Balancing the Rights to Protection and Participation: A Call for Expanded Access to Ethically Conducted Correctional Health Research

Psychiatric and legal considerations for ketamine treatment within prison settings

The fundamental right to equivalence of health care in prison settings encompasses the provision of medication to address mental health conditions. Considering the increased risk for self-harm among individuals dealing with depression, the limited effectiveness of conservative antidepressants is a major challenge in psychiatry. The high prevalence of suicidal tendencies within prison populations underscores the imperative for state-of-the-art pharmacological treatment to uphold adequate health care standards. Notably, the denial of access to effective medication could be deemed a violation of human rights of people living in prison according to international treaties, domestic law, and United Nations normative standards of detention. This article presents the authors' perspective on the accessibility of ketamine treatment in prison settings, discussing psychiatric and legal considerations as well as current challenges in this context. Implementing novel psychopharmacological interventions may alleviate the distress experienced by individuals struggling with depressive symptoms and suicidality. At the same time, unprecedented treatment alternatives bring along potential issues, including limited understanding of long-term effects and the risk of abuse. Given the scarce data-availability, a pressing need exists for further research on the benefits and risks of ketamine treatment within prison populations.

Compulsory Psychotropic Medication in the California State Prison System

In Washington v. Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court established that an administrative review conducted by prison staff was the minimum constitutionally appropriate due process for the administration of compulsory nonemergent antipsychotic medication. California's current process, Penal Code section 2602 (PC2602), uses a judicial review allowing for either emergent (medication beginning with application) or nonemergent routes. This article describes the history culminating with PC2602, beginning with the notion of civil death enacted in 1850, followed by the 1986 Keyhea injunction. Framed by problems that emerged, PC2602 was enacted in 2011, which is described from both legal-administrative and clinical perspectives.

Recommendations for the Use of Telepsychology in Psychology-Law Practice and Research: A Statement by American Psychology-Law Society (APA Division 41)

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent impact on psychological work, Division 41 of the American Psychological Association convened a taskforce to provide guidance to its membership regarding the use of technology for practice and research at the intersection of psychology and law. Drawing from existing research in psychology-law and beyond, as well as the first-hand experience of taskforce members, this document outlines foundational guidance to apply technology to forensic and correctional work while acknowledging these settings provide unique challenges to ethical practice. The recommendations provide support for psychologists involved in assessment, treatment, training, and research. However, these recommendations may not exhaustively apply to all areas of psycholegal practice or all forms of technology. Further, these recommendations are intended to be consulted in conjunction with other professional practice guidelines, emerging research, and policy changes that impact the integration of technologies into this work.

Stakeholder-engaged research is necessary across the criminal-legal spectrum

People with lived experience of incarceration have higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared to people without history of incarceration. Research conducted unethically in prisons and jails led to increased scrutiny of research to ensure the needs of those studied are protected. One consequence of increased restrictions on research with criminal-legal involved populations is reluctance to engage in research evaluations of healthcare for people who are incarcerated and people who have lived experience of incarceration. Ethical research can be done in partnership with people with lived experience of incarceration and other key stakeholders and should be encouraged. In this article, we describe how stakeholder engagement can be accomplished in this setting, and further, how such engagement leads to impactful research that can be disseminated and implemented across disciplines and communities. The goal is to build trust across the spectrum of people who work, live in, or are impacted by the criminal-legal system, with the purpose of moving toward health equity.

The Impact Of COVID-19 On The Health Of Incarcerated Older Adults In California State Prisons

The number of older adults (age fifty-five or older) incarcerated in US prisons reached an all-time high just as COVID-19 entered correctional facilities in 2020. However, little is known about COVID-19's impact on incarcerated older adults. We compared COVID-19 outcomes between older and younger adults in California state prisons from March 1, 2020, to October 9, 2021. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) revealed an increasing risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes among older age groups (ages 55-64, 65-74, and 75 or older) compared with younger adults, including for documented infection (aOR, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.4, respectively) and hospitalization with COVID-19 (aOR, 4.6, 8.7, and 15.1, respectively). Moreover, although accounting for 17.3 percent of the California state prison population, older adults represented 85.8 percent of this population's COVID-19-related deaths. Yet a smaller percentage of older adults than younger adults were released from prison during the pandemic. The differential rates of morbidity and mortality experienced by incarcerated older adults should be considered in future pandemic response strategies regarding prisons.

