Correctional settings can be vectors of infectious diseases due to overcrowding, unsanitary living conditions, and very little capacity to engage in social distancing. In the US, COVID-19 outbreaks were first identified in the New York City and Cook County jails, with infection rates far exceeding community rates. Each day new cases are being identified across the country in correctional facilities. People who are incarcerated are at increased risk of experiencing severe COVID-19 symptoms because of the increased prevalence of other underlying illnesses. Jails and prisons have begun initiating facility-level policies to help stop the spread of COVID-19. As a result, correctional agencies have reoriented staff to stem transmission in their facilities. This could translate into limited resources for other programming such as medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) programs. In this commentary, we highlight risk mitigation practices for delivering MOUD in correctional settings during COVID-19 and note how to ensure quality of care while still preparing for the possibility of future pandemics.

Background: It is a constitutional right to receive health care, including mental health care, while incarcerated. Yet, even basic evidence-based mental health care practices have not been routinely integrated into criminal justice (CJ) settings. Strategies from implementation science, or the study of methods for integrating evidence-based practices into routine care, can accelerate uptake of established interventions within low-resource, high-need settings such as prisons and jails. However, most studies of mental health practices in CJ settings do not use implementation frameworks to guide efforts to integrate treatments, systematically select or report implementation strategies, or evaluate the effectiveness of strategies used. Case presentations: After introducing implementation science and articulating the rationale for its application within CJ settings, we provide two illustrative case examples of efforts to integrate mental health interventions within CJ settings. Each case example demonstrates how an implementation framework either was applied or could have been applied to promote intervention adoption. The first focuses on poor implementation of a mental health screener in a county jail, retrospectively highlighting how use of a determinants framework (e.g., the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR]) could help staff identify factors that led to the implementation failure. The second describes an investigator-initiated research study that used a process framework (the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment [EPIS] framework) to systematically investigate and document the factors that led to successful implementation of a psychotherapy group for survivors of sexual violence in a women's community corrections center. Both are presented in accessible language, as our goal is that this article can be used as a primer for justice health researchers, community partners, and correctional leadership who are unfamiliar with implementation science. Conclusions: Scientific research on the application of implementation science to justice settings is growing, but lags behind the work done in health systems. Given the tremendous need for mental and behavioral health intervention across the full spectrum of justice settings, information on how to successfully implement evidence-based intervention and prevention efforts is sorely needed but possible to obtain with greater integration of knowledge from implementation science.

Mass incarceration in the United States is a civil rights, human rights, and public health crisis that is the result of social, political, and economic forces, rooted in enduring legacies of slavery and oppression along lines of race and class. We conceptualized this issue because we believe that the theories, methods, and ethical tenets of public health have a distinct role to play in contributing to a growing movement to end mass incarceration and its multilayered harms on health.

Purpose: Health and mortality of people released from incarceration have received increased attention, and yet little is known about the postrelease experiences of those hospitalized during incarceration. Methods: For persons incarcerated and released from the North Carolina (NC) state prison system between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2015, we examined postrelease mortality from 2008 to 2016 by history of prison hospitalization. Results: Among 111,479 released persons, 0.9% (n = 1010) were hospitalized during their incarceration, and of those, 10.5% (n = 106) died during follow-up compared with 3.2% (3511/110,469) of other released persons. Those hospitalized in prison had a higher postrelease death rate (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.44), a lower 8-year conditional probability of survival (0.80 vs. 0.94), and were more likely to die from chronic causes (79.2% vs. 51.0%) than other released persons. The postrelease standardized mortality rate among men hospitalized in prison was 3.1 times higher than that of those not hospitalized and 7.1 times the rate of all NC men. Conclusions: People hospitalized during incarceration constitute a particularly vulnerable, yet relatively easily identifiable priority population to focus health interventions supporting continuity of care after prison release. Yet such efforts may be particularly challenging in NC and other Medicaid non-expansion states.

Background: Retention in HIV care is critical to maintaining viral suppression and preventing further transmission, yet less than 50% of people living with HIV in the United States are engaged in care. All US states have a funding mandate to implement Data-to-Care (D2C) programs, which use surveillance data (eg, laboratory, Medicaid billing) to identify out-of-care HIV-positive persons and relink them to treatment. Objective: The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and describe practical and ethical considerations that arise in planning for and implementing D2C. Methods: Via purposive sampling, we recruited 43 expert stakeholders-including ethicists, privacy experts, researchers, public health personnel, HIV medical providers, legal experts, and community advocates-to participate in audio-recorded semistructured interviews to share their perspectives on D2C. Interview transcripts were analyzed across a priori and inductively derived thematic categories. Results: Stakeholders reported practical and ethical concerns in seven key domains: permission and consent, government assistance versus overreach, privacy and confidentiality, stigma, HIV exceptionalism, criminalization, and data integrity and sharing. Conclusions: Participants expressed a great deal of support for D2C, yet also stressed the role of public trust and transparency in addressing the practical and ethical concerns they identified.