C M Kelsey1, Nickole Medel2, Carson Mullins2, Danielle Dallaire3, Catherine Forestell2. 1. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, The College of William and Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA, 23187, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, The College of William and Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA, 23187, USA. Dhdall@wm.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The number of incarcerated women in the United States has been steadily increasing over the last 30 years. An estimated 6-10% of these women are pregnant at intake. Previous studies on the health needs and care of pregnant incarcerated women have focused mainly on prison settings. Therefore, we examined the pregnancy-related accommodations and health care provided for regional jail populations. METHOD: The present study is a quantitative survey (administered through phone or email to employees of predominately jail medical facilities) of common practices and policies employed across 53 jail facilities in the United States as a function of geographic region (North vs. South; West vs. Central vs. East). We examined provision of pregnancy screening, special diets, and drug rehabilitation and prohibition of shackling. RESULTS: Strikingly, across all aspects of the care of pregnant incarcerated women there are areas to be improved upon. Notably, only 37.7% of facilities pregnancy test all women upon entry, 45.7% put opioid addicted women through withdrawal protocol, and 56.7% of facilities use restraints on women hours after having a baby. CONCLUSION: In this first study to examine practices in regional jails nationwide, we found evidence that standards of care guidelines to improve health and well-being of pregnant incarcerated women, set by agencies such as American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, are not being followed in many facilities. Because not following these guidelines could pose major health risks to the mother and developing fetus, better policies, better enforcement of policies, and better common practices are needed to improve the health and welfare of pregnant incarcerated women.
OBJECTIVE: The number of incarcerated women in the United States has been steadily increasing over the last 30 years. An estimated 6-10% of these women are pregnant at intake. Previous studies on the health needs and care of pregnant incarcerated women have focused mainly on prison settings. Therefore, we examined the pregnancy-related accommodations and health care provided for regional jail populations. METHOD: The present study is a quantitative survey (administered through phone or email to employees of predominately jail medical facilities) of common practices and policies employed across 53 jail facilities in the United States as a function of geographic region (North vs. South; West vs. Central vs. East). We examined provision of pregnancy screening, special diets, and drug rehabilitation and prohibition of shackling. RESULTS: Strikingly, across all aspects of the care of pregnant incarcerated women there are areas to be improved upon. Notably, only 37.7% of facilities pregnancy test all women upon entry, 45.7% put opioid addicted women through withdrawal protocol, and 56.7% of facilities use restraints on women hours after having a baby. CONCLUSION: In this first study to examine practices in regional jails nationwide, we found evidence that standards of care guidelines to improve health and well-being of pregnant incarcerated women, set by agencies such as American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, are not being followed in many facilities. Because not following these guidelines could pose major health risks to the mother and developing fetus, better policies, better enforcement of policies, and better common practices are needed to improve the health and welfare of pregnant incarcerated women.
Entities:
Keywords:
And withdrawal; Health care; Incarcerated pregnant women; Restraints; Shackles
Authors: Anita Raj; Jennifer Rose; Michele R Decker; Cynthia Rosengard; Megan R Hebert; Michael Stein; Jennifer G Clarke Journal: Violence Against Women Date: 2008-05
Authors: Kate Gallen; Jake Sonnenberg; Carly Loughran; Michael J Smith; Mildred Sheppard; Kirsten Schuster; Elinore Kaufman; Ji Seon Song; Erin C Hall Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2022-03-10
Authors: Lorie S Goshin; D R Gina Sissoko; Kristi L Stringer; Carolyn Sufrin; Lorraine Byrnes Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Emily Hoff; Zoe M Adams; Alyssa Grimshaw; Dawn A Goddard-Eckrich; Anindita Dasgupta; Sangini S Sheth; Jaimie P Meyer Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.681