Dataset Information

Measuring geographical disparities in England at the time of COVID-19: results using a composite indicator of population vulnerability.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The growth of COVID-19 infections in England raises questions about system vulnerability. Several factors that vary across geographies, such as age, existing disease prevalence, medical resource availability and deprivation, can trigger adverse effects on the National Health System during a pandemic. In this paper, we present data on these factors and combine them to create an index to show which areas are more exposed. This technique can help policy makers to moderate the impact of similar pandemics.

Design

We combine several sources of data, which describe specific risk factors linked with the outbreak of a respiratory pathogen, that could leave local areas vulnerable to the harmful consequences of large-scale outbreaks of contagious diseases. We combine these measures to generate an index of community-level vulnerability.

Setting

91 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England.

Main outcome measures

We merge 15 measures spatially to generate an index of community-level vulnerability. These measures cover prevalence rates of high-risk diseases; proxies for the at-risk population density; availability of staff and quality of healthcare facilities.

Results

We find that 80% of CCGs that score in the highest quartile of vulnerability are located in the North of England (24 out of 30). Here, vulnerability stems from a faster rate of population ageing and from the widespread presence of underlying at-risk diseases. These same areas, especially the North-East Coast areas of Lancashire, also appear vulnerable to adverse shocks to healthcare supply due to tighter labour markets for healthcare personnel. Importantly, our index correlates with a measure of social deprivation, indicating that these communities suffer from long-standing lack of economic opportunities and are characterised by low public and private resource endowments.

Conclusions

Evidence-based policy is crucial to mitigate the health impact of pandemics such as COVID-19. While current attention focuses on curbing rates of contagion, we introduce a vulnerability index combining data that can help policy makers identify the most vulnerable communities. We find that this index is positively correlated with COVID-19 deaths and it can thus be used to guide targeted capacity building. These results suggest that a stronger focus on deprived and vulnerable communities is needed to tackle future threats from emerging and re-emerging infectious disease.

SUBMITTER: Nicodemo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7526277 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring geographical disparities in England at the time of COVID-19: results using a composite indicator of population vulnerability.

Nicodemo Catia C Nicodemo Catia C Barzin Samira S Cavalli Nicolo' N Lasserson Daniel D Moscone Francesco F Redding Stuart S Shaikh Mujaheed M

BMJ open 20200929 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>The growth of COVID-19 infections in England raises questions about system vulnerability. Several factors that vary across geographies, such as age, existing disease prevalence, medical resource availability and deprivation, can trigger adverse effects on the National Health System during a pandemic. In this paper, we present data on these factors and combine them to create an index to show which areas are more exposed. This technique can help policy makers to moderate the imp ...[more]

PMID: 32994257

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVaricose vein (VV) treatments have changed significantly in recent years leading to potential disparities in service provision. The aim of this study was to examine the trends in VV treatment in England and to identify disparities in the provision of day-case and inpatient treatments related to deprivation, ethnicity, and other demographic, and geographical factors.MethodA population-based study using linked hospital episode statistics for England categorized VV procedures and compared population rates and procedure characteristics by ethnicity, deprivation quintile, and geographical area.ResultsA total of 311 936 people had 389 592 VV procedures between 2006/07 and 2017/18, with a further 63 276 procedures between 2018/19 and 2020/21. Procedure rates have reduced in all but the oldest age groups, whereas endovenous procedures have risen to more than 60 per cent of the total in recent years. In younger age groups there was a 20-30 per cent reduction in procedure rates for the least-deprived compared with the most-deprived quintiles. Non-white ethnicity was associated with lower procedure rates. Large regional and local differences were identified in standardized rates of VV procedures. In the most recent 5-year interval, the North-East region had a three-fold higher rate than the South-East region with evidence of greater variation between commissioners in overall rates, the proportion of endovenous procedures, and policies regarding bilateral treatments.ConclusionsThere are substantial geographical variations in the provision of treatment for VVs, which are not explained by demographic differences. These have persisted, despite the publication of guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and many commissioners, and providers would seem to implement policies that are contrary to this guidance. Lower rates of procedures in less-deprived areas may reflect treatments carried out in private practice, which are not included in these data.

