to a sense of insecurity, (2) Perceptions that punitive conditions in correctional settings were exacerbated by the pandemic; (3) Importance of peers as a source of information about mitigation measures; (4) Perceptions that the safety of correctional environments differed from that of the community during the pandemic; and (5) WBS as a logical strategy, with most (68%) believing WBS would work in the last correctional facility they were in, and 79% preferred monitoring SARS-CoV-2 levels through WBS rather than relying on just individual testing.

Conclusion: Participants supported routine WBS to monitor for SARS-CoV-2. Integrating WBS into existing surveillance strategies at correctional facilities may minimize the impact of future COVID-19 outbreaks while conserving already constrained resources. To enhance the perception and reality that correctional systems are maximizing mitigation, future measures might include focusing on closer adherence to CDC recommendations and clarity about disease pathogenesis with residents.

Background: The impact of COVID-19 has been exceptional, particularly on the National Health Service which has juggled COVID affected patients alongside related staff shortages and the existing (and growing) health needs of the population. In prisons too, healthcare teams have been balancing patient needs against staffing shortfalls, but with additional strains unique to the prison population. Such strains include drastic lockdown regimes and prolonged isolation, the need to consider health alongside security, known health inequalities within prisoner groups, and an ageing and ethnically diverse population (both groups disproportionately affected by COVID). The aim of this paper is to contribute to emerging research on the impact of COVID-19 on prison healthcare.

Methods: We conducted 44 in depth interviews (over phone or video) across three groups: prison leavers, healthcare staff and decision makers, between July and December 2021. Framework analysis was undertaken.

Results: Three themes were found. First, we found that Covid-19 had a significant impact on prison healthcare which involved reduced access and changes to how healthcare was delivered. This affected the health of prisoners by exacerbating existing conditions, new conditions being undiagnosed and mental health needs increasing. Second, the pandemic impacted on healthcare staff through creation of stress, frustration and exhaustion due to minimal staffing levels in an already under-resourced system. Third, an emerging conflict was witnessed. People in prison felt neglected regarding their healthcare needs but staff reported doing the best they could in an unprecedented situation. Healthcare staff and decision makers felt that prison healthcare was seen as a poor relation when compared with healthcare in the community, with no extra resource or staffing for Covid-19 testing or vaccinations.

Conclusion: The Covid-19 pandemic has significantly impacted almost all aspects of prison healthcare in the UK. This includes delivery of healthcare by staff, receipt of it by people in prison and the management, planning and commissioning of it by decision makers. These three groups of people were all affected detrimentally but in vastly different ways, with some participants describing a sense of trauma. Health needs that were exacerbated or went unmet during Covid urgently need to be addressed in order to reduce health inequalities. In order for welfare and wellbeing to be maintained, and in some cases repaired, both prisoners and staff need to feel heard and recognised.

Background: Continuation or initiation of MOUDs during incarceration could improve post-release outcomes by preventing return to opioid use and reducing risk of overdose. People with OUD involved in the criminal legal system are a vulnerable population, yet little research has comprehensively examined post-release outcomes associated with receiving MOUDs in jail and prison settings.

Methods: The authors conducted a review of published peer-reviewed literature on post-release outcomes associated with the use of MOUDs in correctional settings to determine implications for further research and policy.

Results: Results showed compelling evidence supporting the use of MOUDs for currently incarcerated populations, with almost all studies showing that MOUDs provided during incarceration increased community-based treatment engagement post-release. There is also evidence that initiating or continuing MOUDs during incarceration is associated with decreased opioid use and overdoses post-release, without increasing criminal involvement.

Conclusions: Findings indicate that forcing tapering and withdrawal during incarceration can have dire consequences upon release into the community. Initiating or continuing MOUDs during incarceration reduces the risk for opioid use and overdose upon release by maintaining opioid tolerance and increasing community treatment engagement.

Background: An emergent intervention to address the opioid epidemic is the use of multidisciplinary outreach teams which connect an individual in the community to healthcare resources after the experience of an opioid overdose. While these interventions are receiving federal funding, less is known empirically to inform future interventions. Understanding the process and outcomes of these interventions is advisable due to the novel partnerships of public health and law enforcement agencies who sometimes hold divergent goals. The objective of the present review was to describe program structure and evaluated outcomes of community-based post-overdose interventions.

