Initial SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Uptake in a Correctional Setting: Cross-sectional Study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The largest outbreaks of COVID-19 in the United States have occurred in correctional facilities, and little is known about the feasibility and acceptability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine campaigns among incarcerated people.
Objective
The aim of this study was to describe a statewide vaccination program among incarcerated people and staff working in a prison setting.
Methods
Between December 2020 and February 2021, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) offered the opportunity for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to all correctional staff and sentenced individuals. Two RIDOC public health educators provided education on the vaccine, answered questions, and obtained consent before the vaccine clinic day for the incarcerated group. All staff received information on signing up for vaccines and watched an educational video that was created by the medical director. Additional information regarding vaccine education and resources was sent via email to the entire RIDOC department.
Results
During this initial campaign, 76.4% (1106/1447) of sentenced individuals and 68.4% (1008/1474) of correctional staff accepted and received the vaccine. Four months after the first vaccine was offered, 77.7% (1124/1447) of the sentenced population and 69.6% (1026/1474) of staff were fully vaccinated.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates the feasibility and efficiency of vaccine implementation in a carceral setting. Education and communication likely played an important role in mitigating vaccine refusals.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.27.21252790: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Two RIDOC public health nurses provided education on the vaccine and consent before the vaccine clinic day. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. 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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.27.21252790: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Two RIDOC public health nurses provided education on the vaccine and consent before the vaccine clinic day. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. 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.
-
