Cancer incidence, treatment, and survival in the prison population compared with the general population in England: a population-based, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The growing and ageing prison population in England makes accurate cancer data of increasing importance for prison health policies. This study aimed to compare cancer incidence, treatment, and survival between patients diagnosed in prison and the general population. METHODS: In this population-based, matched cohort study, we used cancer registration data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to identify primary invasive cancers and cervical cancers in situ diagnosed in adults (aged ≥18 years) in the prison and general populations between Jan 1, 1998, and Dec 31, 2017. Ministry of Justice and Office for National Statistics population data for England were used to calculate age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) per year and age-standardised incidence rate ratios (ASIRR) for the 20-year period. Patients diagnosed with primary invasive cancers (ie, excluding cervical cancers in situ) in prison between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017 were matched to individuals from the general population and linked to hospital and treatment datasets. Matching was done in a 1:5 ratio according to 5-year age group, gender, diagnosis year, cancer site, and disease stage. Our primary objectives were to compare the incidence of cancer (1998-2017); the receipt of treatment with curative intent (2012-17 matched cohort), using logistic regression adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis; and overall survival following cancer diagnosis (2012-17 matched cohort), using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis, with stratification for the receipt of any treatment with curative intent. FINDINGS: We identified 2015 incident cancers among 1964 adults (1556 [77·2%] men and 459 [22·8%] women) in English prisons in the 20-year period up to Dec 31, 2017. The ASIR for cancer for men in prison was initially lower than for men in the general population (in 1998, ASIR 119·33 per 100 000 person-years [95% CI 48·59-219·16] vs 746·97 per 100 000 person-years [742·31-751·66]), but increased to a similar level towards the end of the study period (in 2017, 856·85 per 100 000 person-years [675·12-1060·44] vs 788·59 per 100 000 person-years [784·62-792·57]). For women, the invasive cancer incidence rate was low and so ASIR was not reported for this group. Over the 20-year period, the incidence of invasive cancer for men in prison increased (incidence rate ratio per year, 1·05 [95% CI 1·04-1·06], during 1999-2017 compared with 1998). ASIRRs showed that over the 20-year period, overall cancer incidence was lower in men in prison than in men in the general population (ASIRR 0·76 [95% CI 0·73-0·80]). The difference was not statistically significant for women (ASIRR 0·83 [0·68-1·00]). Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, patients diagnosed in prison were less likely to undergo curative treatment than matched patients in the general population (274 [32·3%] of 847 patients vs 1728 [41·5%] of 4165; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85]). Being diagnosed in prison was associated with a significantly increased risk of death on adjustment for matching variables (347 deaths during 2021·9 person-years in the prison cohort vs 1626 deaths during 10 944·2 person-years in the general population; adjusted HR 1·16 [95% CI 1·03-1·30]); this association was partly explained by stratification by curative treatment and further adjustment for diagnosis route (adjusted HR 1·05 [0·93-1·18]). INTERPRETATION: Cancer incidence increased in people in prisons in England between 1998 and 2017, with patients in prison less likely to receive curative treatments and having lower overall survival than the general population. The association with survival was partly explained by accounting for differences in receipt of curative treatment and adjustment for diagnosis route. Improved routine cancer surveillance is needed to inform prison cancer policies and decrease inequalities for this under-researched population. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, King's College London, and Strategic Priorities Fund 2019/20 of Research England via the University of Surrey.

RISE-Vac-Co-production of Vaccine Education Materials with Persons Living in Prison.

Increasing vaccination knowledge is effective in addressing hesitancy and is particularly important in populations deprived of liberty who may not routinely have access to health information, ensuring health equity. RISE-Vac is a European Union-funded project aiming to promote vaccine literacy, offer, and uptake in prisons in Europe. We consulted persons living in prisons in the United Kingdom (through the Prisoner Policy Network), France, and Moldova to determine their vaccination knowledge gaps, the information they would like to receive, and how they would like to receive it. We received 344 responses: 224 from the United Kingdom, 70 from France, and 50 from Moldova. Participants were particularly interested in learning about the effectiveness, side effects, and manufacturing of vaccines. Their responses guided the development of educational materials, including a brochure that will be piloted in prisons in Europe. Persons with experience of imprisonment were involved at every stage of this project.

