ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is common among incarcerated populations and, despite vaccination programs, vaccine acceptance within residents remains low, especially within jails. With the goal of assessing the Connecticut DOC's COVID-19 vaccine program within jails we examined if residents of DOC operated jails were more likely to become vaccinated following incarceration than in the community. Specifically, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis among people who spent at least one night in a DOC-operated jail between February 2 and November 8, 2021, and were eligible for vaccination at the time of incarceration (intake). We compared the vaccination rates before and after incarceration using an age-adjusted survival analysis with a time-varying exposure of incarceration and an outcome of vaccination. RESULTS: During the study period, 3,716 people spent at least one night in jail and were eligible for vaccination at intake. Of these residents, 136 were vaccinated prior to incarceration, 2,265 had a recorded vaccine offer, and 479 were vaccinated while incarcerated. The age-adjusted hazard of vaccination following incarceration was significantly higher than prior to incarceration (12.5; 95% Confidence Intervals: 10.2-15.3). CONCLUSIONS: We found that residents were more likely to become vaccinated in jail than in the community. Though these findings highlight the utility of vaccination programs within jails, the low level of vaccination in this population speaks to the need for additional program development within jails and the community.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The CDC recommends serial rapid antigen assay collection within congregate facilities. Though modeling and observational studies from communities and long-term care facilities have shown serial collection provides adequate sensitivity and specificity, the accuracy within correctional facilities remains unknown. METHODS: Using Connecticut Department of Corrections (DOC) data from November 21st 2020 to June 15th 2021, we estimated the accuracy of a rapid assay, BinaxNOW, under three collection strategies, single test collection and serial collection of two and three tests separated by 1-4 days. The sensitivity and specificity of the first (including single), second, and third serially collected BinaxNOW tests were estimated relative to RT-PCRs collected within one day of the BinaxNOW test. The accuracy metrics of the testing strategies were then estimated as the sum (sensitivity) and product (specificity) of tests in each strategy. RESULTS: Of the 13,112 residents who contributed ≥1 BinaxNOW test during the study period, 3,825 contributed ≥1 RT-PCR paired BinaxNOW test. In relation to RT-PCR, the three-rapid antigen test strategy had a sensitivity of 95.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 93.6-97.5%) and specificity of 98.3% (CI: 96.7-99.1%). The sensitivity of the two- and one-rapid antigen test strategies were 88.8% and 66.8%, respectively, and the specificities were 98.5% and 99.4%, respectively. The sensitivity was higher among symptomatic residents and when RT-PCRs were collected before BinaxNOW tests. CONCLUSIONS: We found serial antigen test collection resulted in high diagnostic accuracy. These findings support serial collection for outbreak investigation, screening, and when rapid detection is required (such as intakes or transfers).