↓ Skip to main content

Coping with COVID in corrections: a qualitative study among the recently incarcerated on infection control and the acceptability of wastewater-based surveillance

Overview of attention for article published in Health & Justice, February 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coping with COVID in corrections: a qualitative study among the recently incarcerated on infection control and the acceptability of wastewater-based surveillance
Published in
Health & Justice, February 2023
DOI 10.1186/s40352-023-00205-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsey R. Riback, Peter Dickson, Keyanna Ralph, Lindsay B. Saber, Rachel Devine, Lindsay A. Pett, Alyssa J. Clausen, Jacob A. Pluznik, Chava J. Bowden, Jennifer C. Sarrett, Alysse G. Wurcel, Victoria L. Phillips, Anne C. Spaulding, Matthew J. Akiyama

Abstract

Correctional settings are hotspots for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Social and biological risk factors contribute to higher rates of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among justice-involved individuals. Rapidly identifying new cases in congregate settings is essential to promote proper isolation and quarantine. We sought perspectives of individuals incarcerated during COVID-19 on how to improve carceral infection control and their perspectives on acceptability of wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) accompanying individual testing. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 adults who self-reported being incarcerated throughout the United States between March 2020 and May 2021. We asked participants about facility enforcement of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 guidelines, and acceptability of integrating WBS into SARS-CoV-2 monitoring strategies at their most recent facility. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the study sample and report on acceptability of WBS. We analyzed qualitative data thematically using an iterative process. Participants were predominantly Black or multiple races (50%) and men (75%); 46 years old on average. Most received a mask during their most recent incarceration (90%), although only 40% received counseling on proper mask wearing. A quarter of participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 at intake. Most (70%) believed they were exposed to the virus while incarcerated. Reoccurring themes included (1) Correctional facility environment leading to a sense of insecurity, (2) Perceptions that punitive conditions in correctional settings were exacerbated by the pandemic; (3) Importance of peers as a source of information about mitigation measures; (4) Perceptions that the safety of correctional environments differed from that of the community during the pandemic; and (5) WBS as a logical strategy, with most (68%) believing WBS would work in the last correctional facility they were in, and 79% preferred monitoring SARS-CoV-2 levels through WBS rather than relying on just individual testing. Participants supported routine WBS to monitor for SARS-CoV-2. Integrating WBS into existing surveillance strategies at correctional facilities may minimize the impact of future COVID-19 outbreaks while conserving already constrained resources. To enhance the perception and reality that correctional systems are maximizing mitigation, future measures might include focusing on closer adherence to CDC recommendations and clarity about disease pathogenesis with residents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Social Sciences 3 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2023.
All research outputs
#14,696,337
of 25,035,235 outputs
Outputs from Health & Justice
#148
of 229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,857
of 466,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health & Justice
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,035,235 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 466,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.