Implementation of COVID-19 vaccination services in prison in six European countries: translating emergency intervention into routine life-course vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Evidence has shown that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is much higher in prisons than in the community. The release of the COVID-19 vaccine and the recommendation by WHO to include prisons among priority settings have led to the inclusion of prisons in national COVID-19 vaccination strategies. Evidence on prison health and healthcare services provision is limited and often focuses on a single country or institution due to the multiple challenges of conducting research in prison settings. The present study was done in the framework of the EU-founded project RISE-Vac. It aimed to analyse the best practices and challenges applied in implementing COVID-19 universal vaccination services during the pandemic to support future expansion of routine life course vaccination services for people living in prison (PLP). METHODS: Two online cross-sectional surveys were designed and piloted: survey1 on prison characteristics and (non-COVID-19) immunisation practices; survey2 on the implementation and coverage of COVID-19 vaccination with open-ended questions for thematic analysis. Each RISE-Vac project partner distributed the questionnaire to one or two prisons in their country. Answers were collected from eight European prisons' directors or medical directors between November 2021-May 2022. RESULTS: According to our findings, the implementation modalities of COVID-19 vaccination services in the surveyed prisons were effective in improving PLP vaccination coverage. Strategies for optimal management of the vaccination campaign included: periodic time slot for PLP vaccination; new staff recruitment and task shifting; distribution of informational material both to PLP and prison staff. Key challenges included continuity of care after release, immunisation information system, and vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study describing the implementation of COVID-19 vaccination services in European prisons, suggesting that the expansion of vaccination provision in prison is possible. There is no unique solution that will fit every country but commonalities likely to be important in the design and implementation of future vaccination campaigns targeting PLP emerged. Increased availability of vaccination services in prison is not only possible, but feasible and highly desirable, and can contribute to the reduction of health inequalities.

Involving patients in drug development for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs): A qualitative study exploring and incorporating preferences of patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis into Target Product Profile development.

BACKGROUND: Target Product Profiles (TPPs) are instrumental to help optimise the design and development of therapeutics, vaccines, and diagnostics - these products, in order to achieve the intended impact, should be aligned with users' preferences and needs. However, patients are rarely involved as key stakeholders in building a TPP. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-three cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) patients from Brazil, Colombia, and Austria, infected with New-World Leishmania species, were recruited using a maximum variation approach along geographic, sociodemographic and clinical criteria. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the respective patient's mother tongue. Transcripts, translated into English, were analysed using a framework approach. We matched disease experiences, preferences, and expectations of CL patients to a TPP developed by DNDi (Drug for Neglected Diseases initiative) for CL treatment. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patients' preferences regarding treatments ranged from specific efficacy and safety endpoints to direct and significant indirect costs. Respondents expressed views about trade-offs between efficacy and experienced discomfort/adverse events caused by treatment. Reasons for non-compliance, such as adverse events or geographical and availability barriers, were discussed. Considerations related to accessibility and affordability were relevant from the patients' perspective. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: NTDs affect disadvantaged populations, often with little access to health systems. Engaging patients in designing adapted therapies could significantly contribute to the suitability of an intervention to a specific context and to compliance, by tailoring the product to the end-users' needs. This exploratory study identified preferences in a broad international patient spectrum. It provides methodological guidance on how patients can be meaningfully involved as stakeholders in the construction of a TPP of therapeutics for NTDs. CL is used as an exemplar, but the approach can be adapted for other NTDs.

Vaccination against emerging and reemerging infectious diseases in places of detention: a global multistage scoping review.

