Search

Correctional facilities provide health care to large numbers of medically underserved people. As such, preventive health in correctional settings is an important yet underused investment in public health. Because they often have histories of poor access to health care, the justice-involved population is more likely than the general population to be diagnosed with advanced-stage cancers. We report on the first 2 years of an ongoing collaboration between a state correctional system and state health department to implement annual colorectal cancer screening for sentenced people using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Preparation for the annual iterations begins in January, and patient engagement begins in March. In the first year of implementation (2018), 1396 of 1856 (75.2%) sentenced people completed an eligibility screen, and 254 of 321 (79.1%) eligible patients completed a FIT (eligible patients were aged ≥50 [≥45 if Black] in year 1 [lowered to ≥45 in year 2] and reported no previous relevant medical or family history of colorectal cancer); 54 (21.3%) completed FITs were positive. Of the 54 patients with positive FITS, 33 (61.1%) completed follow-up colonoscopies resulting in the identification of polyps in 26 (48.1%) patients with a positive FIT. We found invasive adenocarcinoma for 2 (3.7%) of the positive FITs (6.1% of colonoscopies performed). In the second year (2019), after a conversion from paper to tablet-based eligibility screening, 1707 of 2059 (82.9%) sentenced people completed an eligibility screen, and 200 of 285 (70.2%) eligible patients completed a FIT, 27 (13.5%) of whom had a positive result. We share lessons learned about implementing mass screening to encourage further communication among departments of health and corrections to advance preventive health.

Preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in correctional and detention facilities* can be challenging because of population-dense housing, varied access to hygiene facilities and supplies, and limited space for isolation and quarantine (1). Incarcerated and detained populations have a high prevalence of chronic diseases, increasing their risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness and making early detection critical (2,3). Correctional and detention facilities are not closed systems; SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can be transmitted to and from the surrounding community through staff member and visitor movements as well as entry, transfer, and release of incarcerated and detained persons (1). To better understand SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in these settings, CDC requested data from 15 jurisdictions describing results of mass testing events among incarcerated and detained persons and cases identified through earlier symptom-based testing. Six jurisdictions reported SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 0%-86.8% (median = 29.3%) from mass testing events in 16 adult facilities. Before mass testing, 15 of the 16 facilities had identified at least one COVID-19 case among incarcerated or detained persons using symptom-based testing, and mass testing increased the total number of known cases from 642 to 8,239. Case surveillance from symptom-based testing has likely underestimated SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in correctional and detention facilities. Broad-based testing can provide a more accurate assessment of prevalence and generate data to help control transmission (4).

Some of the most vulnerable and most affected individuals have the least access to effective addiction treatment: prisoners. Of the 2.2 million individuals currently incarcerated in the United States, an estimated 50% at least have one substance use disorder. Given the high prevalence of addiction and its effects on recidivism and reentry, correctional health must include evidence-based treatment of substance use disorders.

In the midst of the opioid epidemic, some of the most vulnerable and most affected individuals have the least access to treatment: prisoners. The United States has 5% of the world's population, and 25% of the world's prisoners. Of the 2.2 million individuals currently incarcerated in the United States, over half have a substance use disorder. In addition to a staggering prevalence of substance use disorders, the rate of HIV is 5–7 times greater for justice-involved individuals compared with the general population, and the rate of hepatitis C virus is an estimated 10 times greater. Healthcare providers who work in the correctional health setting have not just an opportunity but a moral obligation to address the health needs of incarcerated individuals, which include treatment of infectious diseases (ID) and treatment of substance use disorders. Multiple studies have demonstrated the synergistic benefits of concomitant treatment of bloodborne infections and opioid use disorders, especially when continued through release from incarceration. As justice-involved individuals are far more likely than the general population to be affected by these health conditions, ID specialists are in a unique position to treat such diseases in tandem both in and out of correctional facilities, thus greatly improving the health of these individuals and of the general population.

Criminal justice involvement is increasingly recognized as a powerful social determinant of health in urban populations, especially among low income and minority populations. Those who have experienced incarceration have higher rates of infectious and chronic diseases and are at risk of worsened health post-release: mostly due to lack of resources in the community and increased engagement in risk behavior.

Background:Distribution of industry-sponsored formula sample packs to new mothers undermines breastfeeding.Objective:Using data from the Infant Feeding Practices Study II (IFPS II), we aimed to determine whether receipt of 4 different types of bags was associated with exclusive breastfeeding during the first 6 months of life.Methods:We extracted data from IFPS II questionnaires. Type of discharge bag received was categorized as “formula bag,” “coupon bag,” “breastfeeding supplies bag,” or “no bag”. We examined exclusive breastfeeding status at 10 weeks (post hoc) and at 6 months using univariate descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression models, controlling for sociodemographic and attitudinal variables.Results:Overall, 1868 (81.4%) of women received formula bags, 96 (4.2%) received coupon bags, 46 (2.0%) received breastfeeding supplies bags, and 284 (12.4%) received no bag. By 10 weeks, recipients of breastfeeding supplies bags or no bag were significantly more likely to be exclusively breastfeeding than formula bag recipients. In the adjusted model, compared to formula bag/coupon bag recipients, recipients of breastfeeding supplies bag/no bag were significantly more likely to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months (odds ratio = 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.36).Conclusion:The vast majority of new mothers received formula sample packs at discharge, and this was associated with reduced exclusive breastfeeding at 10 weeks and 6 months. Bags containing breastfeeding supplies or no bag at all were positively associated with exclusive breastfeeding at 10 weeks and 6 months.

Aims and background This study examines the patterns of follow-up care for breast cancer survivors in one region in Italy. Methods and study design This retrospective analysis included 10,024 surgically treated women, with incident cases of breast cancer in the years 2002–2005 who were alive 18 months after their incidence date. Rates of use of follow-up mammograms, abdominal echogram, bone scans and chest x-rays were estimated from administrative data and compared by Local Health Unit (LHU) of residence. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess possible “overuse”, accounting for patient age, cancer stage, type of surgery and LHU of residence. Results A total of 7168 (72.1%) women received a mammogram within 18 months of their incidence date, while 6432 (64.2%) had an abdominal echogram, 3852 (38.4%) had a bone scan and 5231 (52.2%) had a chest x-ray. The rates of use of abdominal echograms, bone scans and chest x-rays were substantially higher in the population of breast cancer survivors than in the general female population. Taking account of patient age, cancer stage at diagnosis and type of surgery, multivariate analyses demonstrated significant variation in the use of these tests by LHU of residence. Conclusions The observed variation in the use of abdominal echograms, bone scans and chest x-rays supports the conclusion that there is substantial misuse of these tests in the population of postsurgical breast cancer patients in the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy. In the absence of a documented survival benefit, overtesting has both a human and financial cost. We recommend additional review of the methods of follow-up care in breast cancer patients in the LHUs of Emilia-Romagna, with the aim of developing, disseminating and evaluating the implementation of specific guidelines targeting primary care physicians and oncologists providing care to breast cancer survivors. Patient education materials may also help to reduce unnecessary testing.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in the proportion of US hospitals that distribute industry-sponsored formula sample packs between 2007 and 2010. METHODS: This is a follow-up of a 2007 study. In 2007, we surveyed all 50 US states to determine the proportion of hospitals that distributed infant formula samples to new mothers. In 2010, we selected the 10 best-record and 10 worst-record states with regard to industry-sponsored formula sample-pack distribution in 2007. We called all hospitals in these 20 states and asked if the maternity service distributed a “formula company-sponsored diaper discharge bag” to new mothers. We also recorded the respondent's job title. RESULTS: We contacted 1239 hospitals in 20 states. In 2007, 14% of these hospitals were sample-pack–free. In 2010, 28% of the same hospitals were sample-pack–free; the proportion of sample-pack–free hospitals per state ranged from 0% (5 states) to 86% (Rhode Island). In the 10 best-record states, the weighted proportion of sample-pack–free hospitals increased by a mean difference of 18% between 2007 and 2010 (P < .0001). In the 10 worst-record states, the weighted proportion of sample-pack–free hospitals increased by a mean difference of 6% (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Most US hospitals continue to distribute industry-sponsored formula sample packs, but trends indicate a significant change in practice; increasing proportions of hospitals eliminate these packs. Change was more significant in states where higher proportions of hospitals had already eliminated packs in 2007.

The World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes, as well as most major medical authorities, opposes hospital-based distribution of free infant formula at discharge. The goal of this cross-sectional telephone survey of 3209 US maternity sites, conducted from 2006 to 2007, was to determine the extent of this practice. It was found that 91% of hospitals distributed formula sample packs, and a trend toward discontinuation of the practice was statistically significant (P < .001). It was concluded that most US hospitals distribute infant formula samples, in violation of the WHO Code and the recommendations of organizations including the US Government Accountability Office, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. J Hum Lact. 26(4):363-367.

Background: The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative began in 1991. In 2010, approximately 3% of United States (US) hospitals were Baby-Friendly certified. When collecting data for related studies, we noted that many maternity staff erroneously claimed their hospital was Baby-Friendly.™ Objective: To determine whether maternity staff in US hospitals could accurately describe their institution’s status with regard to Baby-Friendly certification. Methods: In 2010-2011, we called all maternity hospitals in the US and asked to be connected to the maternity service. We then asked the person answering the maternity service phone: “Is your hospital a Baby-Friendly hospital?” and recorded the position of the respondent. Results: We called 2974 hospitals, and received answers on Baby-Friendly status from 2851. According to the Baby-Friendly USA Website ( http://www.babyfriendlyusa.org ), 3% (75/2851) of these hospitals were Baby-Friendly. However, staff at 62% (1780/2851) stated their hospital was Baby-Friendly. Staff at 15% (424/2851) did not know what the caller meant by “Baby-Friendly hospital.” Accuracy of knowledge varied dependent on the respondent’s job title ( P < .001). International Board Certified Lactation Consultants were most likely to be accurate, with 89% answering correctly. There was a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Baby-Friendly hospitals and the proportion of correct responses by state ( r = 0.62, P < .001). Conclusion: Although the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative was established over 20 years ago, most US maternity staff responding to a telephone survey either incorrectly believed their hospital to be Baby-Friendly certified or were unaware of the meaning of “Baby-Friendly hospital.”