Improving Knowledge, Attitudes, and Testing for Communicable Diseases Among New York State Inmates

Abstract

To improve knowledge of and encourage testing for HIV, hepatitis, and sexually transmitted diseases among inmates, Albany Medical College and the New York State Department of Corrections developed a peer-led videotape and comic-book-style pamphlet. Inmates assigned to an intervention group viewed the videotape and pamphlet and completed pre- and posttest questionnaires; a control group did not. Both groups completed a risk assessment and testing request form. Analysis sought to detect testing request differences between groups and changes in disease knowledge among intervention group participants. Although more intervention participants requested testing, the differences were not statistically significant. After viewing the videotape, significantly more inmates agreed that communicable diseases are treatable (78.3%), that not all have symptoms (70.8%), and that a positive diagnosis is not a death sentence (82.5%). Videotapes and pamphlets can improve inmate knowledge, information retention, attitudes, and requests for communicable disease testing.

A Review of the Effectiveness of HIV Sexual Risk Prevention Interventions in Adult Prison Inmates

“…The durations of the interventions are expressed in this review by the amount of time the participants engaged in intervention activities and by the time frame of data collection. Two studies were brief, lasting approximately 1 hour in one session, not including follow-up measurements (Fish et al, 2008; Martin, O’Connell, Inciardi, Surratt, & Maiden, 2008). Most of the studies delivered the intervention over multiple sessions, including both group and individual, and ranged from 5 to 12 sessions.…”

“…Five studies reported a follow-up period outside of the prison setting as part of the intervention (Braithwaite et al, 2005; Fogel et al, 2015; Leukefeld et al, 2012; Martin et al, 2008; Wolitski, 2006). Data collection varied from 3 months (Fish et al, 2008) to 4 years (Bauserman et al, 2003); one study did not state when the data were collected (Bryan et al, 2006).…”

“…Of the nine studies, six used some form of peer education. Five of the interventions used in-person peer education or peer education training as a way to educate inmates (Braithwaite et al, 2005; Bryan et al, 2006; Fish et al, 2008; Martin et al, 2008; Ross et al, 2006), while two studies featured former inmates’ educational videos (Fogel et al, 2015; Martin et al, 2008). One intervention focused exclusively on risky sexual relationships and substance use risk (Leukefeld et al, 2012), while eight included these components along with injection drug risk (Bauserman et al, 2003; Braithwaite et al, 2005; Bryan et al, 2006; Fish et al, 2008; Fogel et al, 2015; Martin et al, 2008; Ross et al, 2006; Wolitski, 2006).…”

“…Three studies used an experimental design, of which one was a Latin square design (Braithwaite et al, 2005) and two were randomized controlled trials (Fogel et al, 2015; Martin et al, 2008). Six studies used a quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design (Bauserman et al, 2003; Bryan et al, 2006; Fish et al, 2008; Leukefeld et al, 2012; Ross et al, 2006; Wolitski, 2006). Sample sizes greatly varied across all studies and ranged from 116 participants (Braithewaite et al, 2005) to 3,096 participants (Ross et al, 2006).…”

“…Inclusion criteria were similar in that all studies recruited currently incarcerated inmates; however, the prisoners’ release schedules varied. Two of the studies recruited newly incarcerated prisoners (Fish et al, 2008; Fogel et al, 2015), while some studies required less than 12 months until release. Studies also recruited based on when prisoners were scheduled for release, such as 10 to 14 days (Martin et al, 2008), 14 to 60 days (Wolitski, 2006), 6 to 8 weeks (Leukefeld et al, 2012), less than 90 days (Braithwaite et al, 2005), less than 6 months (Bauserman et al, 2003), or less than 12 months (Fogel et al, 2015).…”