The COVID-19 Pandemic Vulnerability Index (PVI) Dashboard: monitoring county level vulnerability.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Marvel S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7430608 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The COVID-19 Pandemic Vulnerability Index (PVI) Dashboard: Monitoring county-level vulnerability using visualization, statistical modeling, and machine learning.
Marvel Skylar W SW House John S JS Wheeler Matthew M Song Kuncheng K Zhou Yihui Y Wright Fred A FA Chiu Weihsueh A WA Rusyn Ivan I Motsinger-Reif Alison A Reif David M DM
medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 20200913
<h4>Background</h4>While the COVID-19 pandemic presents a global challenge, the U.S. response places substantial responsibility for both decision-making and communication on local health authorities, necessitating tools to support decision-making at the community level.<h4>Objectives</h4>We created a Pandemic Vulnerability Index (PVI) to support counties and municipalities by integrating baseline data on relevant community vulnerabilities with dynamic data on local infection rates and interventi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:We used the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index and 7 theme scores to assess associations between vulnerability and county-level COVID-19 vaccination (n = 2415 counties) through May 25th, 2021. When comparing vaccination rates among quintiles of CCVI scores, Theme 3 (housing type, transportation, household composition, and disability) was associated with the largest disparity, with the least vulnerable counties (Q1) having 33% higher rates of vaccination among individuals aged 18+ (53.5% vs 40.2%) compared to counties with the highest vulnerability (Q5). Using generalized linear models with binomial distributions and log links, we found that a 10-point increase in the CCVI index, socioeconomic vulnerability, housing type and composition, and epidemiological factors were associated with at least a 1.0 percentage point decline in county-level vaccination. The association between community vulnerability and lower vaccination rates suggests the need for continued efforts for equitable COVID-19 vaccination across marginalized communities.
| S-EPMC8215509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for precision public health reflecting our improved understanding of who is the most vulnerable and their geographical location. We created three vulnerability indices to identify areas and people who require greater support while elucidating health inequities to inform emergency response in Kenya. METHODS:Geospatial indicators were assembled to create three vulnerability indices; Social VulnerabilityIndex (SVI), Epidemiological Vulnerability Index (EVI) and a composite of the two, that is, Social Epidemiological Vulnerability Index (SEVI) resolved at 295 subcounties in Kenya. SVI included 19 indicators that affect the spread of disease; socioeconomic deprivation, access to services and population dynamics, whereas EVI comprised 5 indicators describing comorbidities associated with COVID-19 severe disease progression. The indicators were scaled to a common measurement scale, spatially overlaid via arithmetic mean and equally weighted. The indices were classified into seven classes, 1-2 denoted low vulnerability and 6-7, high vulnerability. The population within vulnerabilities classes was quantified. RESULTS:The spatial variation of each index was heterogeneous across Kenya. Forty-nine northwestern and partly eastern subcounties (6.9 million people) were highly vulnerable, whereas 58 subcounties (9.7 million people) in western and central Kenya were the least vulnerable for SVI. For EVI, 48 subcounties (7.2 million people) in central and the adjacent areas and 81 subcounties (13.2 million people) in northern Kenya were the most and least vulnerable, respectively. Overall (SEVI), 46 subcounties (7.0 million people) around central and southeastern were more vulnerable, whereas 81 subcounties (14.4 million people) were least vulnerable. CONCLUSION:The vulnerability indices created are tools relevant to the county, national government and stakeholders for prioritisation and improved planning. The heterogeneous nature of the vulnerability indices underpins the need for targeted and prioritised actions based on the needs across the subcounties.