Background: Despite the elevated risks of infection transmission, people in prisons frequently encounter significant barriers in accessing essential healthcare services in many countries. The present scoping review aimed to evaluate the state of availability and model of delivery of vaccination services within correctional facilities across the globe. Methods: Following the methodological framework for scoping reviews and adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews criteria, we conducted a systematic search across four peer-reviewed literature databases (Medline via PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and EBSCO), as well as 14 sources of grey literature. Two researchers meticulously examined the identified papers independently to extract pertinent data published between 2012 and 2022. The quality of the selected publications was assessed using established quality assessment tools. Results: Of the 11,281 identified papers 52 met the inclusion criteria. With the exception of one, all the included publications presented data from high-income countries, predominantly originating from the United States. Across the world, the most prevalent vaccines available in prison settings were COVID-19 and HBV vaccines, typically distributed in response to health crises such as pandemics, epidemics, and local outbreaks. Vaccine coverage and uptake rates within correctional facilities displayed noteworthy disparities among various countries and regions. Besides, individual and organizational barriers and facilitating factors of vaccination in prison settings emerged and discussed in the text. Discussion: The lack of vaccination services combined with low rates of vaccination coverage and uptake among people living and working in correctional facilities represents a cause for concern. Prisons are not isolated from the broader community, therefore, efforts to increase vaccine uptake among people who live and work in prisons will yield broader public health benefits.

What are the factors of parental incarceration that may increase risk of poor emotional and mental health in children of prisoners?

PURPOSE: Globally millions of children have a parent who is imprisoned. Research suggests that this has an adverse impact on the child and imprisonment of a parent is considered to be an adverse childhood experience (ACE). Parental incarceration will not only affect the child but the entire household and may result in further ACEs such as household dysfunction and parental separation making this group of children particularly vulnerable. This scoping review aims to adopt an international perspective to comprehensively examine the extent range and nature of literature both published and grey relating to parental incarceration and the potential impact on children's emotional and mental health. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: In this scoping review, the five stages identified by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) were used including identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting data, collating, summarising and reporting results. In addition, the included studies were appraised for quality using methodology-specific tools. A critical narrative synthesis was adopted to present findings and discussion. FINDINGS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, eight were retrieved from peer-reviewed journals and one from grey literature searching. Five categories with subcategories were identified affecting children's mental health: 1) Relationships: parent and incarcerated child relationship; facilitators and barriers to maintaining contact; 2) Family structure; maternal or paternal incarceration; living arrangements during parental incarceration; 3) Children's emotions: emotional recognition and regulation; resilience; 4) Prison stigma: social stigma; shame and secrecy; 5) Structural disadvantages: poverty; race/ethnicity. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This scoping review has highlighted how the imprisonment of a parent negatively affects their children's emotional and mental health. Factors negatively impacting children's emotional and mental health are interrelated and complex. Further research is required, including differences between paternal and maternal incarceration; impact of gender and age of child; poverty as an ACE and prison exacerbating this; and effects of ethnicity and race. An important policy direction is in developing an effective way of capturing the parental status of a prisoner to ensure that the child and family receive needed support.

Interventions to increase vaccine uptake among people who live and work in prisons: A global multistage scoping review.

The objective of this study is to examine interventions implemented to increase vaccine uptake among people who live and work in prisons around the world. Peer-reviewed and gray literature databases were searched systematically to identify relevant information published from 2012 to 2022. Publications were evaluated by two researchers independently and underwent quality assessment through established tools. Of the 11,281 publications identified through peer-reviewed (2607) and gray literature (8674) search, 17 met the inclusion criteria. In light of limited data, the identified interventions were categorized into two categories of educational and organizational interventions, and are discussed in the text. The lack of availability of vaccination services and interventions to increase vaccine uptake among people who live and work in prisons, worldwide, is a serious public health concern. These interventions reported in this review can be adapted and adopted to mitigate the burden of infectious diseases among people who live and work in prisons.

The mental wellbeing of prison staff in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.

