Background Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity. Methods and findings We conducted a document analysis of the vaccine dissemination plans of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia using a triple-coding method. Documents included state COVID-19 vaccination plans and supplemental materials on vaccine prioritization from state health department websites as of December 31, 2020. We found that 22% of states prioritized incarcerated people in Phase 1, 29% of states in Phase 2, and 2% in Phase 3, while 47% of states did not explicitly specify in which phase people who are incarcerated will be eligible for vaccination. Incarcerated people were consistently not prioritized in Phase 1, while other vulnerable groups who shared similar environmental risk received this early prioritization. States’ plans prioritized in Phase 1: prison and jail workers (49%), law enforcement (63%), seniors (65+ years, 59%), and long-term care facility residents (100%). Conclusions This study demonstrates that states’ COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes (self-esteem, coping self-efficacy, and internalized stigma) across time in HIV-infected women living in the Deep South who received a stigma reduction intervention (n=51) with those of a control group (n=49) who received the usual care at baseline, and at 30 and 90 days. We recruited 99 women from clinics and an AIDS service organization; they were randomized by recruitment site. A video developed from the results of a qualitative metasynthesis study of women with HIV infection was loaded onto iPod Touch devices. Participants were asked to watch the video weekly for 4 weeks, and to record the number of times they viewed it over a 12-week period. We examined the trajectory model results for efficacy outcomes for the intent-to-treat and the supplemental completers groups. There was a treatment-by-time effect for improved self-esteem (intent-to-treat: p=0.0308; completers: p=0.0284) and decreases in internalized stigma (intent-to-treat: p=0.0036; completers: p=0.0060), and a treatment-by-time-by-time effect for improved coping self-efficacy (intent-to-treat: p=0.0414; completers: p=0.0321). A medium effect of the intervention in terms of improving self-esteem was observed when compared with the control condition in those who completed the study. The magnitude of the intervention effect, however, was large with regard to reducing overall stigma, improving social relationships, and decreasing stereotypes in both groups.

No abstract

No abstract