Open Access

Associations of criminal justice and substance use treatment involvement with HIV/HCV testing and the HIV treatment cascade among people who use drugs in Oakland, California

  • Barrot H. Lambdin1, 2, 3Email author,
  • Alex H. Kral1,
  • Megan Comfort1, 2,
  • Andrea M. Lopez1 and
  • Jennifer Lorvick1
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice201712:13

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-017-0078-9

Received: 9 November 2016

Accepted: 18 April 2017

Published: 14 June 2017

Abstract

Background

People who smoke crack cocaine and people who inject drugs are at-risk for criminal justice involvement as well as HIV and HCV infection. Compared to criminal justice involvement, substance use treatment (SUT) can be cost-effective in reducing drug use and its associated health and social costs. We conducted a cross-sectional study of people who smoke crack cocaine and people who inject drugs to examine the association between incarceration, community supervision and substance use treatment with HIV/HCV testing, components of the HIV treatment cascade, social and physical vulnerability and risk behavior.

Methods

Targeted sampling methods were used to recruit people who smoke crack cocaine and people who inject drugs (N = 2072) in Oakland, California from 2011 to 2013. Poisson regression models were used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios between study exposures and outcomes.

Results

The overall HIV prevalence was 3.3% (95% CI 2.6–4.1). People previously experiencing incarceration were 21% (p < 0.001) and 32% (p = 0.001), respectively, more likely to report HIV and HCV testing; and were not more likely to report receiving HIV care or initiating ART. People previously experiencing community supervision were 17% (p = 0.001) and 15% (p = 0.009), respectively, more likely to report HIV and HCV testing; and were not more likely to report receiving HIV care or initiating ART. People with a history of SUT were 15% (p < 0.001) and 23% (p < 0.001), respectively, more likely to report receiving HIV and HCV testing, 67% (p = 0.016) more likely to report HIV care, and 92% (p = 0.012) more likely to report HIV treatment initiation. People previously experiencing incarceration or community supervision were also more likely to report homelessness, trouble meeting basic needs and risk behavior.

Conclusions

People with a history of substance use treatment reported higher levels of HCV and HIV testing and greater access to HIV care and treatment among HIV-positive individuals. People with a history of incarceration or community supervision reported higher levels of HCV and HIV testing, but not greater access to HIV care or treatment among HIV-positive individuals., Substance use treatment programs that are integrated with other services for HIV and HCV will be critical to simultaneously address the underlying reasons drug-involved people engage in drug-related offenses and improve access to essential medical services.

Keywords

Criminal justice Substance use treatment HIV Hepatitis C People who use drugs Implementation science

Background

Since the 1980s, the “War on Drugs” has contributed to drastic increases in incarceration in the United States, including a threefold increase in drug-related arrests and an eightfold increase in the prison population [13]. Consequently, the US has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 716 inmates per 100,000 residents [4], and an astonishing 4,751,400 people on probation or parole [5]. Because law enforcement policies target people who use drugs, 64.5% of people who are incarcerated experience a substance use disorder; however, only 11% receive any type of substance use treatment while incarcerated [6].

People who smoke crack cocaine (PWSC) and people who inject drugs (PWID) are not only at high risk for incarceration, but they are also at high risk for HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Thus, the estimated HIV prevalence is nearly three times higher among incarcerated populations than the general population (1.5 vs. 0.6%) and HCV prevalence is 9–27 times higher (12–35% compared to 1.3%) [79].

Access to care and adherence to treatment are key to reducing morbidity and mortality from HIV and HCV. For HIV, antiretroviral therapy (ART) is associated with improved clinical outcomes, longer survival and secondary prevention of infection, including reduced HIV transmission risk at the community level [1012]. For HCV, the advent of direct acting antiretroviral (DAA) medications, with a relatively short course of treatment and minimal side effects, has led to cure rates of 90%, and the possibility of virtually eliminating HCV transmission. Benefitting from these therapies, however, requires participation in a series of sequential steps, often referred to as the HIV or HCV treatment cascade [13, 14]. These include diagnosis of HIV/HCV, linkage to care, clinical evaluation, treatment initiation, retention in care, and treatment adherence, with the ultimate goal of making viral load undetectable [1315].

The lives of people using illicit drugs can be chaotic due to stigma, severe poverty, probation/parole requirements, comorbidities, serious mental illness, and the psychological and clinical effects of the substances they ingest, making it difficult to access and adhere to treatment for HIV or HCV in community settings. Incarceration can provide a point of access for HIV/HCV services [1620], but this does not always translate to successful navigation of the care continuum [2125]. Community supervision can provide another opportunity to facilitate access to HIV/HCV services, but this opportunity is often not realized [26, 27].

Research has suggested that substance use treatment (SUT) can effectively address the underlying reasons why many people who use drugs become engaged in drug-related offenses [28]. Further evidence suggests that SUT is cost-effective in reducing drug use and its associated health and social costs, as compared to incarceration [29]. SUT has been shown to help people lower their risk of HIV acquisition and transmission, improve their access and adherence to HIV treatment and reduce their viral load [3033].

