Health and Justice最新文献

There is increasing international interest in the use of police drug diversion schemes that offer people suspected of minor drug-related offences an educative or therapeutic intervention as an alternative to criminalisation. While there have been randomised trials of some such schemes for their effects on reducing offending, with generally positive results, less is known about the health outcomes, and what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why. This protocol reports on a realist evaluation of police drug diversion in England that has been coproduced by a team of academic, policing, health, and service user partners. The overall study design combines a qualitative assessment of the implementation, contexts, mechanisms, moderators and outcomes of schemes in Durham, Thames Valley and the West Midlands with a quantitative, quasi-experimental analysis of administrative data on the effects of being exposed to the presence of police drug diversion on reoffending and health outcomes. These will be supplemented with analysis of the cost-consequences of the evaluated schemes, an analysis of the equity of their implementation and effects, and a realist synthesis of the various findings from these different methods.

With increasing numbers of older prisoners, effective strategies for preventing and treating age-associated diseases, such as cognitive disorders, are needed. As pharmacological therapies are limited, non-pharmacological interventions are increasingly recognized as potential treatment strategies. One approach is cognitive training (CT). However, no study has investigated CT in the prison setting. Thus, this one-arm feasibility trial aims to analyze the feasibility of (i) the study protocol and (ii) the implementation of multimodal CT for older prisoners. Eighteen older male prisoners from two specific divisions for older prisoner participated in 12 weekly CT sessions using the NEUROvitalis program. The feasibility analysis included recruitment, dropout, and CT participation rates, and motivation for and satisfaction with CT (using 6-point Likert-scales). The study protocol demonstrated sufficient feasibility with high recruitment rates between 46 and 50%. Therefore, the CT implementation was successful: Only one prisoner ceased participation; all others completed the CT sessions (i.e., attended > 75% of the sessions). Prisoners reported high CT motivation and satisfaction, and would recommend CT. This is the first study to demonstrate CT feasibility in older prisoners. Although more research is needed, these results are a starting point for expanding services to include cognitively enhancing activities for older prisoners.This one-arm feasibility study was pre-registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS; ID: DRKS00020227).), Registered 11 Mai 2021 https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00020227 .

Background: The provision of contraceptive care for incarcerated individuals has been largely inconsistent and has contributed to, at best, inadequate care, and at worst reproductive abuses, violence, and coercion. While previous research has identified strategies to remedy known issues, to date, very few recommendations have been implemented across the carceral system. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of policy and practice recommendations to improve contraceptive care to reproductive-aged, incarcerated individuals in the United States.

Methods: We conducted this systematic review utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and framed it within the National Implementation Research Network's (NIRN) Exploration stage. We searched PubMed, PSYCInfo, SCOPUS, ProQuest, Web of Science, MedLine, Social Science Citation Index and reference sections of included materials. Basic study information, explicitly stated policy and practice recommendations, and discussions and conclusions that subtly provide recommendations were extracted in full text. We utilized a thematic analysis approach to analyze the extracted text.

Results: A total of 45 materials met the inclusion criteria. Seven overarching themes were identified: 1) policy changes needed to implement care; 2) need for contraceptive care in carceral systems; 3) justice agency barriers regarding contraceptive care provision; 4) policy barriers to contraceptive access; 5) funding strategies to improve care; 6) patient preferences for contraceptive care delivery; and 7) healthcare provider knowledge regarding contraceptive care. The seven themes identified shed light on the need for, gaps, barriers, and facilitators of current contraceptive care provision to incarcerated individuals.

Conclusion: This systematic review accomplished two goals of NIRN's Exploration stage. First, the compiled evidence identified a clear need for change regarding policies and practices pertaining to contraceptive care provision to incarcerated individuals in the United States. Second, our findings identified several evidence-based solutions supported both by research and professional healthcare organizations to address the identified need for change. This study provides an initial blueprint for correctional agencies to implement the necessary changes for improving contraceptive care provision to incarcerated populations. The correctional system is in a unique position to deliver much-needed care, which would result in many potential benefits to the individuals, correctional system, and community at large.

Background: People being held in prison are particularly vulnerable to Covid-19 infection, as places of detention are high-risk environments for spread of infection. Due to this risk, many prisons across the globe introduced measures to reduce the risk of Covid-19 transmission. The pandemic changed almost all aspects of prison life, including prison healthcare provision. We undertook a scoping review to understand what is known about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the receipt and delivery of prison healthcare. This scoping review is part of a wider mixed-methods study focusing more specifically on the impact that Covid-19 had on prison healthcare delivery in England.

Methods: We conducted an international scoping review of peer-reviewed articles published between December 2019 and January 2022, across six electronic databases. We also conducted a hand search of key journals and the reference lists of included articles.

Results: Twelve articles met our inclusion criteria. The articles focused primarily on prisons in high-income countries and mostly explored the impact that the pandemic had on the provision of drug treatment services. Some aspects of drug treatment services were more impacted than others, with those delivered by external providers and preparations for release particularly hindered. Whilst prison mental health services were purportedly available, there were changes regarding how these were delivered, with group therapies suspended and most consultations taking place using telehealth. The articles reported both digital and non-digital adaptations or innovations to prison healthcare services to ensure continued delivery. Collaboration between different agencies, such as the prison itself, healthcare providers, and non-governmental organisations, was key to facilitating ongoing provision of healthcare to people in prison.

Conclusions: Covid-19 impacted on prison healthcare internationally, but different treatment services were affected in disparate ways, both within and between countries. The published literature concentrates on the impact on drug treatment services. Prison healthcare providers rapidly adapted their processes to attempt to maintain service provision.

