Racial and ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 mortality within Texas carceral settings

  1. Neal Marquez
  2. Destiny Moreno
  3. Amanda Klonsky
  4. Sharon Dolovich

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Several analyses have highlighted racial and ethnic disparities related to COVID-19 health outcomes across the United States. Less focus has been placed on more localized contexts, such as carceral settings, where racial and ethnic inequities in COVID-19 health outcomes also exist, but the proximal drivers of inequality are different. In this study, we analyzed mortality rates among incarcerated people in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to assess racial and ethnic differences in COVID-19 mortality. We obtained monthly demographic and mortality information of the TDCJ population from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2021 from TDCJ monthly reports and open record requests filed by the Texas Justice Initiative. We estimated the risk of COVID-19 mortality for the Hispanic and Black population relative to the White population using a Bayesian regression framework, adjusting for sex and age. In the first 12 months of the pandemic, Hispanic and Black all-cause mortality rates were higher than that of the White population, reversing the pattern observed the 12 months prior. Adjusted risk of COVID-19 mortality relative to the White population was 1.96 (CI 1.32–2.93) for the Hispanic population and 1.66 (CI 1.10–2.52) for the Black population. We find that COVID-19 mortality has disproportionately impacted Hispanic and Black individuals within the TDCJ population. As the proximal mechanisms which drive these inequalities are likely different than those which lead to racial inequalities in the non-incarcerated populations, future studies should look to assess and address the specific drivers of COVID-19 related disparities in carceral settings.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.26.21264145: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.26.21264145v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.26.21264145v1 on medRxiv