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.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine perceived barriers to physical activity among low-income Latina women who were at risk for type 2 diabetes, as well as the demographic factors that influence these perceived barriers. Methods Recruited in the waiting room of a community health center in a low-income neighborhood (n = 160), Latina women between the ages of 18 and 49 years completed a survey to assess demographic characteristics and perceived barriers to physical inactivity. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify barriers to physical activity and the associations between demographic factors and perceived barriers. Results The most commonly perceived barriers to physical activity in the study sample were lack of willpower and lack of energy. After adjusting for other characteristics, overweight/obese participants were more likely than women of normal weight to report social influence and fear of injury as important barriers to exercise. In addition, women whose preferred language was Spanish were more likely than women whose preferred language was English to perceive lack of time, and social influence as important barriers. Conclusions The effective encouragement of physical activity among Latina women at risk for type 2 diabetes must address the perceived barriers of lack of willpower and lack of energy. Although all women at risk for type 2 diabetes could benefit from counseling and other strategies to encourage physical activity, these efforts should be targeted toward Spanish-speaking overweight/obese women, who are more likely to perceive barriers to exercise.

BackgroundBased in part on the success of India’s early community health worker (CHW) programs, the Government of India launched in 1977 a national CHW scheme—the Village Health Guides (VHGs)—to provide preventive, promotive, and basic curative care to rural populations. Although this program had promising origins in smaller demonstration projects, it failed to deliver the hoped-for impact at scale and was abandoned. Based on extensive evidence and experience, the World Health Organization and the World Health Assembly have strongly endorsed the value of national CHW programs and their integration into national health systems. Surprisingly, given the scale and importance of the VHG program and its pioneering nature as a national CHW program, little has been published describing this experience. This article is the second in a series that focuses on critical issues that face the effectiveness of large-scale CHW programs.Case presentationSeveral systemic factors emerge as main contributors to the failure of the VHG Scheme, namely, a lack of support from the formal health sector, an overly hasty implementation of the scheme, and poor communication between the government and health centers about the role of the VHGs. The remuneration structure and the VHG selection process were at the root of the program’s shortcomings at the implementation level.ConclusionNational CHW schemes are an increasingly important tool for achieving universal health coverage and ending maternal and child deaths by 2030. Although the VHG Scheme was initiated over 40 years ago, the lessons described in this case highlight important considerations to help both current and future large-scale CHW programs avoid the same pitfalls.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of the study was to explore preventive behaviors and attitudes among mostly low-income, young Hispanic women with and without prediabetes. Methods In 2017, a convenience sample of women without diabetes aged 18 to 49 years (n = 214, 77.8% Hispanic) was recruited from the waiting room of a community health center to complete a 77-item questionnaire. Attitudes, risk perception, and recent lifestyle change were measured using a validated instrument, the Risk Perceptions Survey: Developing Diabetes. Chi-squared tests and multivariable binary logistic regression were conducted to assess the relationship between prediabetes diagnosis and attitude or lifestyle variables. Results Women diagnosed with prediabetes were more likely to report worry about diabetes and to perceive themselves at higher risk for developing diabetes in the next 10 years than women without a prior prediabetes diagnosis. There was no significant association between prediabetes diagnosis and recent adoption of lifestyle changes compared with those without prediabetes. After controlling for demographic characteristics and risk factors for type 2 diabetes, prediabetes diagnosis was significantly associated with elevated risk perception for developing diabetes if no lifestyle change is made but not with worry or risk perception for developing diabetes generally. Conclusions Prediabetes diagnosis is associated with heightened perception of diabetes risk but not lifestyle change compared to women without prediabetes in this low-income, predominantly Hispanic population. Prediabetes counseling efforts must emphasize evidence-based approaches for motivating preventive behaviors.