Covid-19 Vaccine Acceptance Among People Incarcerated in Connecticut State Jails

  1. Margaret L. Lind
  2. Byron S. Kennedy
  3. Murilo Dorion Nieto
  4. Amy J. Houde
  5. Peri Sosensky
  6. Ryan Borg
  7. Derek A.T. Cummings
  8. Albert I. Ko
  9. Robert P. Richeson

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To assess the Connecticut Department of Correction’s (DOC) COVID-19 vaccine program within jails.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis among people who were incarcerated in a DOC-operated jail between February 2 and November 8, 2021, and were eligible for vaccination at the time of incarceration (intake). We compared the vaccination rates before and after incarceration using an age-adjusted survival analysis with a time-varying exposure of incarceration and an outcome of vaccination.

Results

During the study period, 3,716 people spent ≥1 night in jail and were eligible for vaccination at intake. Of these residents, 136 were vaccinated prior to incarceration, 2,265 had a recorded vaccine offer, and 476 were vaccinated while incarcerated. The age-adjusted hazard of vaccination following incarceration was significantly higher than prior to incarceration (12.5; 95% CI: 10.2-15.3).

Conclusions

We found that residents were more likely to become vaccinated in jail than the community. Though these findings highlight the utility of vaccination programs within jails, the low level of vaccination in this population speaks to the need for additional program development within jails and the community.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.19.22275339: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: This work was determined to be a public health surveillance activity by the Yale University Institutional Review Board.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains
    SentencesResources
    Additionally, we generated race/ethnicity-specific (non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic) Kaplan Meier curves and age-adjusted HRs.
    non-Hispanic White
    suggested: None

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our analysis was subject to limitations. First, not all vaccine offers are recorded, and our acceptance numbers are based solely on recorded offers. Second, our vaccination rates are based on recorded doses (from the community or facilities). Third, the DOC racial data is subject to missing data and reporting errors. Finally, our selection of residents and at-risk time for the survival analysis may have introduced bias. While the sensitivity analyses highlight the robustness of our findings, the magnitude of the observed association varied by examined sample. Public Health Implications: Despite observing moderate levels of vaccine acceptance among residents of state jails, we found newly incarcerated persons were far more likely to initiate vaccination following incarceration than prior to incarceration. Though our findings highlight the utility of vaccination programs within correctional facilities, they also speak to the need for ongoing, evidence-based vaccination program development within correctional facilities and the community.

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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 10.1101/2022.05.19.22275339v1 on medRxiv