In this cross-sectional study of PWSC and PWID, we examine the association of a history of incarceration, community supervision and substance use treatment with access to HIV/HCV testing, components of the HIV treatment cascade, social and physical vulnerability and risk behavior. We additionally assess for predictors of HIV and HCV status.

Methods

Study setting

Our study includes a community-based sample of PWSC and PWID in Oakland, California. Oakland is a racially diverse, mid-sized city in Alameda County with a population of 400,000 people. Alameda County was the first county in the United States to declare a state of emergency in 1998 due to a disproportionally high HIV prevalence among the African American population, an emergency that continues to this day [34]. In 2013, the HIV prevalence was 113 per 100,000 people with 80 new diagnoses per 100,000 among African American men [35, 36]. In addition, the adult incarceration prevalence in Alameda County was 1471 per 100,000 men (nearly double the national average) and 86 per 100,000 women in 2010, and the prevalence of community supervision (probation or parole) was 1580 per 100,000 people, with most people clustered in 6 contiguous zip codes of Oakland [37, 38]. Residents in these areas also carry a disproportionate burden of poor health, low income and unstable housing [39].

Study population

Using targeted sampling methods [40, 41], an outreach worker recruited participants from July 2011 to July 2013 in street settings within the cluster of zip codes having high community supervision levels [42], and collected data at three easily accessible field sites. From July 2011 to July 2013, an outreach worker recruited a total of 2323 participants in neighborhoods surrounding the three field sites. Inclusion criteria for the study included crack cocaine or injection drug use in the 6 months prior to interview and age ≥18. Drug use was verified by use of a screening instrument that obscured eligibility requirements. Approximately 10% of recruited participants did not meet eligibility criteria, leading to 2072 participants for this study.

Participants engaged in an informed consent process, a quantitative interview and HIV testing, as well as pre- and post-test counseling. The quantitative interview was conducted face-to-face, with interviewers posing items verbally and recording responses in a computer-based personal interviewing system (Blaise®, Westat). Rapid testing for HIV infection was conducted using the OraQuick ADVANCE® rapid HIV antibody test. Reactive results on the OraQuick test were confirmed with a second point-of-care test, the Clearview STAT-PAK®. Interview staff were trained in HIV testing and counseling as well as data collection techniques. Participants who were HIV antibody positive were eligible for a separate intervention study, complete with a new informed consent process [43].

All study procedures were reviewed and approved by a federally accredited Institutional Review Board at RTI International. Participants received $20 remuneration for their contribution to the research, as well as referrals to medical and social services as appropriate.

Measures

Outcome variables included measures for HIV/HCV testing, the HIV treatment cascade, social and physical vulnerability, risky injection or sexual behavior, and HIV/HCV status. HCV testing was defined as having ever had an HCV antibody test. Variables for steps of HIV treatment cascade included HIV testing, defined as receiving an HIV antibody testing ever; received HIV care, defined as ever receiving HIV care among those who are HIV positive; and initiated ART, defined as ever starting ART among those who are HIV positive. HIV status was determined through rapid testing (see above) and HCV status was self-reported. Indicators for social and physical vulnerability included homelessness, defined as currently homeless; trouble meeting basic needs (derived from research by Gelbert et al. [44]), defined as trouble finding a place to sleep, wash, use the bathroom or trouble having enough clothes or food to eat in the past 6 months; and income, categorized as income of <$900 or ≥$900 in the past month. Derived from the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s validated Risk Behavior Assessment [45], risky injection or sexual behavior was defined as receptive syringe sharing or unprotected sex with more than 1 partner in the past 6 months.

Our primary exposure variable for criminal justice involvement included two variables: (a) incarceration, defined as spending time in city jail, county jail or federal prison since the age of 18, and (b) community supervision, defined as having ever been on probation or parole. The primary exposure variable for substance use treatment involvement was defined as having ever received methadone detoxification, methadone maintenance, buprenorphine or suboxone, residential treatment (containing counseling, group therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy) or other outpatient treatment (containing counseling, group therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy).

