Incarcerated individuals' experiences of COVID-19 in the United States

Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): An evidence and gap map

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. Common recommended measures to limit risk of infection include frequent handwashing, reducing the frequency of social interactions and the use of face coverings. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of these protective behaviours.

Objectives

We aimed to identify and map the existing evidence (published and unpublished) on psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to behaviours aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.

Search Methods

Our extensive search included electronic databases (n = 12), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories including both published peer reviewed, pre-prints and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID-19), (2) behaviours of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with recommended behaviours, to capture both malleable and non-malleable determinants (i.e. determinants that could be changed and those that could not).

Selection Criteria

This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) includes all types of studies examining determinants of common recommended behaviours aimed at mitigating human-to-human spread of COVID-19. All potential malleable and non-malleable determinants of one or more behaviours are included in the map. As part of the mapping process, categories are used to group determinants. The mapping categories were based on a previous rapid review by Hanratty 2021. These include: 'behaviour', 'cognition', 'demographics', 'disease', 'emotions', 'health status', 'information', 'intervention', and 'knowledge'. Those not suitable for categorisation in any of these groups are included in the map as 'other' determinants.

Data Collection and Analysis

Results were imported to a bibliographic reference manager where duplications of identical studies gathered from multiple sources were removed. Data extraction procedures were managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. Information on study type, population, behaviours measured and determinants measured were extracted. We appraised the methodological quality of systematic reviews with AMSTAR-2. We did not appraise the quality of primary studies in this map.

Main Results

As of 1 June 2022 the EGM includes 1034 records reporting on 860 cross-sectional, 68 longitudinal, 78 qualitative, 25 reviews, 62 interventional, and 39 other studies (e.g., mixed-methods approaches). The map includes studies that measured social distancing (n = 487), masks and face coverings (n = 382), handwashing (n = 308), physical distancing (n = 177), isolation/quarantine (n = 157), respiratory hygiene/etiquette (n = 75), cleaning surfaces (n = 59), and avoiding touching the T-zone (n = 48). There were 333 studies that assessed composite measures of two or more behaviours. The largest cluster of determinants was 'demographics' (n = 730 studies), followed by 'cognition' (n = 496 studies) and determinants categorised as 'other' (n = 447). These included factors such as 'beliefs', 'culture' and 'access to resources'. Less evidence is available for some determinants such as 'interventions' (n = 99 studies), 'information' (n = 101 studies), and 'behaviour' (149 studies).

Authors' Conclusions

This EGM provides a valuable resource for researchers, policy-makers and the public to access the available evidence on the determinants of various COVID-19 health-related behaviours. The map can also be used to help guide research commissioning, by evidence synthesis teams and evidence intermediaries to inform policy during the ongoing pandemic and potential future outbreaks of COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. Evidence included in the map will be explored further through a series of systematic reviews examining the strength of the associations between malleable determinants and the uptake and maintenance of individual protective behaviours.

"I Don't Want to Die in Here": Absence and Vulnerability in COVID-19 News Coverage of Prisons

This research examines how news constructed vulnerability in the coverage of COVID-19 and populations in prisons and jails. Focused on key moments during the moral panic around the pandemic, the analysis of publications from across the U.S. found substantial reporting earlier in 2020, and a striking absence and ignorance of key developments later into 2021. Six news discourses - journalistic objectivity, blaming and abandonment, vulnerability, compassion, vilification, and absence - were complicated by the climate of demonstrations for racial justice.

"It was like you were being literally punished for getting sick": formerly incarcerated people's perspectives on liberty restrictions during COVID-19

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has greatly impacted the health of incarcerated individuals in the US. The goal of this study was to examine perspectives of recently incarcerated individuals on greater restrictions on liberty to mitigate COVID-19 transmission.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured phone interviews from August through October 2021 with 21 people who had been incarcerated in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities during the pandemic. Transcripts were coded and analyzed, using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Many facilities implemented universal "lockdowns," with time out of the cell often limited to one hour per day, with participants reporting not being able to meet all essential needs such as showers and calling loved ones. Several study participants reported that repurposed spaces and tents created for quarantine and isolation provided "unlivable conditions." Participants reported receiving no medical attention while in isolation, and staff using spaces designated for disciplinary purposes (e.g., solitary housing units) for public health isolation purposes. This resulted in the conflation of isolation and discipline, which discouraged symptom reporting. Some participants felt guilty over potentially causing another lockdown by not reporting their symptoms. Programming was frequently stopped or curtailed and communication with the outside was limited. Some participants relayed that staff threatened to punish noncompliance with masking and testing. Liberty restrictions were purportedly rationalized by staff with the idea that incarcerated people should not expect freedoms, while those incarcerated blamed staff for bringing COVID-19 into the facility.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlighted how actions by staff and administrators decreased the legitimacy of the facilities' COVID-19 response and were sometimes counterproductive. Legitimacy is key in building trust and obtaining cooperation with otherwise unpleasant but necessary restrictive measures. To prepare for future outbreaks facilities must consider the impact of liberty-restricting decisions on residents and build legitimacy for these decisions by communicating justifications to the extent possible.

Coping with COVID in corrections: a qualitative study among the recently incarcerated on infection control and the acceptability of wastewater-based surveillance

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.

Conditions of Confinement in U.S. Carceral Facilities During COVID-19: Individuals Speak-Incarcerated During the COVID-19 Epidemic

Objectives

We aimed to describe conditions of confinement among people incarcerated in the United States during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using a community-science data collection approach.

