Racial Differences in Self-Report of Mental Illness and Mental Illness Treatment in the Community: An Analysis of Jail Intake Data.

Jails and prisons in the United States house people with elevated rates of mental health and substance use disorders. The goal of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the frequency of racial/ethnic differences in the self-report of mental illness and psychiatric medication use at jail entry. Our sample included individuals who had been incarcerated between 2016 and 2020 at the Middlesex Jail & House of Correction, located in Billerica, MA. We used data from the "Offender Management System," the administrative database used by the jail containing data on people who are incarcerated, and COREMR, the electronic medical record (EMR) used in the Middlesex Jail & House of Correction. We evaluated two primary outcomes (1) self-reported mental illness history and (2) self-reported use of psychiatric medication, with the primary indicator of interest as race/ethnicity. At intake, over half (57%) of the sample self-reported history of mental illness and 20% reported the use of psychiatric medications. Among people who self-reported a history of mental illness, Hispanic (AOR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60-0.90), Black (AOR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.43-0.64), Asian/Pacific Islander (Non-Hispanic) people (AOR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.74), and people from other racial/ethnic groups (AOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.11-0.93) all had decreased odds of reporting psychiatric medications. Mental illness was reported in about one-half of people who entered jail, but only 20% reported receiving medications in the community prior to incarceration. Our findings build on the existing literature on jail-based mental illness and show racial disparities in self-report of psychiatric medications in people who self-reported mental illness. The timing, frequency, and equity of mental health services in both the community and the jail setting deserves further research, investment, and improvement.

"To Be Honest, You Probably Would Have to Read It 50 Times": Stakeholders Views on Using the Opt-Out Approach for Vaccination in Jails.

Background: Despite national guidelines on infectious disease testing and vaccination in prisons, there is heterogeneity on the implementation of these practices in jails. We sought to better understand perspectives on the implementation of opt-out vaccination for infectious diseases in jails by interviewing a broad group of stakeholders involved in infectious diseases vaccination, testing, and treatment in Massachusetts jails. Methods: The research team conducted semistructured interviews with people incarcerated in Hampden County Jail (Ludlow, Massachusetts), clinicians working in jail and community settings, corrections administrators, and representatives from public health, government, and industry between July 2021 and March 2022. Results: Forty-eight people were interviewed, including 13 people incarcerated at the time of interview. Themes that emerged included the following: misunderstandings of what opt-out means, indifference to the way vaccines are offered, belief that using the opt-out approach will increase the number of individuals who receive vaccination, and that opt-out provides an easy way for vaccine rejection and reluctance to accept vaccination. Conclusions: There was a clear divide in stakeholders' support of the opt-out approach, which was more universally supported by those who work outside of jails compared to those who work within or are incarcerated in jails. Compiling the perspectives of stakeholders inside and outside of jail settings on the opt-out approach to vaccination is the first step to develop feasible and effective strategies for implementing new health policies in jail settings.

Implementation of rapid COVID-19 testing at Massachusetts trial courts.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 shut down trial courts across the country, prolonging case resolution of charged, detained, and incarcerated people. We report on the implementation of rapid COVID-19 testing at Trial Courts in Massachusetts (MA), focusing on the outcomes of adoption and acceptability. METHODS: Guided by the Expert Recommendations in Implementing Change (ERIC) framework, we chose six strategies to guide implementation. After assembling a group of stakeholders, including representatives of the Trial Court, Department of Public Health (DPH) and vendors providing COVID-19 testing, we implemented rapid COVID-19 testing at Trial Court locations in December 2021. We collected data on (1) adoption of COVID-19 testing, (2) number of stakeholders who attended meetings, (3) number of tests performed at Trial Court sites, and (4) acceptability of COVID-19 testing using a QR-code anonymous survey. RESULTS: There was a high percentage of attendance at stakeholder meetings (> 70% at each meeting). 243 COVID-19 tests were conducted on eight occasions at four Trial Court sites between December 2021 and February 2022. Participants who responded to the QR-code survey reflected favorably on COVID-19 testing at MA Trial Court sites. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 testing at Massachusetts Trial Court sites was possible through stakeholder engagement. Several cases of COVID-19 were identified prior to entry into the Trial Court. Funding for rapid COVID-19 testing should be provided to help keep trial courts open as the pandemic continues to evolve.