Derived from the Urban Health Study questionnaire [4649]—a community-based study with people who use drugs in Oakland for 15 years—other covariates of interest as potential confounders included current age; sexual risk group: categorized as men who have sex with women, men who have sex with men or men and women, women non-sex workers, women sex workers and transgender people; race/ethnicity: defined as African American, Caucasian, Latino/a, or Mixed Race/Other; high school education: defined as having received a high school diploma or GED; steady partnership: current relationship with a steady partner; having children and a history of injection drug use. The measures for social and physical vulnerability, criminal justice involvement, substance use treatment involvement were included as explanatory variables in assessing associations with HCV and HIV status.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, median and interquartile range, were calculated to describe the distribution of variables in the study population. We calculated the prevalence and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for HIV and HCV status. Poisson regression models with robust variances were built to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios [42]. Our primary analysis of interest included assessing the impact of criminal justice and substance use treatment involvement with metrics for HCV testing and the steps of the HIV treatment cascade, risky behavior and social and physical vulnerability. Socio-demographic covariates considered for the multivariable model were determined based on their theoretical ability to confound the relationship of our exposures and outcomes. Backward stepwise regression with a criterion p value of 0.2 identified potential covariates for inclusion in the final multivariable model. Additionally, we examined the associations of socio-demographic, criminal justice and substance use treatment involvement and vulnerability with HIV and HCV status. Variables having a p value <0.2 with HIV or HCV status in bivariate analyses were considered for inclusion in the multivariable models, using backward stepwise regression with a criterion p value of 0.2. Statistical significance was set at p = 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted in Stata v14 [50].

Results

Study population

A total of 2072 people who smoked crack cocaine or injected drugs were included in this analysis. Table 1 outlines characteristics of our study population. The median age of respondents was 49 years [interquartile range (IQR) 41–55], and nearly 60% were male. Regarding our exposures of interest, 92, 86 and 66% had been incarcerated since the age of 18, ever been in community supervision and ever involved in substance use treatment, respectively.
Table 1

Characteristics of people who inject drugs or smoke crack cocaine, 2011–2013 (N = 2072)

 

HIV-negative (n = 2004)

HIV-positive (n = 68)

Total (n = 2072)

Age

   

 18–29

139 (7)

0 (0)

139 (7)

 30–39

274 (14)

7 (10)

281 (13)

 40–49

644 (32)

28 (41)

672 (32)

 50–59

726 (36)

27 (40)

753 (36)

 ≥60

222 (11)

6 (9)

228 (11)

Male

1177 (59)

39 (57)

1216 (59)

 Men who have sex with men

46 (2)

16 (23)

62 (3)

 Men who have sex with women

1129 (56)

23 (34)

1152 (56)

Female

827 (41)

25 (37)

852 (41)

 Non-sex worker

485 (24)

21 (31)

506 (24)

 Sex worker

342 (17)

4 (6)

346 (17)

Transgender

1 (<1)

4 (6)

5 (<1)

Racial/ethnic group

   

 African American

1721 (86)

63 (93)

1784 (86)

 Caucasian

100 (5)

3 (4)

103 (5)

 Latino

76 (4)

0 (0)

76 (4)

 Black Latino

10 (<1)

0 (0)

10 (<1)

 Asian/Pacific Islander

8 (<1)

0 (0)

8 (<1)

 Native American

13 (<1)

0 (0)

13 (<1)

 Mixed

47 (2)

2 (3)

49 (2)

 Other

30 (1)

0 (0)

30 (1)

High school education

1260 (63)

43 (63)

1303 (63)

Steady partnership

967 (48)

36 (53)

1003 (48)

Have children

1597 (80)

50 (73)

1647 (79)

Drug use history

   

 Injected drugs (only)

42 (2)

1 (<1)

43 (2)

  Injected opioids (only)

31 (1)

0 (0)

31 (1)

  Injected stimulants (only)

4 (<1)

1 (<1)

5 (<1)

  Injected opioids and stimulants

7 (<1)

0 (0)

7 (<1)

 Smoked crack/cocaine (only)

1476 (74)

50 (73)

1526 (74)

 Injected drugs and smoked crack/cocaine

486 (24)

17 (<1)

510 (25)

  Injected opioids and smoked crack/cocaine

245 (12)

5 (<1)

254 (12)

  Injected stimulants and smoked crack/cocaine

26 (1)

6 (<1)

33 (2)

  Injected opioids and stimulants and smoked crack/cocaine

215 (11)

6 (<1)

223 (11)

Homeless

1011 (50)

36 (53)

1047 (50)

Trouble meeting needs

1420 (71)

55 (81)

1475 (71)

Income <$900

1513 (76)

55 (82)

1568 (76)

Risky injection or sexual behavior

785 (40)

19 (28)

804 (39)

Incarcerated

1844 (92)

62 (91)

1906 (92)

Community supervision

1613 (86)

57 (89)

1670 (86)

Substance use treatment

1330 (67)

46 (68)

1376 (66)

In terms of engagement in HIV care, 85% had ever been tested for HIV prior to study participation, and the HIV prevalence was 3.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6–4.1). Among people living with HIV (n = 68), 71% reported having ever received HIV care, and 64% reported having ever initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) (Fig. 1). With regards to HCV testing, 65% had ever been tested for HCV, and the self-reported HCV prevalence was 31% (95% CI 29–34%).
Fig. 1