Outcomes after emergency general surgery and trauma care in incarcerated individuals: an EAST multi-center study

BACKGROUND

The US incarcerates more individuals than any other country. Prisoners are the only population guaranteed health care by the US constitution, but little is known about their surgical needs. This multicenter study aimed to describe the acute care surgery (ACS) needs of incarcerated individuals.

METHODS

Twelve centers prospectively identified incarcerated patients evaluated in their emergency department (ED) by the ACS service. Centers collected diagnosis, treatment, and complications from chart review. Patients were classified as either emergency general surgery (EGS) patients or trauma patients and their characteristics and outcomes were investigated. Poisson regression accounting for clustering by center was used to calculate the relative risk (RR) of readmission, re-presentation within 90 days, and failure to follow up as an outpatient within 90 days for each cohort.

RESULTS

Over 12 months, ACS services evaluated 943 patients, 726 (80.3%) from jail, 156 (17.3%) from prison, and 22 (2.4%) from other facilities. Most were men (89.7%) with a median age of 35 years (IQR 27,47). Trauma patients comprised 54.4% (n = 513) of the cohort. Admission rates were similar for trauma (61.5%) and EGS patients (60.2%). Head injuries and facial fractures were the most common injuries, while infections were the most common EGS diagnosis. Self-harm resulted in 102 trauma evaluations (19.9%). Self-inflicted injuries were associated with increased risk of readmission (RR 4.3, 95%CI: 3.02-6.13) and reevaluation within 90 days (RR 4.96, 95%CI 3.07-8.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Incarcerated patients who present with a range of trauma and EGS conditions frequently require admission, and follow-up after hospitalization was low at the treating center. Poor follow-up coupled with high rates of assault, self-harm, mental health, and substance use disorders highlight the vulnerability of this population. Hospital and correctional facility interventions are needed to decrease self-inflicted injuries and assaults while incarcerated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological, III.

Interventions to reduce suicidal thoughts and behaviours among people in contact with the criminal justice system: A global systematic review

BACKGROUND

People who experience incarceration die by suicide at a higher rate than those who have no prior criminal justice system contact, but little is known about the effectiveness of interventions in other criminal justice settings. We aimed to synthesise evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to reduce suicide and suicide-related behaviours among people in contact with the criminal justice system.

METHODS

We searched Embase, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and grey literature databases for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 1 June 2021. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020185989).

FINDINGS

Thirty-eight studies (36 primary research articles, two grey literature reports) met our inclusion criteria, 23 of which were conducted in adult custodial settings in high-income, Western countries. Four studies were randomised controlled trials. Two-thirds of studies (n=26, 68%) were assessed as medium quality, 11 (29%) were assessed as high quality, and one (3%) was assessed as low quality. Most had considerable methodological limitations and very few interventions had been rigorously evaluated; as such, drawing robust conclusions about the efficacy of interventions was difficult.

INTERPRETATION

More high-quality evidence from criminal justice settings other than adult prisons, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, should be considered a priority for future research.

FUNDING

This work was funded by the Australian government's National Suicide Prevention Taskforce. RB is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Emerging Leader Investigator Grant (EL2; GNT2008073). MW is supported by a NHMRC Postgraduate Scholarship (GNT1151103). SF was funded by the NIHR HTA Programme (HTA Project:16/159/09).

Incarcerated individuals' experiences of COVID-19 in the United States

PURPOSE

This study aims to examine steps taken by correctional staff to prevent COVID-19 from spreading through correctional facilities and explores strategies used by incarcerated individuals to reduce their own risk of contracting COVID-19 during confinement.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Data were drawn from interviews with 327 individuals incarcerated after March 16, 2020, in Midwest1, Midwest2 and Southeast state using a questionnaire developed for this purpose. All study participants were actively involved in a randomized controlled trial of a behavioral health reentry intervention and the human subjects board approved the supplement of this study on COVID-19; interviews were conducted from April 15 to November 19, 2020.

