COVID-19 vaccine for people who live and work in prisons worldwide: A scoping review

  1. Nasrul Ismail
  2. Lara Tavoschi
  3. Babak Moazen
  4. Alicia Roselló
  5. Emma Plugge

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Overcrowding, poor conditions, and high population turnover make prisons highly susceptible to COVID-19. Vaccination is key to controlling COVID-19, yet there is disagreement regarding whether people who live and work in prisons should be prioritised in national vaccination programmes. To help resolve this, we critically examine the extent, nature, and quality of extant literature regarding prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccinations for people who live and work in prisons. Using a scoping review as our methodological framework, we conducted a systematic literature search of 17 databases. From 2,307 potentially eligible articles, we removed duplicates and screened titles and abstracts to retain 45 articles for review and quality appraisal. Findings indicated that while most countries recognise that prisons are at risk of high levels of COVID-19 transmission, only a minority have explicitly prioritised people who live and work in prisons for COVID-19 vaccination. Even among those that have, prioritisation criteria vary considerably. This is set against a backdrop of political barriers, such as politicians questioning the moral deservingness of people in prison; policy barriers, such as the absence of a unified international framework of how vaccine prioritisation should proceed in prisons; logistical barriers regarding vaccine administration in prisons; and behavioural barriers including vaccine hesitancy. We outline five strategies to prioritise people who live and work in prisons in COVID-19 vaccination plans: (1) improving data collection on COVID-19 vaccination, (2) reducing the number of people imprisoned, (3) tackling vaccine populism through advocacy, (4) challenging arbitrary prioritisation processes via legal processes, and (5) conducting more empirical research on COVID-19 vaccination planning, delivery, and acceptability. Implementing these strategies would help to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on the prison population, prevent community transmission, improve vaccine uptake in prisons beyond the current pandemic, foster political accountability, and inform future decision-making.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0267070
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.07.22273414: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    , Cochrane Library, Embase
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    , EBSCO eBook Collection, MEDLINE, ProQuest Criminal Justice, PsycINFO, SAGE Journals, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Springer Link, Taylor & Francis, Web of Science, and Wiley Online Library.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    PsycINFO
    suggested: (PsycINFO, RRID:SCR_014799)
    We also used Boolean operators such as “OR” and “AND” to either combine or separate search terms, along with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms.
    MeSH
    suggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)

    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:
    Economic limitations can limit the government’s ability to purchase vaccines, which means fewer doses are available for people in prisons, and at the same time leading to prisons not having sufficient staff to administer vaccinations, and increased uncertainty when staff are required to self-isolate.58,67 Our analysis revealed that the majority of papers on vaccination trials were opposed to the inclusion of people in prisons. Objections included the real and perceived pressure from authorities to participate, demands to participate to receive care that could otherwise not be afforded, risks associated with the vaccines being trialled, limited or no on-site clinical support for participants, and no guarantee that participants would benefit from the vaccines if they were found to be safe and effective.59,61 These concerns tended to trump the perceived benefits of participation. Indeed, many publications raised the issue that recruiting trial participants from the prison population would reinforce the perpetual exploitation, abuse, and neglect of people in prison. Other studies suggested precursors for participation, such as closer scrutiny by an oversight board and greater consideration of the lived experiences of incarcerated people.61,62 Finally, a limited number of studies acknowledged that vaccination is not a panacea. Virus mutation, lag in vaccination uptake, and vaccine hesitancy mean that non-pharmacological interventions must run in tandem with vaccination for the for...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.07.22273414v1 on medRxiv