The continuum of HIV care for people who inject drugs or smoke crack cocaine

Criminal justice involvement

Criminal justice involvement was statistically associated with several HIV/HCV service access, vulnerability and risk behavior variables. Of note, people who reported a history of incarceration since the age of 18 were more likely to report testing for HIV ever (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10–1.34; p < 0.001) and testing for HCV ever (aPR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.12–1.56; p = 0.001). Among people living with HIV, no statistically significant associations were observed between reported history of incarceration and receipt of HIV care or initiation of ART (Table 2). In addition, people who reported a history of incarceration were significantly more likely to report homelessness (1.22; 95% CI 1.00–1.48; p = 0.049), having trouble meeting basic needs (aPR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.01–1.28; p = 0.031) and risky injection or sexual behavior (aPR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.04–1.66; p = 0.024) (Table 3).
Table 2

Associations of criminal justice involvement and substance use treatment on HCV testing and steps of engagement in HIV care

 

HCV testing

HIV testing

HIV care

Initiated ART

aPR (95% CI)

p value

aPR (95% CI)

p value

aPR (95% CI)

p value

aPR (95% CI)

p value

Incarceration

1.32 (1.12–1.56)

p = 0.001

1.21 (1.10–1.34)

p < 0.001

0.82 (0.52–1.29)

p = 0.394

0.79 (0.48–1.28)

p = 0.336

Community supervision

1.15 (1.04–1.29)

p = 0.009

1.17 (1.09–1.25)

p = 0.001

1.35 (0.59–3.07)

p = 0.470

2.04 (0.64–6.49)

p = 0.227

Substance use treatment

1.23 (1.14–1.33)

p < 0.001

1.15 (1.10–1.20)

p < 0.001

1.67 (1.10–2.55)

p = 0.016

1.92 (1.15–3.21)

p = 0.012

Age, gender, race, education, steady partnership, having children and injection drug use history assessed as potential confounders in all analyses

Table 3

Associations of criminal justice involvement and substance use treatment on vulnerability and risk behavior

 

Homelessness

Trouble meeting needs

Income ≥ $900

Risky injection or sexual behavior

aPR (95% CI)

p value

aPR (95% CI)

p value

aPR (95% CI)

p value

aPR (95% CI)

p value

Incarceration

1.22 (1.00–1.48)

0.049

1.14 (1.01–1.28)

0.031

1.14 (0.84–1.55)

0.391

1.31 (1.04–1.66)

0.024

Community supervision

1.33 (1.14–1.55)

<0.001

1.12 (1.02–1.23)

0.014

1.22 (0.96–1.56)

0.104

1.18 (1.00–1.40)

0.048

Substance use treatment

1.05 (0.96–1.15)

0.245

1.00 (0.94–1.06)

0.952

1.19 (1.00–1.41)

0.045

1.10 (0.98–1.23)

0.119

Age, gender, race, education, steady partnership, having children and injection drug use history assessed as potential confounders in all analyses

Like people who have a history of incarceration, people who reported a history of community supervision were more likely to report testing for HIV ever (aPR = 1.17; 95% CI 1.09–1.25; p = 0.001) and testing for HCV ever (aPR = 1.15; 95% CI 1.04–1.29; p = 0.009). No statistically significant associations were observed between reported history of community supervision and receipt of HIV care or initiation of ART (Table 2). In addition, people who reported a history of community supervision were significantly more likely to report homelessness (aPR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.14–1.55; p < 0.001), having trouble meeting basic needs (aPR = 1.12; 95% CI 1.02–1.23; p = 0.014) and risky injection or sexual behavior (aPR = 1.18; 95% CI 1.00–1.40; p = 0.048) (Table 3).

Substance use treatment

With regards to SUT, people who reported a history of substance use treatment were more likely to report receiving HIV testing ever (aPR = 1.15; 95% CI 1.10–1.20; p < 0.001) and HCV testing ever (aPR = 1.23; 95% CI 1.14–1.33; p < 0.001). Among people living with HIV, those who reported a history of SUT were more likely to report receiving HIV care (aPR = 1.67; 95% CI 1.10–1.25; p = 0.016) and initiating HIV treatment (aPR = 1.92; 95% CI 1.15–3.21; p = 0.012), as compared to people who had no history of SUT (Table 2). People who reported a history of SUT were more likely to report a current income ≥$900 (aPR = 1.19; 95% CI 1.00–1.41; p = 0.045); however, no statistically significant associations were observed between reported history of SUT and homelessness, trouble meeting needs or risky behavior (Table 3).