Probation officers are tasked with supervising the largest number of people living with mental illnesses in the criminal legal system, with an estimated 16-27% of individuals on probation identified as having a mental health condition. While academic research has recently focused on building the evidence base around the prototypical model of specialty mental health probation, less focus has been directed to the individual components of specialized mental health caseloads and other strategies agencies use to supervise people with mental illnesses. More specific information about these strategies would benefit probation agencies looking to implement or enhance supervision protocols for people with mental illnesses. This article describes the results from a nationwide study examining (1) probation agencies' mental health screening and identification methods; (2) characteristics of mental health caseloads, including eligibility criteria, officer selection, required training, and interfacing with service providers; and (3) other strategies agencies use to supervise people with mental illnesses beyond mental health caseloads. Strategies for identifying mental illnesses varied, with most agencies using risk needs assessments, self-report items asked during the intake process, or information from pre-sentencing reports. Less than a third of respondents reported using screening and assessment tools specific to mental health or having a system that tracks or "flags" mental illnesses. Results also showed wide variation in mental health training requirements for probation officers, as well as variation in the strategies used for supervising people with mental illnesses (e.g., mental health caseloads, embedded mental health services within probation, modified cognitive behavioral interventions). The wide variation in implementation of supervision strategies presents (1) an opportunity for agencies to select from a variety of strategies and tailor them to fit the needs of their local context and (2) a challenge in building the evidence base for a single strategy or set of strategies.

Background: Understanding the health conditions of those under carceral control is often made difficult due to lack of access to data. Yet, as has been made clear during the COVID-19 pandemic, is that data is essential to understand the scope of disease and how best to allocate resources. To better understand the needs of criminal legal oriented research and non-profit organizations, we interviewed stakeholders to better understand how they use existing data, what data they lack, and what data they would like to have to optimally assess the health of people who are incarcerated.

Results: Stakeholders reported a lack of trust and data availability as key issues. Many perceived the few institutions that do collect and disseminate data as obfuscating data or having a bias in collection and reporting. Additionally, concerns such as balancing the interest of systems-impacted people with advocacy were described as concerning for participants.

Conclusions: To tackle these issues of transparency and availability, the authors believe that an independent oversight body could be instrumental to ensuring accurate and timely data collection and reporting. As many participants turned to creating their own data, coalition building could be influential as a large network of resources may support capturing the varied experiences of people who are incarcerated.

The COVID-19 pandemic inspired calls for rapid decarceration of prisons and jails to slow the spread of disease in a high-risk congregate setting. Due to the rarity of intentionally-decarcerative policies, little is known about the effects of rapid decarceration on individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) substance use disorder (SUD), a population who receive many services via the criminal legal system (CLS). We conducted interviews with 13 key informants involved in CLS in San Francisco, CA to better understand the implication of the decarcerative policies put into practice in early 2020. Participants described a tension between the desire to have fewer people incarcerated and the challenges of accessing services and support - especially during the lockdown period of the pandemic - outside of the CLS given the number of services that are only accessible to those who have been arrested, incarcerated, or sentenced. These findings emphasize the need for investing in community social services rather than further expanding the CLS to achieve the goal of supporting individuals with SMI and SUD shrinking the US system of mass incarceration.

Background: Policies for next-of-kin (NOK) notification and disposition of remains surrounding death are unclear across the United States' (US) carceral systems. The goal of this study was to collect data on carceral system policies pertaining to NOK notification and disposition of remains for individuals who are incarcerated. We collected publicly available operational policies for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 50 state prison systems, and the Washington D.C. jail for a total of 53 systems.

Results: Approximately 70% of systems had available policies on NOK notification and disposition of remains. Few systems had information on time constraints for NOK notification, notifying parties or designated contacts person, and ultimate disposition of unclaimed remains. Several systems had no accessible policies.

Conclusions: Across the US, carceral systems vary in policies for notifying NOK after the death of an incarcerated individual and their processes for the disposition of remains. Carceral and health systems should work towards standardization of policies on communication and disposition of remains after death of an individual who is incarcerated to work towards equity.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted individuals in carceral facilities - both incarcerated people and staff. Vaccination is an important tool in reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. While the importance of promoting vaccination is clear, there are considerable barriers to doing so. This study aims to better understand: (1) why individuals chose to receive the COVID-19 vaccine; (2) why individuals were hesitant to vaccinate; (3) what motivators might influence a person's decision to get vaccinated; and (4) what sources of information about COVID-19 vaccination people trust.

Methods: We conducted a survey of incarcerated people and facility staff in three, large state prisons in Minnesota to identify barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination. Facilities were recruited to participate through purposive sampling, and surveys were administered between November and December 2021. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Stata.

Results: Findings demonstrate that, for incarcerated individuals (N = 1,392), the most common reason for getting vaccinated was to return to normal activities in prison (61%, n = 801); the most common reason for being hesitant to get vaccinated was "other" (41%, n = 342), with individuals citing a variety of concerns. For staff (N = 190), the most common reason for getting vaccinated was to protect the health of family and friends (79%, n = 114); the most common reasons for being hesitant were disbelief that vaccination is necessary (55%, n = 23) and distrust of healthcare and public health systems (55%, n = 23). Incarcerated individuals reported that monetary and programmatic incentives would help motivate them to get vaccinated, while staff members said speaking with healthcare professionals and monetary incentives would help motivate them. Lastly, trusted sources of information for incarcerated individuals were healthcare professionals outside of prisons and jails, along with friends and family members. Staff members reported that they trusted healthcare professionals and national health organizations for information about COVID-19 vaccination.

Conclusions: While considerable barriers to COVID-19 vaccination persist among both incarcerated individuals and staff members, these findings also highlight areas of intervention to increase COVID-19 vaccine confidence and promote health equity among those disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.