Farah Acher Kaiksow MD, MPP, Amir Forati PhD, Kristin Merss PhD, RN, Karen Reece PhD, Marguerite Burns PhD, Eduard Eric Vasilevskis MD, MPH
{"title":"Patient and hospitalization differences in incarcerated versus nonincarcerated men: Insights from a 10-year cohort study","authors":"Farah Acher Kaiksow MD, MPP, Amir Forati PhD, Kristin Merss PhD, RN, Karen Reece PhD, Marguerite Burns PhD, Eduard Eric Vasilevskis MD, MPH","doi":"10.1002/jhm.70297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The incarcerated population in the United States is underserved and aging rapidly; there is a dearth of information regarding their health, including hospital care. Epidemiological information is crucial to guide policymakers’ planning. This analysis provides comparison data on the admissions of incarcerated and nonincarcerated patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Identify differences in inpatient care between incarcerated and nonincarcerated patients by comparing 10 years of data at an academic medical center that serves as the largest single provider of hospital care for the state's Department of Corrections.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Ten-year cohort study comparing all admissions of incarcerated males (<i>n</i> = 4525) to a matched cohort of nonincarcerated (<i>n</i> = 13,575) at an academic medical center serving as the largest provider of hospital care for the state's Department of Corrections. We included patients ≥18 years old and admitted to the hospital while in custody of the Department of Corrections between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Primary outcomes were patient characteristics, including demographics and comorbidities, and hospitalization characteristics, including length of stay and diagnosis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Compared with the nonincarcerated cohort, the incarcerated patients were more likely to be Black (33.4% vs. 6.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.05), Hispanic/Latine (6.1% vs. 2.1%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), admitted to a general medicine service (33.4% vs. 22.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), and less likely to be admitted to neurological/psychiatric services (5.2% vs. 9.1%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). The incarcerated cohort had a higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.83 vs. 3.65, <i>p</i> < 0.001), with statistically significant differences observed among patients aged 40–59.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In this cohort study, there were differences in patient and hospitalization characteristics between incarcerated and nonincarcerated patients that may have clinical implications. Policymakers and researchers must work toward improving both the health and health care of this marginalized population.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15883,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":"21 10","pages":"1115-1123"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13051773/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jhm.70297","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The incarcerated population in the United States is underserved and aging rapidly; there is a dearth of information regarding their health, including hospital care. Epidemiological information is crucial to guide policymakers’ planning. This analysis provides comparison data on the admissions of incarcerated and nonincarcerated patients.
Objectives
Identify differences in inpatient care between incarcerated and nonincarcerated patients by comparing 10 years of data at an academic medical center that serves as the largest single provider of hospital care for the state's Department of Corrections.
Methods
Ten-year cohort study comparing all admissions of incarcerated males (n = 4525) to a matched cohort of nonincarcerated (n = 13,575) at an academic medical center serving as the largest provider of hospital care for the state's Department of Corrections. We included patients ≥18 years old and admitted to the hospital while in custody of the Department of Corrections between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Primary outcomes were patient characteristics, including demographics and comorbidities, and hospitalization characteristics, including length of stay and diagnosis.
Results
Compared with the nonincarcerated cohort, the incarcerated patients were more likely to be Black (33.4% vs. 6.6%, p < 0.05), Hispanic/Latine (6.1% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.001), admitted to a general medicine service (33.4% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.01), and less likely to be admitted to neurological/psychiatric services (5.2% vs. 9.1%, p < 0.01). The incarcerated cohort had a higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.83 vs. 3.65, p < 0.001), with statistically significant differences observed among patients aged 40–59.
Conclusion
In this cohort study, there were differences in patient and hospitalization characteristics between incarcerated and nonincarcerated patients that may have clinical implications. Policymakers and researchers must work toward improving both the health and health care of this marginalized population.
期刊介绍:
JHM is a peer-reviewed publication of the Society of Hospital Medicine and is published 12 times per year. JHM publishes manuscripts that address the care of hospitalized adults or children.
Broad areas of interest include (1) Treatments for common inpatient conditions; (2) Approaches to improving perioperative care; (3) Improving care for hospitalized patients with geriatric or pediatric vulnerabilities (such as mobility problems, or those with complex longitudinal care); (4) Evaluation of innovative healthcare delivery or educational models; (5) Approaches to improving the quality, safety, and value of healthcare across the acute- and postacute-continuum of care; and (6) Evaluation of policy and payment changes that affect hospital and postacute care.