Predictors of HIV and HCV status

In multivariable analysis of HIV seropositive status, men who reported having sex with men (aPR = 12.49; 95% CI 6.95–22.44; p < 0.001) and people who reported being transgender (aPR = 38.32; 95% CI 20.10–73.03; p < 0.001) had a higher likelihood of being HIV-positive. With regards to HCV, people who reported being older in age (aPR = 1.47 per 10 years; 95% CI 1.35–1.59; p < 0.001), men who have sex with men (aPR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.32–2.31; p < 0.001), transgender (aPR = 1.70; 95% CI 1.12–2.57; p = 0.010), Caucasian (aPR = 1.41; 95% CI 1.16–1.72); p < 0.001), drug injectors (aPR = 7.06; 95% CI 5.17–9.64; p < 0.001) and homeless [aPR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.14–1.48; p = 0.001) had a higher likelihood of self-reporting being HCV-positive (Table 4).
Table 4

Associations with HIV and HCV positivity among PWID and PWSC in Oakland, 2011–2013 (N = 2072)

 

HIV-positive

HCV-positive

PR (95% CI)

p value

aPR (95% CI)

p value

PR (95% CI)

p value

aPR (95% CI)

p value

Age (per 10 years)

1.11 (0.99–1.03)

0.208

  

1.65 (1.52–1.80)

<0.001

1.47 (1.35–1.59)

<0.001

Sexual risk group

        

 Men who have sex with women

1.00 (ref)

 

1.00 (ref)

 

1.00 (ref)

 

1.00 (ref)

 

 Men who have sex with men

12.93 (7.20–23.20)

<0.001

12.49 (6.95–22.44)

<0.001

1.57 (1.15–2.14)

0.002

1.74 (1.32–2.31)

<0.001

 Female non-sex workers

2.08 (1.16–3.72)

0.014

1.71 (0.98–2.99)

0.058

0.84 (0.68–1.04)

0.107

1.06 (0.89–1.25)

0.513

 Female sex worker

0.58 (0.20–1.66)

0.310

0.56 (0.19–1.60)

0.277

0.86 (0.68–1.08)

0.197

1.21 (0.98–1.48)

0.069

 Transgender

40.07 (22.07–72.76)

<0.001

38.32 (20.10–73.03)

<0.001

0.99 (0.20–4.96)

0.997

1.70 (1.12–2.57)

0.010

Racial/ethnic group

        

 African American

1.00 (ref)

   

1.00 (ref)

 

1.00 (ref)

 

 Caucasian

0.83 (0.26–2.60)

0.748

  

2.06 (1.67–2.54)

<0.001

1.41 (1.16–1.72)

<0.001

 Latino

NC

   

1.88 (1.46–2.42)

<0.001

1.25 (0.99–1.59)

0.060

 Mixed race/other

0.57 (0.14–2.29)

0.429

  

1.22 (0.88–1.70)

0.232

1.00 (0.73–1.37)

0.997

High school education

1.01 (0.62–1.65)

0.810

  

0.94 (0.80–1.10)

0.452

  

Steady partnership

1.20 (0.75–1.91)

0.448

  

0.81 (0.69–0.96)

0.012

  

Have children

0.72 (0.42–1.22)

0.217

  

1.01 (0.83–1.24)

0.896

  

Ever injected drugs

1.19 (0.74–1.90)

0.470

  

8.98 (6.63–12.16)

<0.001

7.06 (5.17–9.64)

<0.001

Homeless

1.10 (0.69–1.76)

0.686

  

1.21 (1.03–1.42)

0.017

1.30 (1.14–1.48)

<0.001

Trouble meeting needs

1.71 (0.94–3.12)

0.077

1.61 (0.91–2.85)

0.101

1.27 (1.05–1.54)

0.012

  

Income ≥ $900

0.69 (0.37–1.27)

0.230

  

1.16 (0.98–1.38)

0.088

  

Incarcerated

0.87 (0.38–1.99)

0.746

  

2.45 (1.37–4.39)

0.002

  

Community supervision

1.34 (0.62–2.90)

0.464

  

1.41 (1.05–1.88)

0.022

  

Substance use treatment

1.06 (0.64–1.74)

0.826

  

1.91 (1.53–2.39)

<0.001

1.20 (0.99–1.45)

0.060

NC: model did not converge for this category

Discussion

With data from 2072 PWSC and PWID, people who reported a history of SUT were more likely to report higher levels of HIV and HCV screening, HIV care and ART initiation and were not more likely to report increased vulnerability or risky behavior. Other research has also suggested that people with a history of SUT have improved access to HIV care and treatment [3033]. Researchers have also suggested that SUT can attend to the root causes of drug-related offenses among drug-involved offenders [28]. Yet as of 2011, 21.6 million people aged 12 or older had a substance use disorder, but only 2.3 (11%) million people received SUT [51]. There remains a great opportunity to invest and expand the use of SUT for drug-involved people with criminal justice histories in order to attend to their substance use disorder [28] and facilitate access to other essential health care such as HIV care and treatment.

In addition, our results suggested that people with a history of criminal justice involvement reported greater access to HIV and HCV testing, but did not report greater access to HIV care or treatment. Researchers and practitioners have urged medical and public health professionals to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the criminal justice system in providing care for a highly underserved population [16, 52, 53]. Both the California state prison and Alameda county jail systems have an opt-out model for HIV testing, and the community supervision system provides testing referrals as indicated by the court or probation/parole officer. While our study did not evaluate these specific policies, it is encouraging that a history of criminal justice involvement was associated with higher reported levels of testing.