| S-EPMC7447114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCovid-19 excess deaths refer to increases in mortality over what would normally have been expected in the absence of the Covid-19 pandemic. Several prior studies have calculated excess deaths in the United States but were limited to the national or state level, precluding an examination of area-level variation in excess mortality and excess deaths not assigned to Covid-19. In this study, we take advantage of county-level variation in Covid-19 mortality to estimate excess deaths associated with the pandemic and examine how the extent of excess mortality not assigned to Covid-19 varies across subsets of counties defined by sociodemographic and health characteristics.Methods and findingsIn this ecological, cross-sectional study, we made use of provisional National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data on direct Covid-19 and all-cause mortality occurring in U.S. counties from January 1 to December 31, 2020 and reported before March 12, 2021. We used data with a ten week time lag between the final day that deaths occurred and the last day that deaths could be reported to improve the completeness of data. Our sample included 2,096 counties with 20 or more Covid-19 deaths. The total number of residents living in these counties was 319.1 million. On average, the counties were 18.7% Hispanic, 12.7% non-Hispanic Black and 59.6% non-Hispanic White. 15.9% of the population was older than 65 years. We first modeled the relationship between 2020 all-cause mortality and Covid-19 mortality across all counties and then produced fully stratified models to explore differences in this relationship among strata of sociodemographic and health factors. Overall, we found that for every 100 deaths assigned to Covid-19, 120 all-cause deaths occurred (95% CI, 116 to 124), implying that 17% (95% CI, 14% to 19%) of excess deaths were ascribed to causes of death other than Covid-19 itself. Our stratified models revealed that the percentage of excess deaths not assigned to Covid-19 was substantially higher among counties with lower median household incomes and less formal education, counties with poorer health and more diabetes, and counties in the South and West. Counties with more non-Hispanic Black residents, who were already at high risk of Covid-19 death based on direct counts, also reported higher percentages of excess deaths not assigned to Covid-19. Study limitations include the use of provisional data that may be incomplete and the lack of disaggregated data on county-level mortality by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and sociodemographic and health characteristics.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that direct Covid-19 death counts in the United States in 2020 substantially underestimated total excess mortality attributable to Covid-19. Racial and socioeconomic inequities in Covid-19 mortality also increased when excess deaths not assigned to Covid-19 were considered. Our results highlight the importance of considering health equity in the policy response to the pandemic.
| S-EPMC7480051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe rapid spread of COVID-19 means that government and health services providers have little time to plan and design effective response policies. It is therefore important to quickly provide accurate predictions of how vulnerable geographic regions such as counties are to the spread of this virus.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to develop county-level prediction around near future disease movement for COVID-19 occurrences using publicly available data.MethodsWe estimated county-level COVID-19 occurrences for the period March 14 to 31, 2020, based on data fused from multiple publicly available sources inclusive of health statistics, demographics, and geographical features. We developed a three-stage model using XGBoost, a machine learning algorithm, to quantify the probability of COVID-19 occurrence and estimate the number of potential occurrences for unaffected counties. Finally, these results were combined to predict the county-level risk. This risk was then used as an estimated after-five-day-vulnerability of the county.ResultsThe model predictions showed a sensitivity over 71% and specificity over 94% for models built using data from March 14 to 31, 2020. We found that population, population density, percentage of people aged >70 years, and prevalence of comorbidities play an important role in predicting COVID-19 occurrences. We observed a positive association at the county level between urbanicity and vulnerability to COVID-19.ConclusionsThe developed model can be used for identification of vulnerable counties and potential data discrepancies. Limited testing facilities and delayed results introduce significant variation in reported cases, which produces a bias in the model.
| S-EPMC7490002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLike most of the world, the United States' public health and economy are impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. However, discrete pandemic effects may not be fully realized on the macro-scale. With this perspective, our goal is to visualize spread of the pandemic and measure county-level features which may portend vulnerability.MethodsWe accessed the New York Times GitHub repository COVID19 data and 2018 United States Census data for all United States Counties. The disparate datasets were merged and filtered to allow for visualization and assessments about case fatality rate (CFR%) and associated demographic, ethnic and economic features.ResultsOur results suggest that county-level COVID19 fatality rates are related to advanced population age (P < .001) and less diversity as evidenced by higher proportion of Caucasians in High CFR% counties (P < .001). Also, lower CFR% counties had a greater proportion of the population reporting has having 2 or more races (P < .001). We noted no significant differences between High and Low CFR% counties with respect to mean income or poverty rate.ConclusionsUnique COVID19 impacts are realized at the county level. Use of public datasets, data science skills and information visualization can yield helpful insights to drive understanding about community-level vulnerability.
