Dataset Information

US-county level variation in intersecting individual, household and community characteristics relevant to COVID-19 and planning an equitable response: a cross-sectional analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To illustrate the intersections of, and intercounty variation in, individual, household and community factors that influence the impact of COVID-19 on US counties and their ability to respond.

Design

We identified key individual, household and community characteristics influencing COVID-19 risks of infection and survival, guided by international experiences and consideration of epidemiological parameters of importance. Using publicly available data, we developed an open-access online tool that allows county-specific querying and mapping of risk factors. As an illustrative example, we assess the pairwise intersections of age (individual level), poverty (household level) and prevalence of group homes (community-level) in US counties. We also examine how these factors intersect with the proportion of the population that is people of colour (ie, not non-Hispanic white), a metric that reflects histories of US race relations. We defined 'high' risk counties as those above the 75th percentile. This threshold can be changed using the online tool.

Setting

US counties.

Participants

Analyses are based on publicly available county-level data from the Area Health Resources Files, American Community Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlas file, National Center for Health Statistic and RWJF Community Health Rankings.

Results

Our findings demonstrate significant intercounty variation in the distribution of individual, household and community characteristics that affect risks of infection, severe disease or mortality from COVID-19. About 9% of counties, affecting 10 million residents, are in higher risk categories for both age and group quarters. About 14% of counties, affecting 31 million residents, have both high levels of poverty and a high proportion of people of colour.

Conclusion

Federal and state governments will benefit from recognising high intrastate, intercounty variation in population risks and response capacity. Equitable responses to the pandemic require strategies to protect those in counties at highest risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes and their social and economic impacts.

SUBMITTER: Chin T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7467554 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:The effects of COVID-19 are likely to be socially stratified. Disease control measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic mean that people spend much more time in their immediate households, due to lockdowns, the need to self-isolate, and school and workplace closures. This has elevated the importance of certain household-level characteristics for individuals' current and future wellbeing. The multi-dimensional poverty and health inequalities literature suggests that poor health and socio-economic conditions cluster in the general population, which may exacerbate societal inequalities over time. This study investigates how COVID-19-related health- and socio-economic vulnerabilities co-occur at the household level, and how they are distributed across household types and geographical areas in the United Kingdom. Using a nationally representative cross-sectional study of UK households and individuals and applying principal components analysis, we derived summary measures representing different dimensions of household vulnerabilities critical during the COVID-19 epidemic: health, employment, housing, financial and digital. Our analysis highlights four key findings. First, although COVID-19-related health risks are concentrated in retirement-age households, a substantial proportion of working-age households also face these risks. Second, different types of households exhibit different vulnerabilities, with working-age households more likely to face financial and housing precarities, and retirement-age households health and digital vulnerabilities. Third, there are area-level differences in the distribution of household-level vulnerabilities across England and the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Fourth, in many households, different dimensions of vulnerabilities intersect; this is especially prevalent among working-age households. The findings imply that the short- and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 crisis are likely to significantly vary by household type. Policy measures that aim to mitigate the health and socio-economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic should consider how vulnerabilities cluster and interact with one another both within individuals and different household types, and how these may exacerbate already existing inequalities.

Project description:ObjectivesWe aimed to examine the associations of both individual-level and county-level social capital with individual health in China during a period of rapid economic growth.Design and settingA serial cross-sectional study in China.Participants and methodsThe participants were 42 829 Chinese adults (aged ≥18 years) from the 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2015 Chinese General Social Survey. The outcomes were self-rated physical and mental health in all time points. We assessed social capital by the individual-level and county-level indicators, including frequency of socialising, civic participation and trust. We conducted multilevel binary logistic regression models to examine the associations of individual-level and county-level social capital with self-rated physical and mental health.ResultsAt the individual level, high frequency of socialising (2010-OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.66; 2012-OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.54; 2013-OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.42; 2015-OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.50) and high trust (2010-OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.47; 2012-OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.42; 2013-OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.33; 2015-OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.28 to 1.55) was significantly associated with good physical health in all years. At the individual level, high frequency of socialising (2010-OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.42; 2012-OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.34; 2013-OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.45; 2015-OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.50) and high trust (2010-OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.61; 2012-OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.56; 2013-OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.24 to 1.49; 2015-OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.57) was also significantly associated with good mental health in all years. No evidence showed that the associations of individual-level frequency of socialising and trust with physical and mental health changed over time. There were no consistent associations of individual-level civic participation or any county-level social capital indicators with physical or mental health.ConclusionThe positive associations of individual-level social capital in terms of socialising and trust with physical and mental health were robust during a period of rapid economic growth. Improving individual-level socialising and trust for health promotion could be a long-term strategy even within a rapidly developing society.

Project description:Introduction:Geographic variation in the prevalence of chronic kidney disease and incidence of end-stage renal disease has been previously reported. However, the geographic epidemiology of rapid estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline has not been examined. Methods:We built a longitudinal cohort of 2,107,570 US veterans to characterize the spatial epidemiology of and examine the associations between US county characteristics and rapid eGFR decline. Results:There were 169,029 (8.02%) with rapid eGFR decline (defined as eGFR slope < -5 ml/min per 1.73 m2/year). The prevalence of rapid eGFR decline adjusted for age, race, gender, diabetes, and hypertension varied by county from 4.10%-6.72% in the lowest prevalence quintile to 8.41%-22.04% in the highest prevalence quintile (P for heterogeneity < 0.001). Examination of adjusted prevalence showed substantial geographic variation in those with and without diabetes and those with and without hypertension (P for heterogeneity < 0.001). Cohort participants had higher odds of rapid eGFR decline when living in counties with unfavorable characteristics in domains including health outcomes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.15; confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-1.22), health behaviors (OR = 1.08; CI = 1.03-1.13), clinical care (OR = 1.11; CI = 1.06-1.16), socioeconomic conditions (OR = 1.15; CI = 1.09-1.22), and physical environment (OR = 1.15; CI = 1.01-1.20); living in counties with high percentage of minorities and immigrants was associated with rapid eGFR decline (OR = 1.25; CI = 1.20-1.31). Spatial analyses suggest the presence of cluster of counties with high prevalence of rapid eGFR decline. Discussion:Our findings show substantial geographic variation in rapid eGFR decline among US veterans; the variation persists in analyses stratified by diabetes and hypertension status; results show associations between US county characteristics in domains capturing health, socioeconomic, environmental, and diversity conditions, and rapid eGFR decline.