Background: COVID-19 is likely to have had an impact on the mental wellbeing of prison staff because of the high risk for infectious disease outbreaks in prisons and the pre-existing high burden of mental health issues among staff. Methods: A cross-sectional study of staff within 26 prisons in England was carried out between 20th July 2020 and 2nd October 2020. Mental wellbeing was measured using the Short-version of Warwick-Edinburgh Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS). Staff wellbeing was compared to that of the English population using indirectly standardised data from the Health Survey for England 2010-13 and a one-sample t-test. Multivariate linear regression modelling explored associations with mental wellbeing score. Results: Two thousand five hundred and thirty-four individuals were included (response rate 22.2%). The mean age was 44 years, 53% were female, and 93% were white. The sample mean SWEMWBS score was 23.84 and the standardised population mean score was 23.57. The difference in means was statistically significant (95% CI 0.09-0.46), but not of a clinically meaningful level. The multivariate linear regression model was adjusted for age category, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, occupation, and prison service region. Higher wellbeing was significantly associated with older age, male sex, Black/Black British ethnicity, never having smoked, working within the health staff team, and working in certain prison regions. Interpretation: Unexpectedly, prison staff wellbeing as measured by SWEMWBS was similar to that of the general population. Reasons for this are unclear but could include the reduction in violence within prisons since the start of the pandemic. Qualitative research across a diverse sample of prison settings would enrich understanding of staff wellbeing within the pandemic.

Continuity of opioid substitution treatment between prison and community in Southeast Asia: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Criminalisation of drug use and compulsory detention has largely characterised the Southeast Asia region's response to people who use drugs. Whilst access to and provision of healthcare for people living in prison are mandated by international human rights standards, many opioid dependent people living in prison continue to lack access to opioid substitution treatment (OST) during incarceration, and face uncertainties of continuity of care beyond the prison gate. METHODS: A scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework mapped what is currently known about the continuity of OST post-release in Southeast Asia, with a focus on the three countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam) that provide OST in at least one prison. A multi-lingual systematic search (English, Malay, Indonesian, Vietnamese) on Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library collected and reviewed extant relevant published empirical and grey literature including government reports between 2011 and 2021. Of the 365 records found, 18 were eligible for inclusion following removal of duplicates and application of exclusion criteria. These records were charted and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Three main themes were generated: Facilitators of post release continuity of care, Barriers to post release continuity of care and Therapeutic considerations supporting post release continuity of care. When individual and structural gaps exist, disruptions to continuity of OST care post release are observed. Adequate methadone dosage of >80mg/day appears significantly associated with retention in post-release OST. CONCLUSIONS: The review highlights the facilitators, barriers and therapeutic considerations of continuity of care of OST between prison and community for people living in prisons from Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. Improving community services with family support are key to supporting continued OST adherence post release along with reducing societal stigma towards people who use drugs and those entering or leaving prison. Further efforts are warranted to ensure parity, quality and continuity of OST care post release.

Testing for COVID-19 during an outbreak within a large UK prison: an evaluation of mass testing to inform outbreak control.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper was to describe the results of mass asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 in a male prison in England following the declaration of an outbreak. It provides novel data on the implementation of a mass testing regime within a prison during the pandemic. METHODS: The paper is an observational evaluation of the mass testing conducted for 6 months following the declaration of a COVID-19 outbreak within a prison. It investigated the incidence of positive cases in both staff and residents using polymerase chain reaction testing. RESULTS: Data from October 2020 until March 2021 was included. A total of 2170 tests were performed by 851 residents and 182 staff members; uptake was 48.3% for people living in prison and 30.4% for staff. Overall test positivity was 11.6% (14.3% for residents, 3.0% for staff), with around one-quarter of these reporting symptoms. The prison wing handling new admissions reported the second-lowest positivity rate (9.4%) of the eight wings. CONCLUSION: Mass testing for COVID-19 over a short space of time can lead to rapid identification of additional cases, particularly asymptomatic cases. Testing that relies on residents and staff reporting symptoms will underestimate the true extent of transmission and will likely lead to a prolonged outbreak.

COVID-19 vaccine for people who live and work in prisons worldwide: A scoping review.

