Open AccessExploring Online Health Reviews to Monitor COVID-19 Public Health Responses in Alabama State Department of Corrections: Case Example
Author(s) -
Pamela Valera,
David Arenas Carmona,
Sarah Malarkey,
Noah Sinangil,
Madelyn Owens,
Asia Lefebre
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
jmir formative research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2561-326X
DOI - 10.2196/32591
Subject(s) - prison , covid-19 , personal protective equipment , medicine , public health , pacific islanders , health department , family medicine , gerontology , psychology , environmental health , nursing , criminology , population , pathology , disease , infectious disease (medical specialty)
Background COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has devastated incarcerated people throughout the United States. Objective The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a COVID-19 Health Review for Correctional Facilities. Methods The COVID-19 Health Review survey for the Department of Corrections was developed in Qualtrics to assess the following: (1) COVID-19 testing, (2) providing personal protective equipment, (3) vaccination procedures, (4) quarantine procedures, (5) COVID-19 mortality rates for inmates, (6) COVID-19 mortality rates for correctional officers and prison staff, (7) COVID-19 infection rates for inmates, (8) COVID-19 infection rates for correctional officers and prison staff, and (9) uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. The estimated time to review the Alabama State Department of Corrections COVID-19 responses on their website and complete the survey items was 45 minutes to 1 hour. Results Of the 21 participants who completed the COVID-19 Health Review for Correctional Facilities survey, 48% (n=10) identified as female, 43% (n=9) identified as male, and 10% (n=2) identified as transgender. For race, 29% (n=6) self-identified as Black or African American, 24% (n=5) Asian, 24% (n=5) White, 5% (n=1) Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, and 19% (n=4) Other. In addition, 5 respondents self-identified as returning citizens. For COVID-19 review questions, the majority concluded that information on personal protective equipment was “poor” and “very poor,” information on COVID-19 testing was “fair” and above, information on COVID-19 death/infection rates between inmates and staff was “good” and “very good,” and information on vaccinations was “good” and “very good.” There was a significant difference observed ( P =.03) between nonreturning citizens and returning citizens regarding the health grade review with respect to available information on COVID-19 infection rates. Conclusions COVID-19 health reviews may provide an opportunity for the public to review the COVID-19 responses in correctional settings.