Piloting a Flexible Solicited Diary Study With Marginalized Latina Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Little is known about the experiences of minority stress among Latina women who have sex with both women and men (WSWM), a sexual and gender minority group situated at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities. The current article presents an exploratory study aimed at addressing this knowledge gap. The research utilized a flexible diary-interview method (DIM) to investigate stress-related experiences among Mexican American WSWM residing in an economically disadvantaged community in the U.S. during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A detailed description of the study is provided, including information on the background, methodology, participants' experiences, and how the project was managed remotely by a virtual research team. Twenty-one participants were asked to maintain a diary for a 6-week period spanning from March to September 2021. They submitted weekly entries in diverse formats (visual, audio, typed, and handwritten) through a user-friendly website or via mail while communicating regularly with researchers over the phone. Following the diarizing period, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted to clarify pertinent information within the entries and validate researchers' preliminary interpretations. Out of the initial 21 enrollees, 14 participants stopped diarizing at different stages, and nine completed the entire study. Despite facing challenges exacerbated by the pandemic, participants reported the diary-keeping process as a positive experience that offered an authentic outlet to share parts of their lives they seldom reveal. The implementation of this study highlights two significant methodological insights. Firstly, it emphasizes the value of employing a DIM to explore intersectional narratives. Secondly, it underscores the importance of adopting a flexible and sensitive approach in qualitative health research, particularly when engaging individuals from minoritized groups.

Retention strategies among those on community supervision in the South: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Cohort studies must implement effective retention strategies to produce internally valid and generalizable results. Ensuring all study participants are retained, particularly those involved in the criminal legal system, ensures study findings and future interventions will be relevant to this group, who are often lost to follow-up: critical to achieving health equity. Our objective was to characterize retention strategies and describe overall retention among an 18-month longitudinal cohort study of persons on community supervision prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We implemented various retention strategy best-practices (e.g., multiple forms of locator information, training study staff on rapport building, study-branded items). During the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed and describe new retention strategies. We calculated overall retention and analyzed differences between those retained and lost to follow-up by demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, 227 participants enrolled across three sites (N = 46 North Carolina; N = 99 Kentucky; N = 82 Florida). Of these, 180 completed the final 18-month visit, 15 were lost to follow-up, and 32 were ineligible. This resulted in an overall retention of 92.3% (180/195). While most participant characteristics did not differ by retention status, a greater proportion of those experiencing unstable housing were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that when retention strategies are flexible, particularly during a pandemic, high retention is still achievable. In addition to retention best-practices (e.g., frequent requests for updated locator information) we suggest other studies consider retention strategies beyond the study participant (e.g., paying participant contacts) and incentivize on-time study visit completion (e.g., providing a bonus when completed the study visit on time).

COVID-19 community spread and consequences for prison case rates.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 and mass incarceration are closely intertwined with prisons having COVID-19 case rates much higher than the general population. COVID-19 has highlighted the relationship between incarceration and health, but prior work has not explored how COVID-19 spread in communities have influenced case rates in prisons. Our objective was to understand the relationship between COVID-19 case rates in the general population and prisons located in the same county. METHODS: Using North Carolina's (NC) Department of Health and Human Services data, this analysis examines all COVID-19 tests conducted in NC from June-August 2020. Using interrupted time series analysis, we assessed the relationship between substantial community spread (50/100,000 detected in the last seven days) and active COVID-19 case rates (cases detected in the past 14 days/100,000) within prisons. RESULTS: From June-August 2020, NC ordered 29,605 tests from prisons and detected 1,639 cases. The mean case rates were 215 and 427 per 100,000 in the general and incarcerated population, respectively. Once counties reached substantial COVID-19 spread, the COVID-19 prison case rate increased by 118.55 cases per 100,000 (95% CI: -3.71, 240.81). CONCLUSIONS: Community COVID-19 spread contributes to COVID-19 case rates in prisons. In counties with prisons, community spread should be closely monitored. Stringent measures within prisons (e.g., vaccination) and decarceration should be prioritized to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks.

Incarceration as a Fundamental Social Cause of Health Inequalities: Jails, Prisons and Vulnerability to COVID-19

Although research has established the disproportionate health burdens among incarcerated persons, the literature has yet to identify a theoretical framework for outlining the harms of incarceration associated with pandemics. We advance the literature theoretically by arguing two points. First, we assert that incarceration is a potent structural driver of health inequalities that must be considered as a fundamental social cause of disease. To underscore this point, we review how incarceration meets each of the four fundamental social cause criteria originally proposed by Link and Phelan. Second, given that incarceration is a fundamental social cause of disease, both currently and formerly incarcerated populations are likely to face heightened vulnerabilities to pandemics, including COVID-19, further exacerbating health disparities among incarceration-exposed groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of British Journal of Criminology is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Risk of COVID-19 infection among prison staff in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Multiple large outbreaks of COVID-19 have been documented in prisons and jails across regions of the world, with hazardous environmental conditions amplify the risks of exposure for both incarcerated people and correctional staff. The objectives of this study are to estimate the cumulative prevalence of COVID-19 cases among U.S. prison staff over time and compare it to the prison inmate population and the general U.S. population, overall, and to examine risk of COVID-19 infection among prison staff across jurisdictions. METHODS: We use publicly available data (April 22, 2020 to January 15, 2021) to estimate COVID-19 crude case rates per 1000 with 95% confidence intervals over the study period for prison staff, incarcerated population, and general population. We also compare COVID-19 case rates between prison staff and the general population within jurisdictions. RESULTS: Over the study period, prison staff have reported consistently higher rates of COVID-19 compared to the general population, with prison staff case rates more closely mirroring the incarcerated population case rates. The rolling 7-day average case rates for prison staff, prison population, and general population on January 15, 2021 were 196.04 per 1000 (95%CI 194.81, 197.26), 219.16 (95%CI 218.45, 219.86), and 69.80 (95%CI 69.78, 69.83), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity across jurisdictions, yet in 87% of study jurisdictions, the risk of COVID-19 was significantly greater among prison staff than the general state population. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting staff for COVID-19 mitigation strategies is essential to protect the health of people who intersect with the correctional system and to flatten the curve in the surrounding communities.