@Article{info:doi/10.2196/32591,
author="Valera, Pamela
and Carmona, David
and Malarkey, Sarah
and Sinangil, Noah
and Owens, Madelyn
and Lefebre, Asia",
title="Exploring Online Health Reviews to Monitor COVID-19 Public Health Responses in Alabama State Department of Corrections: Case Example",
journal="JMIR Form Res",
year="2021",
month="Nov",
day="10",
volume="5",
number="11",
pages="e32591",
keywords="Alabama; correctional facilities; COVID-19; online health reviews; review; monitoring; public health; policy; response; prison; United States; case study; formative; feasibility; acceptability; survey",
abstract="Background: COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has devastated incarcerated people throughout the United States. Objective: The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a COVID-19 Health Review for Correctional Facilities. Methods: The COVID-19 Health Review survey for the Department of Corrections was developed in Qualtrics to assess the following: (1) COVID-19 testing, (2) providing personal protective equipment, (3) vaccination procedures, (4) quarantine procedures, (5) COVID-19 mortality rates for inmates, (6) COVID-19 mortality rates for correctional officers and prison staff, (7) COVID-19 infection rates for inmates, (8) COVID-19 infection rates for correctional officers and prison staff, and (9) uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. The estimated time to review the Alabama State Department of Corrections COVID-19 responses on their website and complete the survey items was 45 minutes to 1 hour. Results: Of the 21 participants who completed the COVID-19 Health Review for Correctional Facilities survey, 48{\%} (n=10) identified as female, 43{\%} (n=9) identified as male, and 10{\%} (n=2) identified as transgender. For race, 29{\%} (n=6) self-identified as Black or African American, 24{\%} (n=5) Asian, 24{\%} (n=5) White, 5{\%} (n=1) Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, and 19{\%} (n=4) Other. In addition, 5 respondents self-identified as returning citizens. For COVID-19 review questions, the majority concluded that information on personal protective equipment was ``poor'' and ``very poor,'' information on COVID-19 testing was ``fair'' and above, information on COVID-19 death/infection rates between inmates and staff was ``good'' and ``very good,'' and information on vaccinations was ``good'' and ``very good.'' There was a significant difference observed (P=.03) between nonreturning citizens and returning citizens regarding the health grade review with respect to available information on COVID-19 infection rates. Conclusions: COVID-19 health reviews may provide an opportunity for the public to review the COVID-19 responses in correctional settings. ",
issn="2561-326X",
doi="10.2196/32591",
url="https://formative.jmir.org/2021/11/e32591",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/32591",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34609313"
}