FINDINGS

Overall, 9.89% of participants contracted COVID-19. Most (68.50%) individuals learned about COVID-19 from television compared to official correctional facility announcements (32.42%). Participants wore face masks (85.02%), washed hands (84.40%) and practiced physical distancing when possible (66.36%). Participants reported that facilities suspended visitation (89.60%) and volunteers (82.57%), provided face masks (83.18%), sanitized (68.20%), conducted temperature checks (55.35%) and released individuals early (7.34%).

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Longitudinal observational study on the implementation and effectiveness of public health guidelines in prisons and jails may identify best practices for containing the infectious disease. Maximizing transparent communications, as well as COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts, are critical to achieving universal best practices for virus containment and amplifying public health.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Data presented indicate the early adoption of many Centers for Disease Control guidelines by individuals and correctional facilities, although broad variation existed. Data support the identification of containment strategies for feasible implementation in a range of correctional spaces.

Care for Incarcerated Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped health care delivery for all patients but has distinctly affected the most marginalized people in society. Incarcerated patients are both more likely to be infected and more likely to die from COVID-19. There is a paucity of guidance for the care of incarcerated patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This article will discuss how patient privacy, adequate communication, and advance care planning are rights that incarcerated patients may not experience during this pandemic. We highlight the role of compassionate release and note how COVID-19 may affect this prospect. A number of pragmatic recommendations are made to attenuate the discrepancy in hospital care experienced by those admitted from prisons and jails. Physicians must be familiar with the relevant hospital policies, be prepared to adapt their practices in order to overcome barriers to care, such as continuous shackling, and advocate to change these policies when they conflict with patient care. Stigma, isolation, and concerns over staff safety are shared experiences for COVID-19 and incarcerated patients, but incarcerated patients have been experiencing this treatment long before the current pandemic. It is crucial that the internist demand the equitable care that we seek for all our patients.

Ethical guidance for health research in prisons in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the extent, range and nature of the published literature, prison policies and technical guidance relating to the ethical conduct of health research in prisons in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping Review.

METHODS

We adhered to the five stages of the scoping review iterative process: identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data, and collating, summarizing and content analysis of polices. Disagreements around allocation of content were resolved through team discussion. We also appraised the quality of the included articles.

RESULTS

We included nine records that examined the ethical aspects of the conduct of health research in prisons in LMICs; eight of these were peer-reviewed publications, and one was a toolkit. Despite the unique vulnerabilities of this group, we could find no comprehensive guidelines on the ethical conduct of health research in prisons in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the world's imprisoned populations are in LMICs, and they have considerable health needs. Research plays an important role in addressing these needs and in so doing, will contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. With regards to health research, imprisoned people in LMICs are 'left behind'; there is a lack of clear, prison-focused guidance and oversight to ensure high quality ethical health research so necessary in LMICs. There is an urgent need for prison health experts to work with health research ethics experts and custodial practitioners for procedural issues in the development of prison-specific ethical guidance for health research in LMICs aligned with international standards.

A systematic integrative review of programmes addressing the social care needs of older prisoners

BACKGROUND

The number of older prisoners has risen exponentially over the last two decades, especially in high-income countries. Due to the increased and somewhat inadequately met health and social care needs of this group of prisoners, coupled with their vulnerability arising from higher levels of isolation, poverty and exploitation, financial costs have spiralled and human rights concerns have grown. This review aimed to present an overview of programmes that addressed older prisoners' social care needs, a particularly underdeveloped area, with a view to assessing the extent to which they could inform policy and practice.