Accessing HIV services can quickly become complicated and disjointed for people with a history of criminal justice involvement. People incarcerated for longer sentences might be able to reap the benefits of HIV care and treatment during incarceration, but lose them once released [54]. Further, people who are going in and out of jail for low-level drug use or ‘quality of life’ violations are likely to miss any stabilizing benefit as they are caught in a criminal justice cycle that continually changes their environment. Our findings suggest that people with a history of criminal justice system involvement do not have greater access to HIV care or treatment.

Our findings are also consistent with previous research suggesting that involvement with the criminal justice system is associated with increased social and physical vulnerability [55, 56]. Prior studies have found an increased likelihood of homelessness [57], unemployment [58], lack of educational opportunities [55] and lack of health insurance [59] among people who have been involved in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, our findings showed increased injection- and sexual-related risk behavior among people with a history of criminal justice involvement is consistent with previous research that suggests this dynamic can be driven by factors such as poverty, mental health disorders and concurrent sexual partnerships, that are a by-product of involvement with the criminal justice system [55, 60].

The principal limitation of the study is the observational nature of the research design. Although we adjusted for measured participant characteristics to address concerns of confounding, the potential for unmeasured or mismeasured factors to bias our results existed. In addition, concerns regarding the temporality between exposures and outcomes given the cross-sectional nature of our study exist. We attempted to ameliorate this concern by defining exposure periods prior to outcomes when possible, but this does not convey the same level of rigor as a longitudinal study. Our study had the largest sample and most power for the earlier stage of the HIV care continuum (testing), and included a small number of people living with HIV, which may have impacted the study’s power to detect associations for the following stages of the continuum (receiving HIV care and initiating ART). Furthermore, this study was not designed to look for relationships between different types of substance use treatment for different substance use disorders on study outcomes.

Another limitation is the self-report of behaviors and HCV status for the survey, and as a result, recall and social desirability are potential biases impacting the metrics collected as part for this analysis. Specifically, metrics for vulnerability (e.g., homelessness), sexual risk factors (e.g., multiple partners), injection risk factors (e.g., sharing needles) may be prone to social desirability bias. Due to stigmatization of behaviors and conditions, these types of biases are common when studying people who use drugs [61]. However, the resulting misclassification would be non-differential with regards to our primary exposures of interest and would generally bias our results toward the null [62]. On the other hand, prior research has illustrated that self-reported behaviors from drug users are both reliable and valid for epidemiological purposes [63].

Strengths of the study included the community-recruited sample of study participants. Most studies of HIV care engagement typically use service utilization data, while our sample provides a snapshot of access to services among people recruited from a community setting. Interviewing participants in community settings that are independent of any criminal justice or substance abuse treatment institution may increase participants’ comfort with disclosing stigmatizing behavior compared to participants who are interviewed within institutional settings. In addition, our study included a large sample of criminal justice involved individuals who would not be captured in prison or jail populations, including people who were on probation or parole, who had absconded, or who had warrants out for their arrest. Furthermore, we had data of high quality that were collected specifically for the purposes of research.

Conclusion

Challenges remain in improving access to components of the HIV continuum and reducing vulnerabilities and risk among PWSC and PWID who have a history of the criminal justice system involvement. Innovative models that improve access to the HIV care continuum for these populations is vital. In addition, utilizing SUT programs, as appropriate, that are integrated with other services for HIV, HCV and mental health disorders will be critical to simultaneously address poor access to HIV and HCV services and the underlying reasons people who use drugs engage in drug-related offenses.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

BHL analyzed and interpreted the data and led the drafting of the manuscript. AHK, AL, MC and JL interpreted the data and were major contributors in drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the research staff and study participants for sharing their time and expertise. The article processing charge for this article was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network and the NIDA/SAMHSA Blending Initiative.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data

The dataset used and analyzed for the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conference presentations

A portion of these data have been presented previously at the International AIDS Society Conference in July 2015 at Vancouver, Canada.

Ethics approval

All study procedures were reviewed and approved by a federally accredited Institutional Review Board at RTI International.

Funding

This research was conducted with funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH094090), the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01MD007679), and the National Institute of Drug Abuse (R34DA037787).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
RTI International
(2)
University of California, San Francisco
(3)
University of Washington