Results: A search of PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science yielded 5 peer-reviewed articles that detail the implementation and outcomes of interventions delivered in the United States published from 2001 to July 2021. Most interventions used a multidisciplinary outreach team and referenced first responder data to contact individuals who recently experienced an overdose at their residence. Services offered often included referral to substance use treatment, recovery coaches, and social services. Method of outreach, evaluation measures, and outcomes varied. From the available literature, facilitators of program engagement included communication, information sharing, and leadership buy-in among multidisciplinary partners.

Conclusions: Future studies could benefit from exploration of service provision in rural areas, for family affected by overdose, and for minoritized populations. Community-based post-overdose interventions utilizing a law enforcement partnership are emergent with promising yet limited examples in empirical literature.

Background: Mental health frameworks, best practices, and the well-being of public safety personnel in Canada are topics of increasing interest to both researchers and organizations. To protect and improve worker mental health, different training programs have been implemented to serve this population. The Road to Mental Readiness (R2MR) training regimen is one such program specialized to build cultural awareness of mental health, reduce stigma, and mitigate the cumulative impacts of exposures to potentially psychologically traumatic events among public safety personnel. However, limited research has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of R2MR, especially among correctional workers.

Methods: The current study analyzed 307 open-ended survey responses to four (4) questions about R2MR garnered from 124 Canadian provincial and territorial correctional workers between 2018-2020 to reveal their understandings and perceptions of R2MR training, and to identify what learned skills they found challenging or easy to implement.

Results: The results suggest that R2MR training plays a significant role in decreasing stigma and increasing mental health awareness. Across jurisdictions, R2MR creates a supportive space for open dialogue around mental health meant to shift cultural and individual barriers that often hinder treatment-seeking. Some respondents also indicated that R2MR was a starting point for intervention.

Conclusions: Further research is necessary to understand how R2MR and other programs could support the mental health and well-being of correctional workers.

Background: There are challenges to delivering high quality primary care within prison settings and well-recognised gaps between evidence and practice. There is a growing body of literature evaluating interventions to implement evidence-based practice in the general population, yet the extent and rigour of such evaluations in incarcerated populations are unknown. We therefore conducted a scoping literature review to identify and describe evaluations of implementation interventions in the prison setting.

Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and grey literature up to August 2021, supplemented by hand searching. Search terms included prisons, evidence-based practice, and implementation science with relevant synonyms. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion. Data extraction included study populations, study design, outcomes, and author conclusions. We took a narrative approach to data synthesis. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance for scoping reviews.

Results: Fifteen studies reported in 17 papers comprised one randomised controlled trial, one controlled interrupted time series analysis and 13 uncontrolled before and after studies. Eight studies took place in the US and four in the UK. Ten studies evaluated combined (multifaceted) interventions, typically including education for staff or patients. Interventions most commonly targeted communicable diseases, mental health and screening uptake. Thirteen studies reported adherence to processes of care, mainly testing, prescribing and referrals. Fourteen studies concluded that interventions had positive impacts.

Conclusions: There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to inform strategies to implement evidence-based health care in prisons, and an over-reliance on weak evaluation designs which may over-estimate effectiveness. Whilst most evaluations have focused on recognised priorities for the incarcerated population, relatively little attention has been paid to long-term conditions core to primary care delivery. Initiatives to close the gaps between evidence and practice in prison primary care need a stronger evidence base.

In the incarcerated population, the largest ethnic and racial group is Black people. Heart disease is known as the leading causes of death in the United States which can lead to cardiac arrest. Layperson cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been shown to provide a benefit and increase likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Recent research shows that in witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrests, the likelihood of receiving bystander CPR was found to be less among Black or Hispanic people when compared to White persons. One neglected area for layperson CPR training are these correctional facilities. This population is known to have higher rates of diabetes, high blood pressure and coronary artery disease, all of which contribute to an increased risk of acute coronary syndrome.A search was performed of the NEMSIS database. When comparing witnessed cardiac arrest, incidents without bystander interventions occurred more frequently than expected if the arrest was witnessed by a family member or other lay person. These interventions included bystander CPR or AED placement with or without defibrillation.The data presented shows that there is an unmet need of additional lay person CPR training in correctional facilities which could be implemented for little cost.