| S-EPMC7837264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to impact the world at large, Veterans of the US Armed Forces are experiencing increases in both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 mortality. Veterans may be more susceptible to the pandemic than the general population due to their higher comorbidity burdens and older age, but no research has examined if trends in excess mortality differ between these groups. Additionally, individual-level data on demographics, comorbidities, and deaths are provided in near-real time for all enrolees of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). These data provide a unique opportunity to identify excess mortality throughout 2020 at a subnational level, and to validate these estimates against local COVID-19 burden.MethodsWe queried VHA administrative data on demographics and comorbidities for 11.4 million enrolees during 2016-2020. Pre-pandemic data was used to develop and cross-validate eight mortality prediction models at the county-level including Poisson, Poisson quasi-likelihood, negative binomial, and generalized estimating equations. We then estimated county-level excess Veteran mortality during 2020 and correlated these estimates with local rates of COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths.FindingsAll models demonstrated excellent agreement between observed and predicted mortality during 2016-2019; a Poisson quasi-likelihood with county fixed effects minimized median squared error with a calibration slope of 1.00. Veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces faced an excess mortality rate of 13% in 2020, which corresponds to 50,299 excess deaths. County-level estimates of excess mortality were correlated with both COVID-19 cases (R2=0.77) and deaths per 1,000 population (R2=0.59).InterpretationWe developed sub-national estimates of excess mortality associated with the pandemic and shared our data as a resource for researchers and data journalists. Despite Veterans' greater likelihood of risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 illness, their excess mortality rate was slightly lower than the general population. Consistent access to health care and the rapid expansion of VHA telemedicine during the pandemic may explain this divergence.FundingThis work was supported by grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative [PEC 16-001]. Dr. Griffith's effort was supported in part by the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality [K12 HS026395].
| S-EPMC8577544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPopulation characteristics can be used to infer vulnerability of communities to COVID-19, or to the likelihood of high levels of vaccine hesitancy. Communities harder hit by the virus, or at risk of being so, stand to benefit from greater resource allocation than their population size alone would suggest. This study reports a simple but efficacious method of ranking small areas of England by relative characteristics that are linked with COVID-19 vulnerability and vaccine hesitancy.MethodsPublicly available data on a range of characteristics previously linked with either poor COVID-19 outcomes or vaccine hesitancy were collated for all Middle Super Output Areas of England (MSOA, n=6790, excluding Isles of Scilly), scaled and combined into two numeric indices. Multivariable linear regression was used to build a parsimonious model of vulnerability (static socio-ecological vulnerability index, SEVI) in 60% of MSOAs, and retained variables were used to construct two simple indices. Assuming a monotonic relationship between indices and outcomes, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between the SEVI and cumulative COVID-19 case rates at MSOA level in the remaining 40% of MSOAs over periods both during and out with national lockdowns. Similarly, a novel vaccine hesitancy index (VHI) was constructed using population characteristics aligned with factors identified by an Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey analysis. The relationship between the VHI and vaccine coverage in people aged 12+years (as of 2021-06-24) was determined using Spearman correlation. The indices were split into quintiles, and MSOAs within the highest vulnerability and vaccine hesitancy quintiles were mapped.FindingsThe SEVI showed a moderate to strong relationship with case rates in the validation dataset across the whole study period, and for every intervening period studied except early in the pandemic when testing was highly selective. The SEVI was more strongly correlated with case rates than any of its domains (rs 0·59 95% CI 0.57-0.62) and outperformed an existing MSOA-level vulnerability index. The VHI was significantly negatively correlated with COVID-19 vaccine coverage in the validation data at the time of writing (rs -0·43 95% CI -0·46 to -0·41). London had the largest number and proportion of MSOAs in quintile 5 (most vulnerable/hesitant) of SEVI and VHI concurrently.InterpretationThe indices presented offer an efficacious way of identifying geographical disparities in COVID-19 risk, thus helping focus resources according to need.FundingFunder: Integrated Covid Hub North East.Award numbern/a.Grant recipientFiona Matthews.
