Can TasP Approaches Be Implemented in Correctional Settings?: A review of HIV testing and linkage to community HIV treatment programs

Abstract

High rates of HIV in correctional populations makes evaluation of programs that increase HIV testing in correctional settings and linkage to HIV treatment upon release, and understanding key implementation issues of these programs, essential to reducing new HIV infection. We conducted a systematic search for studies of outcomes or implementation issues of programs that promote HIV testing or that promote linkage to community HIV treatment post-release. Thirty-five articles met inclusion criteria: nine HIV testing initiatives and four linkage programs. HIV testing uptake rates were between 22% and 98% and rates of linkage to community treatment were between 79% and 84%. Findings suggest that some programs may be effective at reducing HIV transmission within the communities to which inmates return. However, attention to implementation factors, such as organizational culture and staff collaborations, appears critical to the success of these programs. Future research using rigorous design and adequate comparison groups is needed.

“Like I Have No Choice”: A Qualitative Exploration of HIV Diagnosis and Medical Care Experiences While Incarcerated and Their Effects

“…Notably, women, African-Americans, and those with substance use disorders, are the least likely to benefit from existing interventions to link PLWH to HIV medical care after incarceration. 13…”

Understanding how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances opt-out blood-borne virus testing programmes work to increase test engagement and uptake within prison: a rapid-realist review

“…Incarceration is stressful and the potential diagnosis of an infectious disease, often perceived as terminal, can be daunting [13, 38, 43, 54, 59, 60, 62–64]. BBVs are a situational concern for many people within prison (C).…”

“…However, institutional distrust is prevalent in prison (C). Institutional social pressure (MR) can be perceived as a coercive process of surveillance, triggering resistance from the individual (MRE) and encouraging opt-out (O) [59, 64, 67].…”

A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of a cross-systems service delivery model to improve identification and care for HIV, STIs and substance use among justice-involved young adults

“…Most evidence-based practices for HIV services in justice-involved populations have either been developed for younger youth (Tolou-Shams et al, 2019 ) or delivered for adults in (locked) correctional settings (Belenko, Hiller, et al, 2013 ; Belenko, Visher, et al, 2013 ; Elkington et al, 2016 ). Recent data from juvenile community supervision agencies noted that approximately two-thirds do not offer any HIV/STI related services (Elkington et al, 2020 ), either on-site or via referral to community-based partners.…”

“…Thus, the justice system becomes their de facto health service. Yet, despite well-documented HIV, STI and SU needs, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for regular testing of high risk populations, such as those who are justice-involved (CDC, 2012a ), JIYA do not receive HIV testing (or SU screening) routinely in justice settings (Belenko & Dembo, 2003 ; Elkington et al, 2016 ; Taxman, Henderson, & Belenko, 2009 ; Taxman, Perdoni, & Harrison, 2007 ; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Washburn, & Pikus, 2005 ). National surveys of locked and community correctional facilities found between 18%–31% offered HIV and/or STI testing (Elkington et al, 2020 ; Hammett, Kennedy, & Kuck, 2007 ) and about one-third do not screen for SU problems (Taxman, Cropsey, Young, & Wexler, 2007 ).…”