Background: Jails are optimal settings in which to screen individuals for opioid use disorders (OUD) and provide needed services, especially medications for OUD (MOUD). This study sought to assess the availability of OUD "best practices" in jails located in counties heavily impacted by opioid overdose in the U.S. and their related training and resource needs. Counties were selected for study inclusion using two indicators of OUD severity: the absolute number and population rate of opioid overdose deaths. Structured interviews were completed with representatives from 185/244 (76%) of targeted counties and 185/250 (74%) of targeted jails in these counties. Ten OUD best practices were identified based on current treatment and practice guidelines. These include: screening for OUD; clinical assessment; medically managed withdrawal; MOUD administration; MOUD for pregnant people; counseling and wrap-around services; collaboration with community providers; assistance with Medicaid/insurance; re-entry services; and overdose prevention. Descriptive analyses examined the provision of any services and average percentage of services endorsed within best-practice categories, association of best-practice availability with community and jail characteristics, and related needs for training and resources.

Results: Over 70% of jail respondents indicated that some aspects of each of the ten OUD best practices were available within their jails, ranging from 71% using clinical assessment to 96% providing overdose prevention. However, there was considerable variability in the average percentage of items endorsed within each best-practice category, ranging from 38% of items regarding re-entry services to 88% of items regarding medically managed withdrawal. Availability of OUD best practices in jails also varied by community and jail characteristics. Jails reported the highest needs for funding for medication and clinical staff.

Conclusions: Policies are needed to address the identified gaps in availability of OUD best practices within jails. Training, technical assistance, and funding are needed to improve clinical capacity of jails to administer MOUD and to ensure continuity of care from jail to community, which are essential to reducing the risk of opioid-related overdose following release.

While the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery everywhere, persons with carceral system involvement and opioid use disorder (OUD) were disproportionately impacted and vulnerable to severe COVID-associated illness. Carceral settings and community treatment programs (CTPs) rapidly developed protocols to sustain healthcare delivery while reducing risk of COVID-19 transmission. This survey study assessed changes to OUD treatment, telemedicine use, and re-entry support services among carceral and CTPs participating in the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded study, Long-Acting Buprenorphine vs. Naltrexone Opioid Treatments in Criminal Justice System-Involved Adults (EXIT-CJS) study. In December 2020, carceral sites (n = 6; median pre-COVID 2020 monthly census = 3468 people) and CTPs (n = 7; median pre-COVID 2020 monthly census = 550 patients) participating in EXIT-CJS completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. The survey assessed changes pre- (January-March 2020) and post- (April-September 2020) COVID-19 in OUD treatment, telemedicine use, re-entry supports and referral practices. Compared to January-March 2020, half of carceral sites (n = 3) increased the total number of persons initiating medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) from April-September 2020, while a third (n = 2) decreased the number of persons initiated. Most CTPs (n = 4) reported a decrease in the number of new admissions from April-September 2020, with two programs stopping or pausing MOUD programs due to COVID-19. All carceral sites with pre-COVID telemedicine use (n = 5) increased or maintained telemedicine use, and all CTPs providing MOUD (n = 6) increased telemedicine use. While expansion of telemedicine services supported MOUD service delivery, the majority of sites experienced challenges providing community support post-release, including referrals to housing, employment, and transportation services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this small sample of carceral and CTP sites innovated to continue delivery of treatment for OUD. Expansion of telemedicine services was critical to support MOUD service delivery. Despite these innovations, sites experienced challenges providing reintegration supports for persons in the community. Pre-COVID strategies for identifying and engaging individuals while incarcerated may be less effective since the pandemic. In addition to expanding research on the most effective telemedicine practices for carceral settings, research exploring strategies to expand housing and employment support during reintegration are critical.

Background: Utilizing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) measurement scales to assess youths' adversities has expanded exponentially in health and justice studies. However, most of the ACEs assessment scales have yet to meet critical psychometric standards, especially for key demographic and minority groups. It is critical that any assessment or screening tool is not reinforcing bias, warranting the need for validating ACEs tools that are equitable, reliable and accurate. The current study aimed to examine the structural validity of an ACEs scale. Using data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), which collected of 97,314 responses collected from adults across sixteen states. This study assessed the psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the ACEs tool under the structural equation modeling framework.

Results: We found the 11-item ACEs screening tool as a second-order factor with three subscales, all of which passed the measurement invariance tests at metric and scalar levels across age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and sexual orientation. We also found that minority groups experienced more childhood adversity with small effect size, with the exception of the gender identity.

Conclusion: The ACEs measurement scale from the BRFSS is equitable and free from measurement bias regardless of one's age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and thus is valid to be used to compare group mean differences within these groups. The scale is a potentially valid, viable, and predictive risk assessment in health and justice and research settings to identify high-risk groups or individuals for treatments.