Overcrowding, poor conditions, and high population turnover make prisons highly susceptible to COVID-19. Vaccination is key to controlling COVID-19, yet there is disagreement regarding whether people who live and work in prisons should be prioritised in national vaccination programmes. To help resolve this, we critically examine the extent, nature, and quality of extant literature regarding prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccinations for people who live and work in prisons. Using a scoping review as our methodological framework, we conducted a systematic literature search of 17 databases. From 2,307 potentially eligible articles, we removed duplicates and screened titles and abstracts to retain 45 articles for review and quality appraisal. Findings indicated that while most countries recognise that prisons are at risk of high levels of COVID-19 transmission, only a minority have explicitly prioritised people who live and work in prisons for COVID-19 vaccination. Even among those that have, prioritisation criteria vary considerably. This is set against a backdrop of political barriers, such as politicians questioning the moral deservingness of people in prison; policy barriers, such as the absence of a unified international framework of how vaccine prioritisation should proceed in prisons; logistical barriers regarding vaccine administration in prisons; and behavioural barriers including vaccine hesitancy. We outline five strategies to prioritise people who live and work in prisons in COVID-19 vaccination plans: (1) improving data collection on COVID-19 vaccination, (2) reducing the number of people imprisoned, (3) tackling vaccine populism through advocacy, (4) challenging arbitrary prioritisation processes via legal processes, and (5) conducting more empirical research on COVID-19 vaccination planning, delivery, and acceptability. Implementing these strategies would help to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on the prison population, prevent community transmission, improve vaccine uptake in prisons beyond the current pandemic, foster political accountability, and inform future decision-making.

A human rights assessment of menopausal women's access to age- and gender-sensitive nondiscriminatory health care in prison.

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE: Women represent about 6% of the global prison population of 11 million. The female prison population has increased significantly in the past decade. Where attention is devoted to women's unique sexual and reproductive health needs in prison, this is largely focused on menstruation management and ante/postnatal care. There is no explicit guidance regarding imprisoned menopausal women's health care in the United Nations normative standards of detention (Mandela Rules, Bangkok Rules). A human rights assessment of menopausal women's access to age- and gender-sensitive nondiscriminatory health care in prison since 2010 was conducted. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology was adhered to. A systematic search was conducted using detailed MeSH terms on CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest Central, PsycInfo, Scopus, and the Web of Science. All published materials in the English language in the time frame of 2010-2022 were collated (n = 268). Fourteen duplicates were removed. Two hundred thirty-four were excluded after title and abstract screening, with five records remaining. Hand searching yielded an additional 11 records. Sixteen records were charted and analyzed thematically using a human rights lens. Themes were the following: environmental conditions and menopausal sequelae, gender-sensitive nondiscriminatory free health care, evidence-based age/gender-sensitive prison health policies, and medical insensitivity and incompetencies in menopausal care. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Menopausal women have the right to the underlying environmental determinants of health in prison and rights to nondiscrimination and equivalence of care, essential medicines, medical care and treatment, preventive health services, and participation in the generation of prison policies and support initiatives. The lack of visibility regarding their health needs in policies and healthcare provisions is reflected in the realities of life in prison, with glaring gaps in the practical medical and lifestyle supports of menopause. Further research is warranted to inform evidence-based prison reforms to improve the quality of life of older women in prison.

Dental education and prison health: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: There is a huge oral disease burden among imprisoned people. Comprehensive guidelines are available on prison dentistry. Prison dental education is important to increase the quality and quantity of the dental workforce in prisons. It improves student perceptions about imprisoned people and gives students a sense of social responsibility and accountability. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the scoping review was to determine what is known in the literature about teaching pre-doctoral dental students about prison health. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on seven databases accessed through the Public Health England knowledge and library services. These databases were AMED, Embase, Emcare, Medline, Social Care Institute for Excellence, Web of Science, and Social Care Online. Appraisal of quality was done for included studies. RESULTS: Eleven papers were included in the review, all of which are based in the USA. Two articles looked at dental students as one group engaged in prison health education while five considered imprisoned people as one of the vulnerable populations focused on dental education. Only four articles solely looked at prison dental education. Program design with a collaborative approach between prisons and teaching institutions, and the positive impact of prison health education on dental students emerged as important. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests prison dental education to be important in reducing the high burden of oral diseases among the incarcerated by influencing the present and future prison dental workforce. It also improves students' understanding of social determinants of health. Further studies are needed to determine the most effective teaching methods and models.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) on prisons, England.

