Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
South Med J ; 116(2): 195-201, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2217667

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 case positivity in juvenile justice facilities of two different states alongside institutional, local, and state public health policies during the first 6 months of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective chart review examined two large, urban juvenile justice centers in California and Texas. Positive intake or day 12 tests were considered suggestive of community-acquired severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection. Researchers examined state and county restrictions, closings, and openings. The study included all of the youths 10 to 18 years residing in the facilities between March and August 2020. The main outcomes measured case positivity in each facility and compared it with community positivity rates and state public health measures. RESULTS: In total, 530 youth were included (Texas, n = 319; California, n = 211). The Texas facility reported a higher number of positive cases (24) versus the California facility (3) (P < 0.05). Of the positive youth, 70% were asymptomatic, and none required hospitalization. Intake and day 12 tests were positive in <1% of California youth compared with a rate of 4% in Texas (P < 0.05). California and Texas instituted mask mandates in May and July 2020, respectively. California restricted indoor capacity until August, but Texas varied from 25% to 75% capacity through July. CONCLUSIONS: The Texas facility reported a higher percentage of community-acquired infections compared with California, coinciding with reopening measures in Texas. Texas also enacted a mask mandate later than California. These public health measures, among other factors, likely contributed to higher community rates in Texas, thereby affecting rates among the detained youth.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Juvenile Delinquency , Adolescent , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Public Health , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Prev Med Rep ; 27: 101771, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1740104

ABSTRACT

Carceral facilities are high-risk settings for COVID-19 transmission. Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among incarcerated individuals are poorly understood, especially among jail residents. Here, we conducted a retrospective review of electronic health record (EHR) data on COVID-19 vaccine uptake in custody and additionally administered a survey to assess reasons for vaccine hesitancy, sources of COVID-19 information, and medical mistrust among residents of four Northern California jails. We performed multivariate logistic regression to determine associations with vaccine acceptance. Of 2,564 jail residents offered a COVID-19 vaccine between March 19, 2021 and June 30, 2021, 1,441 (56.2%) accepted at least one dose. Among vaccinated residents, 497 (34.5%) had initially refused. Vaccine uptake was higher among older individuals, women, those with recent flu vaccination, and those living in shared housing. Among 509 survey respondents, leading reasons for vaccine hesitancy were concerns around side effects and suboptimal efficacy, with cost and the need for an annual booster being other hypothetical deterrents to vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy was also associated with mistrust of medical personnel in and out of jail, although this association varied by race/ethnicity. Television and friends/family were the most common and most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, respectively. Overall, vaccine acceptance was much lower among jail residents than the local and national general population. Interventions to increase vaccination rates in this setting should utilize accessible and trusted sources of information to address concerns about side effects and efficacy, while working to mitigate medical and institutional mistrust among residents.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL