"Because I Was a Criminal and Drug Addict.": Experiences of Anti-Black Gendered Racism and Reproductive Injustice Among Black Pregnant and Postpartum Women with a Substance Use Disorder and Incarceration and Family Policing Histories.

Racism pervades the US criminal legal and family policing systems, particularly impacting cases involving women with a history of a substance use disorder (SUD). Laws criminalizing SUD during pregnancy disproportionately harm Black women, as do family policing policies around family separation. Discrimination within intersecting systems may deter Black pregnant women with a SUD from seeking evidence-based pregnancy and substance use care. This convergent parallel mixed-methods study aimed to illuminate how systemic oppression influenced the lived experiences of Black mothers with a SUD, facing dual involvement in the criminal legal and family policing systems. Using convenience and snowball sampling techniques, we recruited 15 Black mothers who were incarcerated, used substances while pregnant, and had a history with family policing systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews and developed and distributed a scale questionnaire to describe participants' experiences navigating overlapping systems of surveillance and control. Drawing on models of systemic anti-Black racism and sexism and reproductive justice, we assessed participants' experiences of racism and gender-based violence within these oppressive systems. Participants described how intersecting systems of surveillance and control impeded their prenatal care, recovery, and abilities to parent their children in gender and racially specific ways. Although they mostly detailed experiences of interpersonal discriminatory treatment, particularly from custody staff while incarcerated and pregnant, participants highlighted instances of systemic anti-Black gendered racism and obstetric racism while accessing prenatal care and substance use treatment in carceral and community settings. Their narratives emphasize the need for action to measure and address the upstream macro-level systems perpetuating inequities.

Allocating health care resources in jails and prisons during COVID-19: a qualitative study of carceral decision-makers.

COVID-19 created acute demands on health resources in jails and prisons, burdening health care providers and straining capacity. However, little is known about how carceral decision-makers balanced the allocation of scarce resources to optimize access to and quality of care for incarcerated individuals. This study analyzes a national sample of semi-structured interviews with health care and custody officials (n = 32) with decision-making authority in 1 or more carceral facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews took place between May and October 2021. We coded transcripts using a directed content analysis approach and analyzed data for emergent themes. Participants reported that facilities distributed personal protective equipment to staff before incarcerated populations due to staff's unique role as potential vectors of COVID-19. The use of testing reflected not only an initial imperative to preserve limited supplies but also more complex decision-making about the value of test results to facility operations. Participants also emphasized the difficulties caused by limited physical space, insufficient staff, and stress from modifying job roles. The rapid onset of COVID-19 confronted decision-makers with unprecedented resource allocation decisions, often with life-or-death consequences. Planning for future resource allocation decisions now may promote more equitable decisions when confronted with a future pandemic event.

"Maybe if we weren't in the pandemic, I would have reconsidered": Experiences of abortion care-seeking during the COVID-19 pandemic in Maryland.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on abortion care-seeking in Maryland, a state with Medicaid coverage for abortion, high service availability, and laws supporting abortion rights. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 15 women who had an abortion between January 2021 and March 2022 at a hospital-based clinic in a mid-sized Maryland city. We purposively recruited participants with varied pandemic financial impacts. Interview questions prompted participants to reflect on how the pandemic affected their lives, pregnancy decisions, and experiences seeking abortion care. We analyzed our data for themes. RESULTS: All participants had some insurance coverage for their abortion; over half paid using Medicaid. Many participants experienced pandemic financial hardship, with several reporting job, food, and housing insecurity as circumstances influencing their decision to have an abortion. Most women who self-reported minimal financial hardship caused by the pandemic indicated they sought an abortion for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. In contrast, women with economic hardship viewed their pregnancies as unsupportable due to COVID-19 exacerbating financial instability, even when they desired to continue the pregnancy. All participants expressed that having an abortion was the best decision for their lives. Yet, when making decisions about their pregnancy, the most financially disadvantaged women weighed their desires against the pandemic's constraints on their reproductive self-determination. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic changed abortion care-seeking circumstances even in a setting with minimal access barriers. Financial hardship influenced some women to have an abortion for a pregnancy that-while unplanned-they may have preferred to continue.

Termination counseling among US perinatal genetic counselors in the setting of second trimester fetal anomalies.

Many pregnant people learn of fetal anomalies in the second trimester and subsequently present to prenatal genetic counselors (PGCs) for counseling, including but not limited to a nuanced discussion about whether to continue or terminate pregnancy. In those who choose to terminate, the decision between dilation and evacuation (D&E) or induction is often one of patient preference and as such, is heavily influenced by the quality of counseling received. PGCs are expertly trained to provide values-based counseling, yet little is known about their termination counseling practices, referral practice patterns, and perceived responsibilities in caring for this group of pregnant people. To gain this knowledge, we surveyed a national sample of PGCs in early 2022 and received 70 completed responses. The survey contained open- and closed-ended questions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and free response data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Eighty percent (n = 56) of respondents reported that <50% of their patients had previously received termination options counseling. Most strikingly, 15% of respondents provided termination counseling that was beyond their self-identified comfort level. Scenario-based questions assessed respondents' counseling practice patterns in seven real-world situations, presented in order of decreasing severity for the fetus. Respondents were 50% less likely to provide termination options counseling to patients between the most lethal to the least lethal proposed fetal anomaly. The scenario-based analysis revealed two distinct termination counseling approaches: (1) all options counseling with an explicit discussion of options to continue or terminate and (2) discretionary options counseling focused on identifying patient preferences to guide counseling and not explicitly stating all available options. This study highlights the need to ensure PGCs feel well-trained to discuss the general features of second trimester pregnancy termination and, if unable to do so, to practice in systems with timely referral to providers well-versed in the counseling about all methods of termination.

"It's different than a doctor saying 'You're making the right choice'": A qualitative study of chaplains' experience caring for patients undergoing abortion in Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

OBJECTIVES: Health care chaplains are faith providers with theological education, pastoral experience, and clinical training who provide spiritual care to patients, their families, and medical staff. This study sought to characterize chaplains' experiences providing spiritual care for patients experiencing abortion and pregnancy loss and to explore how chaplains gain competency and comfort in providing pastoral care for this patient population. STUDY DESIGN: Researchers conducted in-depth, semistructured, qualitative interviews with currently-practicing chaplains recruited via convenience sampling in the Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia region. We analyzed interviews using directed content analysis and coded using both inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: We interviewed 13 chaplains. The majority were Protestant and identified as Democrats. Participants often personally struggled with the acceptability of abortion but emphasized the importance of spiritual care for this patient population. They recognized that religious stigma regarding abortion prevented referrals to chaplaincy. Though desiring to contribute, chaplains reported little formal education in pregnancy support counseling. They relied on foundational pastoral care skills, like holding space, values clarification, connecting with patients' spirituality, words of comfort, ritualistic memorialization, and resource provision. All desired more training specific to abortion and pregnancy loss in chaplaincy education. CONCLUSIONS: Chaplains from varied faith backgrounds have a diverse set of skills to support patients experiencing abortion or pregnancy loss, but feel underutilized and lacking in formal training. Though not all patients require pastoral support, chaplains can be critical members of the care team, particularly for those patients experiencing spiritual distress. IMPLICATIONS: Chaplains have a paucity of training in supporting patients experiencing abortion and pregnancy loss. Chaplains want to be involved with patients experiencing abortion but feel excluded by both patients and practitioners. Standardization of pastoral care training is important to ensure adequate spiritual support for patients who desire such services.

Mental health, chronic and infectious conditions among pregnant persons in US state prisons and local jails 2016-2017.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant individuals in incarcerated settings have unique healthcare needs. Rates of mental health, infectious diseases, and chronic disease are higher among nonpregnant incarcerated women compared with those who are not, but the prevalence of these conditions among pregnant people in custody has not been documented. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to describe the prevalence of metabolic, infectious, and mental health conditions in pregnant people to identify the medical needs of high-risk pregnancies in US state prisons and local jails. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective epidemiologic surveillance of a convenience sample of state prisons (n = 20) and local jails (n = 3). METHODS: We used purposive and snowball sampling to recruit a national sample of prisons and jails of a range of sizes and geographies. Reporters submitted to our study database monthly data on selected pregnancy comorbidities for 6 months between 2016 and 2017. Screening, diagnosis, and tracking of these conditions are derived from each facility's medical record and health care delivery systems. RESULTS: Of the 445 newly admitted pregnant people in prisons and 243 in jails, the most prevalent conditions were mental health conditions and hepatitis C. Specifically, 34.1% (n = 152) in prison and 23.5% (n = 57) in jail had a substance use disorder, and 27.4% (n = 122) of those in prison and 17.7% (n = 43) in jail had a psychiatric diagnosis. Finally, 20.2% (n = 91) in prison and 6.6% (n = 16) in jail had hepatitis C. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that chronic medical and mental health conditions are prevalent among pregnant people in US prisons and jails. However, significant variability in the reported number of cases of these conditions from state to state and between facility types implies a lack of or inadequate screening practices. These data indicate the need for comprehensive screening and appropriate care for the complex needs of pregnant incarcerated people.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to describe the prevalence of these conditions in pregnant people to identify the medical needs of high-risk pregnancies in US state prisons and local jails. STUDY DESIGN: The study involved ongoing systematic data collection, analysis and interpretation of pregnancy data from a convenience sample of state prisons (n = 20) and local jails (n = 3). METHODS: We intentionally recruited a national sample of prisons and jails of a range of sizes and geographies that house pregnant individuals. Some study facilities were referred from others. Reporters submitted to our study database monthly data on selected pregnancy comorbidities for 6 months between 2016 and 2017. Screening, diagnosis, and tracking of these conditions derived from each facility's medical record and health care delivery systems. RESULTS: Of the 445 newly admitted pregnant people in prisons and 243 in jails, the most prevalent conditions were mental health conditions and hepatitis C. Specifically, 34.1% (n = 152) in prison and 23.5% (n = 57) in jail had a substance use disorder and 27.4% (n = 122) of those in prison and 17.7% (n = 43) in jail had a psychiatric diagnosis. Finally, 20.2% (n = 91) in prison and 6.6% (n = 16) in jail had hepatitisc. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that chronic medical and mental health conditions are prevalent among pregnant people in US prisons and jails. However, significant variability in the reported number of cases of these conditions from state to state and between facility types implies a lack of or inadequate screening practices. These data indicate the need for comprehensive screening and appropriate care for the complex needs of pregnant incarcerated people.

Health care conditions among pregnant persons in US state prisons and local jails 2016­2017Background: Pregnant individuals in incarcerated settings have unique health care needs. Rates of mental health, infectious diseases, and chronic disease are higher among nonpregnant incarcerated women compared with those who are not, but the prevalence of these conditions among pregnant people in custody has not been documented.

Development and evaluation of measures to assess self-determination in peripartum contraceptive decision-making.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to adapt and validate person-centered measures to evaluate various contributors to self-determination in perinatal contraceptive decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We developed and administered four scales adapted from existing measures in the context of Self-Determination Theory: the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ), Perceived Competence Scale, modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire, and Important Other Climate Questionnaire. The TSRQ consists of three subscales: autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation. We recruited a nonprobability convenience sample of 300 hospitalized postpartum patients in Baltimore, MD, between 2015 and 2016 and administered surveys in English and Spanish. We validated the scales with Cronbach's alpha coefficients, confirmatory factor analysis, and invariance analysis. We examined construct validity by testing correlations between the scales and other person-centered measures, such as satisfaction with counseling. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was >0.8 except for the amotivation subscale. Confirmatory factor analysis was adequate for all scales. Autonomous motivation correlated positively and significantly with perceived competence, health care provider autonomy support, important other autonomy support, and other measures of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: We found the four scales to be internally consistent and valid except for the amotivation subscale. We recommend using the autonomous motivation subscale in place of the full TSRQ. The autonomous motivation subscale, Perceived Competence Scale, modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire, and Important Other Climate Questionnaire showed adequate internal consistency, construct validity, and adherence to the expected conceptual structure of the scales. IMPLICATIONS: Autonomous decision-making is central to ethics and quality of care, especially for contraceptive methods that require a provider for initiation or discontinuation and at more vulnerable times, such as postpartum and postabortion. These scales may help tailor person-centered and autonomy-supportive interventions and programs to improve contraceptive counseling and care delivery.

Impact of new abortion restrictions on people in prison: Estimated number of incarcerated people without abortion access and distance to abortion providers.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the annual number of incarcerated pregnant people in state and federal prisons needing an abortion. STUDY DESIGN: We used 2021 Bureau of Justice Statistics data and prior studies' findings to estimate the number of pregnant incarcerated people, then calculated state-specific abortion ratios to determine the number potentially needing an abortion. RESULTS: Of 638 pregnant people incarcerated in prisons annually, 110 would be expected to need an abortion, including 55 in states where abortion is currently banned or restricted. CONCLUSIONS: Under Dobbs, many incarcerated pregnant people will be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies to term.

Incarceration Status Among Individuals Obtaining Abortion in the United States, 2020.

Objectives. To examine the abortion frequency among incarcerated people before Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization was decided. Methods. We used data from the 2020 Abortion Provider Census to examine the number and distribution of facilities that provided abortions to incarcerated patients. Results. Sixty-seven clinics across 25 states and the District of Columbia provided more than 300 abortions to incarcerated patients in 2020. Eleven of these clinics are in states that now have total or near-total abortion bans. Public Health Implications. People in jails and prisons face many structural barriers when seeking an abortion, especially with increased state abortion restrictions and an inability to travel out of state. If they cannot obtain desired care, people may be forced to continue pregnancies in harsh conditions. To address abortion access inequities, policy and research must consider incarcerated individuals. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(12):1352-1355. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307411).

Patient-Led Approaches to a Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery Calculator.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patient approaches to navigating their probability of a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) within the context of prediction scores generated from the original Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units' VBAC calculator, which incorporated race and ethnicity as one of six risk factors. METHODS: We invited a diverse group of participants with a history of prior cesarean delivery to participate in interviews and have their prenatal visits recorded. Using an open-ended iterative interview guide, we queried and observed these individuals' mode-of-birth decisions in the context of their VBAC calculator scores. We used a critical and feminist approach to analyze thematic data gleaned from interview and visit transcripts. RESULTS: Among the 31 participants who enrolled, their self-identified racial and ethnic categories included: Asian or South Asian (2); Black (4); Hispanic (12); Indigenous (1); White (8); and mixed-Black, -Hispanic, or -Asian background (4). Predicted VBAC success probabilities ranged from 12% to 95%. Participants completed 64 interviews, and 14 prenatal visits were recorded. We identified four themes that demonstrated a range of patient-led approaches to interpreting the probability generated by the VBAC calculator: 1) rejecting the role of race and ethnicity; 2) reframing failure, finding success; 3) factoring the physical experience of labor; and 4) modifying the probability for VBAC. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that a numeric probability for VBAC may not be highly valued or important to all patients, especially those who have strong intentions for VBAC. Black and Hispanic participants challenged the VBAC calculator's incorporation of race and ethnicity as a risk factor and resisted the implication it produced, especially that their bodies were less capable of achieving a vaginal birth. Our findings suggest that patient-led approaches to assessing and interpreting VBAC probability may be an untapped resource for achieving a more person-centered, equitable approach to counseling.

State Laws on Substance Use Treatment for Incarcerated Pregnant and Postpartum People.

Background: Incarcerated perinatal populations report high rates of substance use in the United States (US). Despite this, substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is not routinely available in carceral settings and state policies related to the provision of substance use screening and treatment are unknown. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in WestLaw through the end of the 2020 legislative session combining the terms "pregnant" and "postpartum" with terms for incarceration and related terms. The search returned 453 statutes from 43 states. A deductive codebook of various maternal health topics was developed. Legislative texts related to SUD screening and treatment were extracted for textual analysis. Results: Of the 43 states identified as having at least 1 state statute pertaining to pregnant or postpartum incarcerated people, 7 states had statutes relevant to SUD screening and treatment. Statutes related to substance use screening, education, treatment and diversion programs, program eligibility, aftercare and release planning, and funding appropriations. Conclusions: The majority of states across the U.S. lack legislation that address SUD screening and treatment among incarcerated perinatal populations. Given the known limited access to SUD treatment for perinatal populations in custody, increasing legislative statutes could increase access to essential care.

Pandemic detention: life with COVID-19 behind bars in Maryland.

Background: People incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic face higher vulnerability to infection due to structural and social factors in carceral settings. Additionally, due to the higher prevalence of chronic health conditions among carceral populations, they are also at risk for more severe COVID-19 disease. This study was designed to explore the experiences of people incarcerated in prisons and jails in Maryland during the height of the pandemic. Methods: We conducted semi-structured phone interviews between January 2021 and April 2022 with ten individuals incarcerated in Maryland carceral facilities during the height of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic and were subsequently released from prison or jail. We transcribed the interviews, coded them, and engaged in content analysis, an inductive analytical approach to developing themes and meaning from qualitative data. Results: Four themes emerged from participants' descriptions of their experiences: (1) distress from fear, vulnerability, and lack of knowledge about COVID-19 and how to protect themselves, (2) shortcomings of prison and jail administrators and other personnel through lack of transparency and arbitrary and punitive enforcement of COVID-19 protocols, (3) lack of access to programming and communication with others, and (4) absence of preparation for release and access to usual re-entry services. Conclusion: Participants responded that the prison and jails' response during the COVID-19 pandemic was ill-prepared, inconsistent, and without appropriate measures to mitigate restrictions on liberty and prepare them for release. The lack of information sharing amplified their sense of fear and vulnerability unique to their incarceration status. Study findings have several institutional implications, such as requiring carceral facilities to establish public health preparedness procedures and making plans publicly available.

Release, Reentry, and Reintegration During COVID-19: Perspectives of Individuals Recently Released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic had a large negative impact on people in U.S. prisons. Expedited releases from prison were one strategy used to decrease morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. However, little is known about the reentry experiences of those being rapidly released from custody early in the pandemic. Methods: We aimed to examine the perspectives of former residents in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regarding release, reentry, and reintegration into their respective communities. We conducted semistructured interviews with 21 recently released individuals primarily recruited through legal aid organizations between September and October 2021. Subjects were incarcerated before and during the early surge in the COVID-19 pandemic. We coded transcripts thematically with domains developed a priori in which we revised iteratively and inductively based on the data. Results: Several major themes emerged. Participants reported that they needed to advocate for themselves to take advantage of the early release process. Compared with normal circumstances, they reported a lack of reentry planning and preparation before participants were released. Finally, experiences with reintegration varied but were often more challenging due to COVID-19. Discussion: Residents released during COVID-19 reported many challenges with reentry that could have been mitigated by support and guidance from the BOP. Reentry is a process that should begin prelease and continues postrelease to ensure individuals have adequate structural and social supports. Health Equity Implications: Inadequate reentry support has significant impacts on the health and well-being of recently released individuals and contributes to the broader context of achieving health equity for minitorized groups who are disproportionately overrepresented in prisons. Policy and practice reform is needed to address the time-sensitive, life-threatening challenges individuals face when transitioning from prison to community.