References

  1. Moore LD. Who’s using and who’s doing time: incarceration, the war on drugs, and public health. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(5):782–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonczar TP. Prevalence of imprisonment in the U.S. population, 1974–2001. Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice; 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Glaze LE, Danielle K. Correctional populations in the United States, 2013. Washington: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2014.Google Scholar
  4. Wagner P, Sakala L, Begley J. States of incarceration: the global context. 2015. Accessed 10 June 2015.Google Scholar
  5. Bonczar T, Herberman E. Probation and parole in the United States, 2013. 2013. Accessed 10 June 2015.Google Scholar
  6. University TNCoAaSAaC. Behind bars II: substance abuse and America’s prison population. 2010. Accessed 6 June 2015.Google Scholar
  7. CDC. Monitoring selected national HIV prevention and care objectives by using HIV surveillance data—United States and 6 dependent areas. HIV surveillance report, vol 8, no 5 2011. Accessed 10 June 2015.Google Scholar
  8. Wenbaum C, Lyerla R, Margolis HS. Prevention and control of infections with hepatitis viruses in correctional settings. MMWR. 2003;52(RR01):1–33.Google Scholar
  9. CDC. HIV in correctional settings. 2014. Accessed 10 June 2015.Google Scholar
  10. Kitahata MM, Gange SJ, Abraham AG, et al. Effect of early versus deferred antiretroviral therapy for HIV on survival. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(18):1815–26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Sterne J, May M, Costagliola D, et al. Timing of initiation of antiretroviral therapy in AIDS-free HIV-1-infected patients: a collaborative analysis of 18 HIV cohort studies. Lancet. 2009;373(9672):1352–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(6):493–505.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardner EM, McLees MP, Steiner JF, Del Rio C, Burman WJ. The spectrum of engagement in HIV care and its relevance to test-and-treat strategies for prevention of HIV infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(6):793–800.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Linas BP, Barter DM, Leff JA, et al. The hepatitis C cascade of care: identifying priorities to improve clinical outcomes. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5):e97317.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Ogbuagu O, Bruce RD. Reaching the unreached: treatment as prevention as a workable strategy to mitigate HIV and its consequences in high-risk groups. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2014;11(4):505–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaser JB, Greifinger RB. Correctional health care: a public health opportunity. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(2):139–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Baillargeon J, Giordano TP, Harzke AJ, et al. Predictors of reincarceration and disease progression among released HIV-infected inmates. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2010;24(6):389–94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Beckwith CG, Zaller ND, Fu JJ, Montague BT, Rich JD. Opportunities to diagnose, treat, and prevent HIV in the criminal justice system. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55(Suppl 1):S49–55.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Allen SA, Spaulding AC, Osei AM, Taylor LE, Cabral AM, Rich JD. Treatment of chronic hepatitis C in a state correctional facility. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):187–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Strock P, Mossong J, Hawotte K, Arendt V. Access to treatment of hepatitis C in prison inmates. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54(6):1325–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Basu S, Smith-Rohrberg D, Hanck S, Altice FL. HIV testing in correctional institutions: evaluating existing strategies, setting new standards. AIDS Public Policy J. 2005;20(1–2):3–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sylla, M. HIV treatment in U.S. jails and prisons. San Francisco AIDS Foundation Online Newsletter. http://www.​sfaf.​org/​beta/​2008_​win/​jails_​Prisons (2008). Accessed 24 Aug 2015.
  23. Haley DF, Golin CE, Farel CE, et al. Multilevel challenges to engagement in HIV care after prison release: a theory-informed qualitative study comparing prisoners’ perspectives before and after community reentry. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1253.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Pope LG, Smith TE, Wisdom JP, Easter A, Pollock M. Transitioning between systems of care: missed opportunities for engaging adults with serious mental illness and criminal justice involvement. Behav Sci Law. 2013;31(4):444–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Baillargeon J, Giordano TP, Rich JD, et al. Accessing antiretroviral therapy following release from prison. JAMA. 2009;301(8):848–57.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Belenko S, Langley S, Crimmins S, Chaple M. HIV risk behaviors, knowledge, and prevention education among offenders under community supervision: a hidden risk group. AIDS Educ Prev. 2004;16(4):367–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gordon MS, Kinlock TW, McKenzie M, Wilson ME, Rich JD. Rapid HIV testing for individuals on probation/parole: outcomes of an intervention trial. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(6):2022–30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. McVay D, Schiraldi V, Ziedenberg J. Treatment or incarceration? National and state findings on the efficacy and cost savings of drug treatment versus imprisonment. 2014. Accessed 10 June 2015.Google Scholar
  29. Zarkin GA, Cowell AJ, Hicks KA, et al. Benefits and costs of substance abuse treatment programs for state prison inmates: results from a lifetime simulation model. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):633–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Palepu A, Tyndall MW, Joy R, et al. Antiretroviral adherence and HIV treatment outcomes among HIV/HCV co-infected injection drug users: the role of methadone maintenance therapy. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;84(2):188–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Reddon H, Milloy MJ, Simo A, Montaner J, Wood E, Kerr T. Methadone maintenance therapy decreases the rate of antiretroviral therapy discontinuation among HIV-positive illicit drug users. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(4):740–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Roux P, Carrieri MP, Villes V, et al. The impact of methadone or buprenorphine treatment and ongoing injection on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) adherence: evidence from the MANIF2000 cohort study. Addiction. 2008;103(11):1828–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Uhlmann S, Milloy MJ, Kerr T, et al. Methadone maintenance therapy promotes initiation of antiretroviral therapy among injection drug users. Addiction. 2010;105(5):907–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Briscoe A. Report on continuing exixstence of a local state of emergency in Alameda County relative to the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C through the use of contaminated needles. In: Agency ACHCS, editors. http://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_06_24_14/HEALTH%20CARE%20SERVICES/Consent%20Calendar/PUBHLTH_204473.pdf (2014). Accessed 24 August 2015.