METHODS

Following Whittemore and Knafl's (J Adv Nurs 52:546-553, 2005) integrative review approach, a comprehensive search - including 16 electronic databases and hand searching - was undertaken up to May 2017 using search terms related to context, function and disability. The quality of included papers was assessed, data were extracted using a review-specific form based on the PICO formula, and research questions addressed using a narrative synthesis approach. Additionally, reporting followed PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 29 papers were selected for inclusion, the majority of which focused on hospice programmes, with the remainder describing personal care-focused services, structured day programmes, and adaptations to prison operations (regime) and accommodation in support of prisoners' social care needs. Whilst the programmes were reported to have some positive impacts on prisoners and the prison overall, and programmes were perceived to be cost-effective or cost-neutral, outcomes regarding staff were more mixed. Findings were tempered by the methodological shortcomings of the included papers, with many assessed as low quality, with a lack of prisoner participation, and an absence of experimental studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for programmes addressing older prisoners' social care needs appears to be at an embryonic stage. Further robust studies evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of programmes addressing older prisoners' social care needs are imperative in better informing policy and practice in support of this highly vulnerable group.

Understanding and Improving the Health of People Who Experience Incarceration: An Overview and Synthesis

The world prison population is growing at a rate that exceeds the rate of population growth. This issue of Epidemiologic Reviews comprises articles in which researchers summarize what is known about some of the key health issues facing people in prison, particularly in relation to human immunodeficiency virus and other blood-borne viral infections. A key recurring theme is that addressing the health needs of people in prison is important to reducing health inequalities at the population level—that prisoner health is public health. The reviews also highlight some critical evidence gaps, notably the lack of evidence from low- and middle-income countries, and the limited number of longitudinal studies in which health behaviors, health outcomes, or health service experiences after release from prison are documented. Despite growing evidence of the poor health of detained adolescents, none of the included reviews considered this population. Further research on the health of young people who cycle through juvenile detention should be a priority. Despite a rapidly growing literature on the health of people who experience incarceration, some critical health issues remain poorly understood, and there has been insufficient attention devoted to co-occurring health conditions and the consequent need for coordinated care. Key populations in custodial settings remain understudied, limiting capacity to develop targeted, evidence-based responses to their health needs. The quality of many studies is suboptimal, and although rigorous, independent research in correctional settings can be challenging, it is not impossible and is critical to laying the groundwork for evidence-based reform.

The Share Project: Building Capacity of Justice-Involved Individuals, Policymakers, and Researchers to Collectively Transform Health Care Delivery

The Share Project (TSP), a US health justice initiative, convened key stakeholders to advance the use of inclusive research methods and data sharing to engage groups that are typically marginalized from research. TSP trained justice-involved patients, community health workers, policymakers, and researchers in participatory research and the use of a data-sharing platform developed with justice-involved patients. The platform allowed users to analyze health and criminal justice data to develop new research that is patient driven and responsive to the needs of providers.

"We Take Care of Patients, but We Don't Advocate for Them": Advance Care Planning in Prison or Jail

OBJECTIVES

To investigate correctional healthcare providers' knowledge of and experience with advance care planning (ACP), their perspectives on barriers to ACP in correctional settings, and how to overcome those barriers.

DESIGN

Qualitative.

SETTING

Four prisons in 2 states and 1 large city jail in a third state.

PARTICIPANTS

Correctional healthcare providers (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers; N=24).

RESULTS

Participants demonstrated low baseline ACP knowledge; 85% reported familiarity with ACP, but only 42% provided accurate definitions. Fundamental misconceptions included the belief that providers provided ACP without soliciting inmate input. Multiple ACP barriers were identified, many of which are unique to prison and jail facilities, including provider uncertainty about the legal validity of ACP documents in prison or jail, inmate mistrust of the correctional healthcare system, inmates' isolation from family and friends, and institutional policies that restrict use of ACP. Clinicians' suggestions for overcoming those barriers included ACP training for clinicians, creating psychosocial support opportunities for inmates, revising policies that limit ACP, and systematically integrating ACP into healthcare practice.

CONCLUSION

Despite an increasing number of older and seriously ill individuals in prisons and jails, many correctional healthcare providers lack knowledge about ACP. In addition to ACP barriers found in the community, there are unique barriers to ACP in prisons and jails. Future research and policy innovation are needed to develop clinical training programs and identify ACP implementation strategies for use in correctional settings. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2382-2388, 2018.