"I mean, I didn't really have a choice of anything:" How incarceration influences abortion decision-making and precludes access in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the punitive, rights-limiting, and racially stratified environment of incarceration in the United States (US) shapes the abortion desires, access, and pregnancy experiences of pregnant women, transgender men, and gender non-binary individuals. METHODS: From May 2018-November 2020, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with pregnant women in prisons and jails in an abortion supportive and an abortion restrictive state. Interviews explored whether participants considered abortion for this pregnancy; attempted to obtain an abortion in custody; whether and how incarceration affected their thoughts about pregnancy, birth, parenting, and abortion; and options counseling and prenatal care experiences, or lack thereof, in custody. RESULTS: The conditions of incarceration deeply shaped our 39 participants' abortion and pregnancy decisions, with some experiencing pregnancy continuation as punishment. Four themes emerged: (1) medical providers' overt obstruction of desired abortions; (2) participants assuming that incarcerated women had no right to abortion; (3) carceral bureaucracy constraining abortion access; and (4) carceral conditions made women wish they had aborted. Themes were similar in supportive and restrictive states. CONCLUSIONS: Incarceration shaped participants' thoughts about pregnancy and their abilities to access abortion, consider whether abortion was an attainable option, and make pregnancy-related decisions. These subtle carceral control aspects presented more frequent barriers to abortion than overt logistical ones. The carceral environment played a more significant role than the state's overall abortion climate in shaping abortion experiences. Incarceration constrains and devalues reproductive wellbeing in punitive ways that are a microcosm of broader forces of reproductive control in US society.

COVID-19 Restrictions In Jails And Prisons: Perspectives From Carceral Leaders.

COVID-19 has been an unprecedented challenge in carceral facilities. As COVID-19 outbreaks spread in the US in early 2020, many jails, prisons, juvenile detention centers, and other carceral facilities undertook infection control measures such as increased quarantine and reduced outside visitation. However, the implementation of these decisions varied widely across facilities and jurisdictions. We explored how carceral decision makers grappled with ethically fraught public health challenges during the pandemic. We conducted semistructured interviews during May-October 2021 with thirty-two medical and security leaders from a diverse array of US jails and prisons. Although some facilities had existing detailed outbreak plans, most plans were inadequate for a rapidly evolving pandemic such as COVID-19. Frequently, this caused facilities to enact improvised containment plans. Quarantine and isolation were rapidly adopted across facilities in response to COVID-19, but in an inconsistent manner. Decision makers generally approached quarantine and isolation protocols as a logistical challenge, rather than an ethical one. Although they recognized the hardships imposed on incarcerated people, they generally saw the measures as justified. Comprehensive outbreak control guidelines for pandemic diseases in carceral facilities are urgently needed to ensure that future responses are more equitable and effective.

Assessing provision of MOUD and obstetric care in U.S. jails: A content analysis of policies submitted by 59 jails.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Thousands of pregnant people with opioid use disorder (OUD) interface with the United States (US) carceral system annually. However, little is known about the consistency and breadth of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for incarcerated pregnant people in jail, even at facilities that offer treatment; the goal of our study is to illuminate the current practices for OUD management in US jails. METHODS: We collected and analyzed 59 self-submitted jail policies related to OUD and/or pregnancy from a national, cross-sectional survey of reported MOUD practices for pregnant people in a geographically diverse sample of US jails. Policies were coded for MOUD access, provision, and scope, then compared to respondents' submitted survey responses. RESULTS: Of 59 policies, 42 (71%) mentioned OUD care during pregnancy. Among these 42 polices that mentioned OUD care during pregnancy, 41 (98%) allowed MOUD treatment, 24 (57%) expressed continuing pre-existing MOUD treatment that was started in the community pre-arrest, 17 (42%) initiated MOUD in custody, and only 2 (5%) mentioned providing MOUD continuation post-partum. Facilities varied in MOUD duration, provision logistics, and discontinuation policies. Only 11 (19%) policies were completely concordant with their survey response regarding MOUD provision in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: The conditions, criteria, and the comprehensiveness of MOUD provision and protocols for pregnant people in jail remain variable. The findings demonstrate the need to develop a universal comprehensive MOUD framework for incarcerated pregnant people to reduce the increased likelihood of death from opioid overdose upon release and in the peripartum period.

"It was like you were being literally punished for getting sick": formerly incarcerated people's perspectives on liberty restrictions during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has greatly impacted the health of incarcerated individuals in the US. The goal of this study was to examine perspectives of recently incarcerated individuals on greater restrictions on liberty to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured phone interviews from August through October 2021 with 21 people who had been incarcerated in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities during the pandemic. Transcripts were coded and analyzed, using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Many facilities implemented universal "lockdowns," with time out of the cell often limited to one hour per day, with participants reporting not being able to meet all essential needs such as showers and calling loved ones. Several study participants reported that repurposed spaces and tents created for quarantine and isolation provided "unlivable conditions." Participants reported receiving no medical attention while in isolation, and staff using spaces designated for disciplinary purposes (e.g., solitary housing units) for public health isolation purposes. This resulted in the conflation of isolation and discipline, which discouraged symptom reporting. Some participants felt guilty over potentially causing another lockdown by not reporting their symptoms. Programming was frequently stopped or curtailed and communication with the outside was limited. Some participants relayed that staff threatened to punish noncompliance with masking and testing. Liberty restrictions were purportedly rationalized by staff with the idea that incarcerated people should not expect freedoms, while those incarcerated blamed staff for bringing COVID-19 into the facility. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted how actions by staff and administrators decreased the legitimacy of the facilities' COVID-19 response and were sometimes counterproductive. Legitimacy is key in building trust and obtaining cooperation with otherwise unpleasant but necessary restrictive measures. To prepare for future outbreaks facilities must consider the impact of liberty-restricting decisions on residents and build legitimacy for these decisions by communicating justifications to the extent possible.

An exploratory study of COVID-19-related changes in abortion service availability and use in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory study aimed to assess COVID-19-related changes in abortion service availability and use in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia. DESIGN: Data came from a convenience sample of eight abortion clinics in this region. We implemented a cross-sectional survey and collected retrospective aggregate monthly abortion data overall and by facility type, abortion type, and patient characteristics for March 2019-August 2020. We evaluated changes in the distribution of the total number of patients for March-August in 2019 compared to March-August 2020. We also conducted segmented regression analyses and produced scatter plots of monthly abortion patients overall and by facility type, abortion type, and patient characteristics, with separate fitted regression lines from the segmented regression models for the pre- and during-COVID-19 periods. RESULTS: Five clinics reported a reduced number of appointments early in the pandemic while four reported increased call volume. There were declines in the monthly abortion trend at hospital-based clinics at the outset of the pandemic. Monthly number of medication abortions increased from March 2020 through August 2020 compared to pre-COVID-19 trends while instrumentation abortions 11 up to 19 weeks decreased. The share of abortions to Black individuals increased during the early phase of the pandemic, as did the monthly trend in abortions among this group. We also saw changes in payment type, with declines in patients paying out-of-pocket. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed differences in abortion services, numbers, and types during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and uptake: Perspectives from people released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

People in United States (US) prisons and jails have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is due to challenges containing outbreaks in facilities and the high rates of health conditions that increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Vaccination is one strategy to disrupt COVID-19 transmission, but there are many factors impeding vaccination while in custody. We aimed to examine the perspectives of former residents in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. Between September-October 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 recently released individuals who were incarcerated before and during COVID-19 and coded transcripts thematically. We assessed perceptions of the vaccine rollout and factors shaping vaccination uptake in custody and after release. The vaccine was available to seven participants in custody, of whom three were vaccinated. Interviewees had mixed attitudes about how vaccines were distributed, particularly with priority given to staff. Most were reluctant to get vaccinated in custody for varying reasons including observing staff declining to be vaccinated, lack of counseling to address specific questions about safety, and general lack of trust in the carceral system. By contrast, twelve got vaccinated post-release because of greater trust in community health care and stated they would not have done so while incarcerated. For residents in the BOP, COVID-19 vaccination was not simply a binary decision, instead they weighed the costs and benefits with most deciding against getting vaccinated. Institutions of incarceration must address these concerns to increase vaccine uptake as the pandemic continues.