Methods

We developed a web-based survey with community partners to collect information on confinement conditions (COVID-19 safety, basic needs, support). Formerly incarcerated adults released after March 1, 2020, or nonincarcerated adults in communication with an incarcerated person (proxy) were recruited through social media from July 25, 2020 to March 27, 2021. Descriptive statistics were estimated in aggregate and separately by proxy or formerly incarcerated status. Responses between proxy and formerly incarcerated respondents were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests based on α=0.05.

Results

Of 378 responses, 94% were by proxy, and 76% reflected state prison conditions. Participants reported inability to physically distance (≥6 ft at all times; 92%), inadequate access to soap (89%), water (46%), toilet paper (49%), and showers (68%) for incarcerated people. Among those receiving prepandemic mental health care, 75% reported reduced care for incarcerated people. Responses were consistent between formerly incarcerated and proxy respondents, although responses by formerly incarcerated people were limited.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that a web-based community-science data collection approach through nonincarcerated community members is feasible; however, recruitment of recently released individuals may require additional resources. Our data obtained primarily through individuals in communication with an incarcerated person suggest COVID-19 safety and basic needs were not sufficiently addressed within some carceral settings in 2020-2021. The perspectives of incarcerated individuals should be leveraged in assessing crisis-response strategies.

The health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults who experience imprisonment globally: A mixed methods systematic review

Background

The prison setting and health status of people who experience imprisonment increase the risks of COVID-19 infection and sequelae, and other health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives

To conduct a mixed methods systematic review on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health of people who experience imprisonment.

Data sources

We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Social Sciences Abstracts, CINAHL, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Sociology Database, Coronavirus Research Database, ERIC, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, Web of Science, and Scopus in October 2021. We reviewed reference lists for included studies.

Study eligibility criteria

Original research conducted in or after December 2019 on health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults in prisons or within three months of release.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

We used the Joanna Briggs Institute’s Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research for qualitative studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute’s Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data for quantitative studies. We qualitized quantitative data and extracted qualitative data, coded data, and collated similar data into categories.

Results

We identified 62 studies. People in prisons had disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 mortality. During the pandemic, all-cause mortality worsened, access to health care and other services worsened, and there were major impacts on mental wellbeing and on relationships with family and staff. There was limited evidence regarding key primary and secondary prevention strategies.

Limitations

Our search was limited to databases. As the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, more evidence will emerge.

Conclusions

Prisons and people who experience imprisonment should be prioritized for COVID-19 response and recovery efforts, and an explicit focus on prisons is needed for ongoing public health work including emergency preparedness.

Prospero registration number

239324.

Depopulation or vaccination? Tackling the COVID-19 crisis in prisons in Africa

Several attempts have been made by the global public health efforts and national governments to contain the spread and vulnerabilities to COVID-19. Evidence, however, shows a disproportionate upsurge in COVID-19 cases in correctional facilities such as prisons, particularly, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The poor adherence to COVID-19 preventive protocols in these settings has raised a serious "moral panic" among the public. There are public health concerns about the most effective and state-of-the-art approach to tackling the continuous spread of the virus in prisons. This paper discusses the feasibility of depopulation and vaccination rollouts in combating COVID-19 in correctional facilities with a particular focus on African prisons. The paper proposes selective and strategic depopulation of prisoners, effective prioritization of vaccination among prisoners, and general sensitization of prisoners toward vaccine disbursement in this total institution.

Outbreaks of COVID-19 variants in US prisons: a mathematical modelling analysis of vaccination and reopening policies

BACKGROUND

Residents of prisons have experienced disproportionate COVID-19-related health harms. To control outbreaks, many prisons in the USA restricted in-person activities, which are now resuming even as viral variants proliferate. This study aims to use mathematical modelling to assess the risks and harms of COVID-19 outbreaks in prisons under a range of policies, including resumption of activities.

METHODS

We obtained daily resident-level data for all California state prisons from Jan 1, 2020, to May 15, 2021, describing prison layouts, housing status, sociodemographic and health characteristics, participation in activities, and COVID-19 testing, infection, and vaccination status. We developed a transmission-dynamic stochastic microsimulation parameterised by the California data and published literature. After an initial infection is introduced to a prison, the model evaluates the effect of various policy scenarios on infections and hospitalisations over 200 days. Scenarios vary by vaccine coverage, baseline immunity (0%, 25%, or 50%), resumption of activities, and use of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that reduce transmission by 75%. We simulated five prison types that differ by residential layout and demographics, and estimated outcomes with and without repeated infection introductions over the 200 days.

FINDINGS

If a viral variant is introduced into a prison that has resumed pre-2020 contact levels, has moderate vaccine coverage (ranging from 36% to 76% among residents, dependent on age, with 40% coverage for staff), and has no baseline immunity, 23-74% of residents are expected to be infected over 200 days. High vaccination coverage (90%) coupled with NPIs reduces cumulative infections to 2-54%. Even in prisons with low room occupancies (ie, no more than two occupants) and low levels of cumulative infections (ie, <10%), hospitalisation risks are substantial when these prisons house medically vulnerable populations. Risks of large outbreaks (>20% of residents infected) are substantially higher if infections are repeatedly introduced.

INTERPRETATION

Balancing benefits of resuming activities against risks of outbreaks presents challenging trade-offs. After achieving high vaccine coverage, prisons with mostly one-to-two-person cells that have higher baseline immunity from previous outbreaks can resume in-person activities with low risk of a widespread new outbreak, provided they maintain widespread NPIs, continue testing, and take measures to protect the medically vulnerable.

FUNDING

Horowitz Family Foundation, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Science Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Advanced Micro Devices.