| S-EPMC8717085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the United States confirms that not all Americans are equally at risk of infection, severe disease, or mortality. A range of intersecting biological, demographic, and socioeconomic factors are likely to determine an individual's susceptibility to COVID-19. These factors vary significantly across counties in the United States, and often reflect the structural inequities in our society. Recognizing this vast inter-county variation in risks will be critical to mounting an adequate response strategy. Using publicly available county-specific data we identified key biological, demographic, and socioeconomic factors influencing susceptibility to COVID-19, guided by international experiences and consideration of epidemiological parameters of importance. We created bivariate county-level maps to summarize examples of key relationships across these categories, grouping age and poverty; comorbidities and lack of health insurance; proximity, density and bed capacity; and race and ethnicity, and premature death. We have also made available an interactive online tool that allows public health officials to query risk factors most relevant to their local context. Our data demonstrate significant inter-county variation in key epidemiological risk factors, with a clustering of counties in certain states, which will result in an increased demand on their public health system. While the East and West coast cities are particularly vulnerable owing to their densities (and travel routes), a large number of counties in the Southeastern states have a high proportion of at-risk populations, with high levels of poverty, comorbidities, and premature death at baseline, and low levels of health insurance coverage. The list of variables we have examined is by no means comprehensive, and several of them are interrelated and magnify underlying vulnerabilities. The online tool allows readers to explore additional combinations of risk factors, set categorical thresholds for each covariate, and filter counties above different population thresholds. COVID-19 responses and decision making in the United States remain decentralized. Both the federal and state governments will benefit from recognizing high intra-state, inter-county variation in population risks and response capacity. Many of the factors that are likely to exacerbate the burden of COVID-19 and the demand on healthcare systems are the compounded result of long-standing structural inequalities in US society. Strategies to protect those in the most vulnerable counties will require urgent measures to better support communities' attempts at social distancing and to accelerate cooperation across jurisdictions to supply personnel and equipment to counties that will experience high demand.
| S-EPMC7276037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As of August 2020, the United States is the global epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging data suggests that "essential" workers, who are disproportionately more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities and immigrants, bear a disproportionate degree of risk. We used publicly available data to build a series of spatial autoregressive models assessing county level associations between COVID-19 mortality and (1) percentage of individuals engaged in farm work, (2) percentage of households without a fluent, adult English-speaker, (3) percentage of uninsured individuals under the age of 65, and (4) percentage of individuals living at or below the federal poverty line. We further adjusted these models for total population, population density, and number of days since the first reported case in a given county. We found that across all counties that had reported a case of COVID-19 as of July 12, 2020 (n = 3024), a higher percentage of farmworkers, a higher percentage of residents living in poverty, higher density, higher population, and a higher percentage of residents over the age of 65 were all independently and significantly associated with a higher number of deaths in a county. In urban counties (n = 115), a higher percentage of farmworkers, higher density, and larger population were all associated with a higher number of deaths, while lower rates of insurance coverage in a county was independently associated with fewer deaths. In non-urban counties (n = 2909), these same patterns held true, with higher percentages of residents living in poverty and senior residents also significantly associated with more deaths. Taken together, our findings suggest that farm workers may face unique risks of contracting and dying from COVID-19, and that these risks are independent of poverty, insurance, or linguistic accessibility of COVID-19 health campaigns.
| S-EPMC7556498 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1055 | biostudies-other