ArticleResearch square2025
Measuring Research Engagement among Previously Incarcerated Persons and Other Carceral Stakeholders while Implementing Wastewater-based Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in Jails: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Engaging persons with lived experience of incarceration (PLE) in projects to improve carceral healthcare is recognized as important but is understudied. We leveraged an implementation project seeking to improve carceral infection control using SARS-CoV-2 wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) to study the engagement of diverse carceral stakeholders including PLE on implementation teams. Methods: From April 2022 to December 2023, WBS Implementation teams were formed at four US jails. These included diverse carceral stakeholders: custodial and medical leadership, facilities management, and medical staff positions, along with PLE. Focus group discussions (n = 12) and key informant interviews (n = 6) facilitated internal and external collaboration between teams. The study team shared qualitative findings of PLE and carceral personnel between the two groups. We used Rapid Assessment Processes for qualitative thematic analysis to understand key themes related to dynamics of engagement. We used the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) to quantify the quality and quantity of stakeholder engagement. Results: Qualitative data demonstrate carceral personnel support for including PLE in decision-making improved over the project once PLE feedback was shared, although PLE expressed that the partnership ideally would have been on more equal footing. PLE perspectives were deemed useful to carceral personnel and the development of a sustainable system to incorporate resident feedback specific to mitigation efforts was a priority of both carceral personnel and PLE. Medical leaders identified barriers in engaging staff in WBS due to the hierarchal structure of decision-making. On a 1-5 Likert scale, REST scores aligned with qualitative data indicating lower engagement for PLE (mean 3.2 versus 3.9 for quality and 3.3 versus 4.1 for quantity of engagement). PLE had consistently lower REST scores than carceral personnel across all measured engagement principles. Conclusion: This study brought disparate carceral stakeholders together to support the implementation of jail-based WBS and highlighted disparities in collecting and incorporating PLE feedback into jail infection control. Strengthening collaboration between the PLE and carceral personnel would ensure carceral health systems benefit from all perspectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.