OBJECTIVES: Prisons are high-risk settings for infectious disease outbreaks because of their highly dynamic and crowded nature. During late 2020, prisons in England observed a surge in COVID-19 infection. This study describes the emergence of the Alpha variant in prisons during this period. METHODS: Alpha and non-Alpha variant COVID-19 cases were identified in prisoners in England using address-matched laboratory notifications and genomic information from COG-UK. RESULTS: Of 14,094 COVID-19-positive prisoner cases between 1 October 2020 and 28 March 2021, 11.5% (n = 1621) had sequencing results. Of these, 1082 (66.7%) were identified as the Alpha variant. Twenty-nine (2.7%) Alpha cases required hospitalisation compared with only five (1.0%; P = 0.02) non-Alpha cases. A total of 14 outbreaks were identified with the median attack rate higher for Alpha (17.9%, interquartile range [IQR] 3.2%-32.2%; P = 0.11) than non-Alpha outbreaks (3.5%, IQR 2.0%-10.2%). CONCLUSION: Higher attack rates and increased likelihood of hospitalisations were observed for Alpha cases compared with non-Alpha. This suggests a key contribution to the rise in cases, hospitalisations and outbreaks in prisons in the second wave. With prisons prone to COVID-19 outbreaks and the potential to act as reservoirs for variants of concern, sequencing of prison-associated cases alongside whole-institution vaccination should be prioritised.

Determining the Prevalence and Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Prisons in England: Protocol for a Repeated Panel Survey and Enhanced Outbreak Study.

BACKGROUND: There are over 80,000 people imprisoned in England and Wales in 117 prisons. The management of the COVID-19 pandemic presents particular challenges in this setting where confined, crowded, and poorly ventilated conditions facilitate the rapid spread of infectious diseases. OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 in Prison Study aims to examine the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in prisons in England in order to inform public health policy and practice during the pandemic and recovery. The primary objective is to estimate the proportion of positive tests of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff within selected prisons. The secondary objectives include estimating the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection and examining how the proportion of positive tests and the incidence rate vary among individual, institutional, and system level factors. METHODS: Phase 1 comprises a repeated panel survey of prison residents and staff in a representative sample of 28 prisons across England. All residents and staff in the study prisons are eligible for inclusion. Participants will be tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a nasopharyngeal swab twice (6 weeks apart). Staff will also be tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Phase 2 focuses on SARS-CoV-2 infection in prisons with recognized COVID-19 outbreaks. Any prison in England will be eligible to participate if an outbreak is declared. In 3 outbreak prisons, all participating staff and residents will be tested for SARS-CoV-2 antigens at the following 3 timepoints: as soon as possible after the outbreak is declared (day 0), 7 days later (day 7), and at day 28. They will be swabbed twice (a nasal swab for lateral flow device testing and a nasopharyngeal swab for polymerase chain reaction testing). Testing will be done by external contractors. Data will also be collected on individual, prison level, and community factors. Data will be stored and handled at the University of Southampton and Public Health England. Summary statistics will summarize the prison and participant characteristics. For the primary objective, simple proportions of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and incidence rates will be calculated. Linear regression will examine the individual, institutional, system, and community factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection within prisons. RESULTS: The UK Government's Department for Health and Social Care funds the study. Data collection started on July 20, 2020, and will end on May 31, 2021. As of May 2021, we had enrolled 4192 staff members and 6496 imprisoned people in the study. Data analysis has started, and we expect to publish the initial findings in summer/autumn 2021. The main ethical consideration is the inclusion of prisoners, who are vulnerable participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide unique data to inform the public health management of SARS-CoV-2 in prisons. Its findings will be of relevance to health policy makers and practitioners working in prisons. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30749.

Epidemiology of COVID-19 in Prisons, England, 2020.

Using laboratory data and a novel address matching methodology, we identified 734 cases of coronavirus disease in 88 prisons in England during March 16-October 12, 2020. An additional 412 cases were identified in prison staff and household members. We identified 84 prison outbreaks involving 86% of all prison-associated cases.