Formerly incarcerated persons (FIPs) face a disproportionate risk of death and serious illness in the immediate post-release period. Therefore, it is a critical time to initiate community-based care for chronic illnesses and behavioural disorders. Little is known about the unique transitional health and social support needs of FIPs in Louisiana, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. As the average age of prisoners in the United States rises, the release of older prisoners with chronic conditions will become increasingly common. The aim of this study was to explore the healthcare experiences of FIPs in Louisiana in order to inform delivery of services tailored to this population. This research was done in partnership with a community organisation that advocates for restoration of voting rights to FIPs and helps newly released individuals transition back into society. This organisation identified FIPs in the Greater New Orleans area, and from January to May 2015, we conducted 24 semi-structured, in-person, audio-recorded interviews at the community organisation's transitional living facility. The interviews assessed FIPs' experiences with and barriers to receiving healthcare during and after incarceration. These discussions also explored FIPs' desires for services and attitudes towards health and healthcare. Interviews were transcribed and independently coded by two researchers. Interviewees reported negative experiences with healthcare during incarceration, and limited health guidance during the pre-release process. Post-release concerns included lack of insurance, difficulty accessing care and medication, and interest in learning about healthy lifestyles. Results suggest a need for a formalised system of transitional healthcare for FIPs. Findings are being used to inform a pilot transitional care clinic in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Background
Asylum evaluations are highly specialized medico-legal encounters to collect physical or mental health evidence for use in immigration proceedings. Although the field of asylum medicine is growing, access to these evaluations is still inadequate, particularly for those in United States immigration detention or other forms of custody, such as under the U.S. Migrant Protection Protocols or “Remain in Mexico” policy. Given advances in telehealth in recent years and growing evidence of similar outcomes with in-person management, it seems prudent to examine whether remote modalities may also be effective for conducting mental health asylum evaluations in hard-to-reach populations.
Methods
We analyzed the responses of 12 U.S. clinicians who conducted 25 cross-border remote mental health evaluations with clients in Mexico prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and completed a post-evaluation survey regarding their impressions and experiences of the remote encounter. Data were coded through a process of thematic analysis.
Results
The average evaluation time was 2.3 h, slightly shorter than might be expected from an in-person encounter. Five themes emerged from the coding process: rapport building, achieving overall goal, comparison of in-person vs. remote, technical issues, and coordination. Clinicians encountered a number of challenges including technical difficulties and a decreased ability to establish rapport. Nearly uniformly, however, clinicians noted that despite difficulties, they were able achieve the goals of the evaluation, including rapport building and diagnosis.
Conclusion
Remote evaluations appear to achieve their intended goal and may be useful in expanding legal options for hard-to-reach asylum seekers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.