7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 in Carceral Systems: A Review

      1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 2
      Annual Review of Criminology
      Annual Reviews

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          As with past pandemics of influenza, COVID-19 tore through US prisons and jails; however, the COVID-19 pandemic, uniquely, has led to more health research on carceral systems than has been seen to date. Herein, we review the data on its impact on incarcerated people, correctional officers, health systems, and surrounding communities. We searched medical, sociological, and criminology databases from March 2020 through February 2022 for studies examining the intersection of COVID-19, prisons and jails, and health outcomes, including COVID-19 incidence, prevalence, hospitalizations, and vaccination. Our scoping review identified 77 studies—the bulk of which focus on disease epidemiology in carceral systems, with a small minority that focuses on the efficacy or effectiveness of prevention and mitigation efforts, including testing, vaccination, and efforts to depopulate correctional facilities. We highlight areas for future research, including the experiences of incarcerated people and correctional staff, unanticipated health effects of prolonged quarantine, excess deaths due to delays in healthcare, and experimental studies on vaccine uptake and testing in correctional staff. These studies will enable a fuller understanding of COVID-19 and help stem future pandemics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references91

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

              Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annual Review of Criminology
                Annu. Rev. Criminol.
                Annual Reviews
                2572-4568
                2572-4568
                January 27 2023
                January 27 2023
                : 6
                : 1
                : 399-422
                Affiliations
                [1 ]SEICHE Center for Health and Justice, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA;
                [2 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
                [3 ]Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                Article
                10.1146/annurev-criminol-030521-103146
                ccd73de7-f4a8-409e-afa7-bc066a02fa03
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article