  35. Davis M. Alameda County African American HIV/AIDS state of emergency report. In: Uni ACPHDHEaS, editors. http://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_10_13_14/HEALTH%20CARE%20SERVICES/Regular%20Calendar/HIV_African_American_State_of_Emergency_Update_Health_10_13_14.pdf (2014). Accessed 24 August 2015.
  36. County A. Healthy Alameda County. In: Department PH, editors. http://www.healthyalamedacounty.org/ (2015). Accessed 15 May 2015.
  37. Institute CS. Sentencing practices in california by county, calendar year 2010. In: (CJCJ) CoJaCJ, editors. http://casi.cjcj.org/2011.
  38. Council US. Alameda County probationer as of July 2010 and Parolee as of Oct 2010. 2010. Accessed 24 Aug 2015.Google Scholar
  39. Department ACPH. How place, racism and poverty matter for health in Alameda County. 2013. Accessed 15 May 2015.Google Scholar
  40. Kral AH, Malekinejad M, Vaudrey J, et al. Comparing respondent-driven sampling and targeted sampling methods of recruiting injection drug users in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2010;87(5):839–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Watters J, Biernack P. Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1989;36:416–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Comfort M, Lopez A, Powers C, Kral AH, Lorvick J. How institutions deprive: ethnography, social work, and interventionist ethics among the hypermarginalized. Russell Sage J Soc Sci. 2015;1(1):100–19.Google Scholar
  44. Gelberg L, Gallagher T, Andersen R, Koegel P. Competing priorities as a barrier to medical care among homeless adults in Los Angeles. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(2):217–20.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Dowling-Guyer S, Johnson ME, Fisher DG, et al. Reliability of drug users’ self-reported HIV risk behaviors and validity of self-reported recent drug use. Assessment. 1994;1(4):383–92.Google Scholar
  46. Seal KH, Kral AH, Gee L, et al. Predictors and prevention of nonfatal overdose among street-recruited injection heroin users in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1998–1999. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1842–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Lorvick J, Kral AH, Seal K, Gee L, Edlin BR. Prevalence and duration of hepatitis C among injection drug users in San Francisco, Calif. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(1):46–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Kral AH, Bluthenthal RN, Lorvick J, Gee L, Bacchetti P, Edlin BR. Sexual transmission of HIV-1 among injection drug users in San Francisco, USA: risk-factor analysis. Lancet. 2001;357(9266):1397–401.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kral AH, Lorvick J, Gee L, et al. Trends in human immunodeficiency virus seroincidence among street-recruited injection drug users in San Francisco, 1987–1998. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(10):915–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Stata Statistical Software. Release 14 [computer program]. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2015.Google Scholar
  51. (NIDA) NIoDA. Principles of drug addiction treatment: a research-based guide. 3rd ed. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/acknowledgments2012.
  52. Pathela P. Incarceration: a prime opportunity for sexually transmitted infection control. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41(3):166–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Spaulding AC, Seals RM, Page MJ, Brzozowski AK, Rhodes W, Hammett TM. HIV/AIDS among inmates of and releasees from US correctional facilities, 2006: declining share of epidemic but persistent public health opportunity. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(11):e7558.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Iroh PA, Mayo H, Nijhawan AE. The HIV care cascade before, during and after incarceration: a systematic review and data synthesis. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(7):e5–16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Dumont DM, Allen SA, Brockmann BW, Alexander NE, Rich JD. Incarceration, community health, and racial disparities. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013;24(1):78–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Lorvick J, Comfort M, Krebs CP, Kral AH. Health service use and social vulnerability in a community-based sample of women on probation and parole, 2011-2013. Health Justice. 2015;3(13):1–6.Google Scholar
  57. Drucker E. A plague of prisons: the epidemiology of mass incarceration in America. New York: The New Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  58. Pager D, Western B, Sugie N. Sequencing disadvantage: barriers to employment facing young black and white men with criminal records. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 2009;623:195–213.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Mallik-Kane K, Cisher C. Health and priosner reentry: how physical, mental and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration. Washington: Urban Institute; 2008.Google Scholar
  60. Khan MR, Golin CE, Friedman SR, et al. STI/hiv sexual risk behavior and prevalent STI among incarcerated African American men in committed partnerships: the significance of poverty, mood disorders, and substance use. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(8):1478–90.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Perlis TE, Des Jarlais DC, Friedman SR, Arasteh K, Turner CF. Audio-computerized self-interviewing versus face-to-face interviewing for research data collection at drug abuse treatment programs. Addiction. 2004;99(7):885–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Koepsell TD, Weiss NS. Epidemiologic methods: studying the occurence of illness. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  63. Darke S. Self-report among injecting drug users: a review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1998;51(3):253–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement