Conducting Health Research in Carceral Systems: Considerations and Recommendations.

Although the number of people incarcerated in the United States has grown dramatically, research on how incarceration affects individuals and the communities they return to has lagged behind. This may be because of the unique challenges of doing research within carceral systems and the relatively small number of investigators who are competent to undertake these efforts.We provide a primer for investigators with limited experience conducting research in carceral settings and highlight considerations and recommendations that may aid those conducting health research with incarcerated persons. We follow this with an illustrative case example exemplifying how the considerations apply to recent health research that our team conducted on mental illness prevalence in a large regional jail.Understanding how to effectively conduct research with criminal justice populations and systems is the first step in beginning to understand the effects of mass incarceration as a driver of health disparities and health inequity.

Testing the Pragmatic Effectiveness of a Consumer-Based Mindfulness Mobile App in the Workplace: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mental health and sleep problems are prevalent in the workforce, corresponding to costly impairment in productivity and increased health care use. Digital mindfulness interventions are efficacious in improving sleep and mental health in the workplace; however, evidence supporting their pragmatic utility, potential for improving productivity, and ability to reduce employer costs is limited. OBJECTIVE: This pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the experimental effects of implementing a commercially available mindfulness app-Calm-in employees of a large, multisite employer in the United States. Outcomes included mental health (depression, anxiety, and stress), sleep (insomnia and daytime sleepiness), resilience, productivity impairment (absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and non-work activity impairment), and health care use (medical visit frequency). METHODS: Employees were randomized at the work site to receive either the Calm app intervention or waitlist control. Participants in the Calm intervention group were instructed to use the Calm app for 10 minutes per day for 8 weeks; individuals with elevated baseline insomnia symptoms could opt-in to 6 weeks of sleep coaching. All outcomes were assessed every 2 weeks, with the exception of medical visits (weeks 4 and 8 only). Effects of the Calm intervention on outcomes were evaluated via mixed effects modeling, controlling for relevant baseline characteristics, with fixed effects of the intervention on outcomes assessed at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8. Models were analyzed via complete-case and intent-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1029 employees enrolled (n=585 in the Calm intervention group, including 101 who opted-in to sleep coaching, and n=444 in waitlist control). Of them, 192 (n=88 for the Calm intervention group and n=104 for waitlist) completed all 5 assessments. In the complete-case analysis at week 8, employees at sites randomized to the Calm intervention group experienced significant improvements in depression (P=.02), anxiety (P=.01), stress (P<.001), insomnia (P<.001), sleepiness (P<.001), resilience (P=.02), presenteeism (P=.01), overall work impairment (P=.004), and nonwork impairment (P<.001), and reduced medical care visit frequency (P<.001) and productivity impairment costs (P=.01), relative to the waitlist control. In the intent-to-treat analysis at week 8, significant benefits of the intervention were observed for depression (P=.046), anxiety (P=.01), insomnia (P<.001), sleepiness (P<.001), nonwork impairment (P=.04), and medical visit frequency (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the Calm app is an effective workplace intervention for improving mental health, sleep, resilience, and productivity and for reducing medical visits and costs owing to work impairment. Future studies should identify optimal implementation strategies that maximize employee uptake and large-scale implementation success across diverse, geographically dispersed employers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05120310; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05120310.

Barriers to linking high-risk jail detainees to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Individuals involved in the criminal justice (CJ) system continue to be at disproportionate risk for HIV infection, and often have a greater prevalence of substance use and sexual related risk behaviors relative to their non-CJ involved peers. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a once daily antiretroviral medicine, is an evidence-based approach for reducing the risk of contracting HIV but limited data exist regarding the use of PrEP among CJ populations, especially in the U.S. South. This study was conducted at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility (PCRDF) in Little Rock, Arkansas (AR), the largest county jail in the state. We explored knowledge about PrEP and HIV, perceptions about PrEP feasibility in both the jail and community settings and barriers to PrEP program implementation, through in-depth qualitative interviews with 21 jail detainees. We purposively sampled individuals based on specific self-reported risk behavior, including sexual risk (both heterosexual and same-sex) and drug related risk (e.g. IDU), among all eligible individuals. We identified five primary themes from the interviews: 1) accessing healthcare during community reentry was a low priority; 2) perception of risk and interaction with people with HIV was low; 3) there are many barriers to disclosing HIV risk behaviors in jail settings; 4) knowledge of PrEP is low but willingness to use is high; and 5) multiple barriers exist to PrEP uptake post-release. Our findings are contextually unique and therefore have important implications for future implementation of PrEP access either within jail settings or linkage to PrEP post release.