Project description:BackgroundSince the mid-1990s, excess mortality has increased markedly for adults aged 25-44 years in the north compared with the south of England. We examined the underlying causes of this excess mortality and the contribution of socioeconomic deprivation.MethodsMortality data from the Office of National Statistics for adults aged 25-44 years were aggregated and compared between England's five most northern versus five most southern government office regions between Jan 1, 1981, and Dec 31, 2016. Poisson regression models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to quantify excess mortality in the north compared with the south by underlying cause of death (accidents, alcohol related, cardiovascular disease and diabetes, drug related, suicide, cancer, and other causes). The role of socioeconomic deprivation, as measured by the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation, in explaining the excess and regional variability was also explored.FindingsA mortality divide between the north and south appeared in the mid-1990s and rapidly expanded thereafter for deaths attributed to accidents, alcohol misuse, and drug misuse. In the 2014-16 period, the northern excess was incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1·47 (95% CI 1·39-1·54) for cardiovascular reasons, 2·09 (1·94-2·25) for alcohol misuse, and 1·60 (1·51-1·70) for drug misuse, across both men and women aged 25-44 years. National mortality rates for cardiovascular deaths declined over the study period but a longstanding gap between north and south persisted (from 33·3 [95% CI 31·8-34·8] in 1981 to 15·0 [14·0-15·9] in 2016 in the north vs from 23·5 [22·3-24·8] to 9·9 [9·2-10·5] in the south). Between 2014 and 2016, estimated excess numbers of death in the north versus the south for those aged 25-44 years were 1881 (95% CI 726-2627) for women and 3530 (2216-4511) for men. Socioeconomic deprivation explained up to two-thirds of the excess mortality in the north (IRR for northern effect reduced from 1·15 [95% CI 1·14-1·15; unadjusted] to 1·05 [1·04-1·05; adjusted for Index of Multiple Deprivation]). By 2016, in addition to the persistent north-south gap, mortality rates in London were lower than in all other regions, with IRRs ranging from IRR 1·13 (95% CI 1·12-1·15) for the East England to 1·22 (1·20-1·24) for the North East, even after adjusting for deprivation.InterpretationSharp relative rises in deaths from cardiovascular reasons, alcohol misuse and drug misuse in the north compared with the south seem to have created new health divisions between England's regions. This gap might be due to exacerbation of existing social and health inequalities that have been experienced for many years. These divisions might suggest increasing psychological distress, despair, and risk taking among young and middle-aged adults, particularly outside of London.FundingMedical Research Council and Wellcome Trust.

Project description:BackgroundCountries are increasingly adopting health insurance schemes for achieving Universal Health Coverage. India's state-funded health insurance scheme covers hospital care provided by 'empanelled' private and public hospitals.ObjectiveThis paper assesses geographical equity in availability of hospital services under the universal health insurance scheme in Chhattisgarh state.MethodsThe study makes use of district data from the insurance scheme and government surveys. Selected socio-economic indicators are combined to form a composite vulnerability index, which is used to rank and group the state's 27 districts into tertiles, named as highest, middle and lowest vulnerability districts (HVDs, MVDs, LVDs). Indicators of hospital service availability under the scheme - insurance coverage, number of empanelled private/public hospitals, numbers and amounts of claims - are compared across districts and tertiles. Two measures of inequality, difference and ratio, are used to compare availability between tertiles.ResultsThe study finds that there is a geographical pattern to vulnerability in Chhattisgarh state. Vulnerability increases with distance from the state's centre towards the periphery. The highest vulnerability districts have the highest insurance coverage, but the lowest availability of empanelled hospitals (3.4 hospitals per 100,000 enrolled in HVDs, vs 8.2/100,000 enrolled in LVDs). While public sector hospitals are distributed equally, the distribution of private hospitals across tertiles is highly unequal, with higher availability in LVDs. The number of claims (per 100,000 enrolled) in the HVDs is 3.5-times less than that in the LVDs. The claim amounts show a similar pattern.ConclusionsAlthough insurance coverage is higher in the more vulnerable districts, availability of hospital services is inversely proportional to vulnerability and, therefore, the need for these services. Equitable enrolment in health insurance schemes does not automatically translate into equitable access to healthcare, which is also dependent on availability and specific dynamics of service provision under the scheme.

Dataset Information

Measuring geographical disparities in England at the time of COVID-19: results using a composite indicator of population vulnerability.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Measuring geographical disparities in England at the time of COVID-19: results using a composite indicator of population vulnerability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets