Dataset Information

Assessing the Impact of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Characteristics on COVID-19 Prevalence Across Seven States in the United States.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: The spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the United States has highlighted the long-standing nationwide health inequalities with socioeconomically challenged communities experiencing a higher burden of the disease. We assessed the impact of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics on the COVID-19 prevalence across seven selected states (i.e., Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia). Methods: We obtained cumulative COVID-19 cases reported at the neighborhood aggregation level by Departments of Health in selected states on two dates (May 3rd, 2020, and May 30th, 2020) and assessed the correlation between the COVID-19 prevalence and neighborhood characteristics. We developed Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a composite measure to rank neighborhoods by their socioeconomic characteristics, using the 2018 US Census American Community Survey. The higher ADI rank represented more disadvantaged neighborhoods. Results: After controlling for age, gender, and the square mileage of each community we identified Zip-codes with higher ADI (more disadvantaged neighborhoods) in Illinois and Maryland had higher COVID-19 prevalence comparing to zip-codes across the country and in the same state with lower ADI (less disadvantaged neighborhoods) using data on May 3rd. We detected the same pattern across all states except for Florida and Virginia using data on May 30th, 2020. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence that not all Americans are at equal risk for COVID-19. Socioeconomic characteristics of communities appear to be associated with their COVID-19 susceptibility, at least among those study states with high rates of disease.

SUBMITTER: Hatef E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7536340 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing the Impact of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Characteristics on COVID-19 Prevalence Across Seven States in the United States.

Hatef Elham E Chang Hsien-Yen HY Kitchen Christopher C Weiner Jonathan P JP Kharrazi Hadi H

Frontiers in public health 20200922

<b>Introduction:</b> The spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the United States has highlighted the long-standing nationwide health inequalities with socioeconomically challenged communities experiencing a higher burden of the disease. We assessed the impact of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics on the COVID-19 prevalence across seven selected states (i.e., Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia). <b>Methods:</b> We obtained cum ...[more]

PMID: 33072710

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe spread of COVID-19 has highlighted the long-standing health inequalities across the U.S. as neighborhoods with fewer resources were associated with higher rates of COVID-19 transmission. Although the stay-at-home order was one of the most effective methods to contain its spread, residents in lower-income neighborhoods faced barriers to practicing social distancing. We aimed to quantify the differential impact of stay-at-home policy on COVID-19 transmission and residents' mobility across neighborhoods of different levels of socioeconomic disadvantage.MethodsThis was a comparative interrupted time-series analysis at the county level. We included 2087 counties from 38 states which both implemented and lifted the state-wide stay-at-home order. Every county was assigned to one of four equally-sized groups based on its levels of disadvantage, represented by the Area Deprivation Index. Prevalence of COVID-19 was calculated by dividing the daily number of cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases by the number of residents from the 2010 Census. We used the Social Distancing Index (SDI), derived from the COVID-19 Impact Analysis Platform, to measure the mobility. For the evaluation of implementation, the observation started from Mar 1st 2020 to 1 day before lifting; and, for lifting, it ranged from 1 day after implementation to Jul 5th 2020. We calculated a comparative change of daily trends in COVID-19 prevalence and Social Distancing Index between counties with three highest disadvantage levels and those with the least level before and after the implementation and lifting of the stay-at-home order, separately.ResultsOn both stay-at-home implementation and lifting dates, COVID-19 prevalence was much higher among counties with the highest or lowest disadvantage level, while mobility decreased as the disadvantage level increased. Mobility of the most disadvantaged counties was least impacted by stay-at-home implementation and relaxation compared to counties with the most resources; however, disadvantaged counties experienced the largest relative increase in COVID-19 infection after both stay-at-home implementation and relaxation.ConclusionsNeighborhoods with varying levels of socioeconomic disadvantage reacted differently to the implementation and relaxation of COVID-19 mitigation policies. Policymakers should consider investing more resources in disadvantaged counties as the pandemic may not stop until most neighborhoods have it under control.

Project description:ImportanceTelehealth services, which allow patients to communicate with a remotely located clinician, are increasingly available; however, prevalence of telehealth use, including videoconferencing visits, remains unclear.ObjectiveTo measure the use of and willingness to use telehealth modalities across the US population.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study, conducted between February 2019 and April 2019, asked participants about their use of different telehealth modalities, reasons for not using videoconferencing visits, and willingness to use videoconferencing visits. Questions were continuously posed to panel members and closed after 2555 responses were obtained, at which point 3932 panel members had been invited, for a 65.0% response rate.ExposuresDemographic characteristics (ie, age, sex, race, rural/urban residency, education level, and income).Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported use of specific telehealth modalities, reasons for nonuse, and willingness to use videoconferencing in the future.ResultsA total of 2555 individuals completed the survey with a mean (SD) age of 57.2 (14.2) years; 1453 respondents (weighted percentage, 51.9%) were women, and 2043 (weighted percentage, 73.4%) were White individuals. Overall, 1343 respondents (weighted percentage, 50.8%) reported use of a nontelephone telehealth modality, ranging from 873 respondents (weighted percentage, 31.9%) for patient portals and 89 respondents (weighted percentage, 4.2%) for videoconferencing visits. Although 1309 respondents (weighted percentage, 49.2%) overall answered that they were willing or very willing to use videoconferencing visits, respondents who were Black individuals (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91), aged older than 65 years (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40-0.66), or had less education (high school or less vs advanced degrees: OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.56) were less likely to express willingness.Conclusions and relevanceDespite the focused policy attention on videoconferencing visits, the results of this survey study suggest that other forms of telehealth were more dominant prior to 2020. Targeted efforts may be necessary for videoconferencing visits to reach patient groups who are older or have less education, and payer policies supporting other forms of telemedicine may be appropriate to enhance access.

Project description:BackgroundUniversity students are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable population, suffering from higher levels of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and disordered eating compared to the general population. Therefore, when the nature of their educational experience radically changes-such as sheltering in place during the COVID-19 pandemic-the burden on the mental health of this vulnerable population is amplified. The objectives of this study are to 1) identify the array of psychological impacts COVID-19 has on students, 2) develop profiles to characterize students' anticipated levels of psychological impact during the pandemic, and 3) evaluate potential sociodemographic, lifestyle-related, and awareness of people infected with COVID-19 risk factors that could make students more likely to experience these impacts.MethodsCross-sectional data were collected through web-based questionnaires from seven U.S. universities. Representative and convenience sampling was used to invite students to complete the questionnaires in mid-March to early-May 2020, when most coronavirus-related sheltering in place orders were in effect. We received 2,534 completed responses, of which 61% were from women, 79% from non-Hispanic Whites, and 20% from graduate students.ResultsExploratory factor analysis on close-ended responses resulted in two latent constructs, which we used to identify profiles of students with latent profile analysis, including high (45% of sample), moderate (40%), and low (14%) levels of psychological impact. Bivariate associations showed students who were women, were non-Hispanic Asian, in fair/poor health, of below-average relative family income, or who knew someone infected with COVID-19 experienced higher levels of psychological impact. Students who were non-Hispanic White, above-average social class, spent at least two hours outside, or less than eight hours on electronic screens were likely to experience lower levels of psychological impact. Multivariate modeling (mixed-effects logistic regression) showed that being a woman, having fair/poor general health status, being 18 to 24 years old, spending 8 or more hours on screens daily, and knowing someone infected predicted higher levels of psychological impact when risk factors were considered simultaneously.ConclusionInadequate efforts to recognize and address college students' mental health challenges, especially during a pandemic, could have long-term consequences on their health and education.

Project description:ImportanceHearing loss is one of the most prevalent chronic conditions in the United States and has been associated with negative physical, social, cognitive, economic, and emotional consequences. Despite the high prevalence of hearing loss, substantial gaps in the utilization of amplification options, including hearing aids and cochlear implants (CI), have been identified.ObjectiveTo investigate the contemporary prevalence, characteristics, and patterns of specialty referral, evaluation, and treatment of hearing difficulty among adults in the United States.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis of responses from a nationwide clustered representative sample of adults who participated in the 2014 National Health Interview Survey and responded to the hearing module questions was carried out.Main outcomes and measuresData regarding demographics as well as self-reported hearing status, functional hearing, laterality, onset, and primary cause of the hearing loss were collected. In addition, specific data regarding hearing-related clinician visits, hearing tests, referrals to hearing specialist, and utilization of hearing aids and CIs were analyzed.ResultsAmong 239.6 million adults, 40.3 million (16.8%) indicated their hearing was less than "excellent/good," ranging from "a little trouble hearing" to "deaf." The mean (SD) age of participants was 47 (0.2) years with 48.2% being men and 51.8% women. Approximately 48.8 million (20.6%) had visited a physician for hearing problems in the preceding 5 years. Of these, 32.6% were referred to an otolaryngologist and 27.3% were referred to an audiologist. Functional hearing was reported as the ability to hear "whispering" or "normal voice" (225.4 million; 95.5%), to "only hear shouting" (8.0 million; 3.4%), and "not appreciating shouting" (2.8 million; 1.1%). Among the last group, 5.3% were recommended to have a CI, of which 22.1% had received one. Of the adults who indicated their hearing from "a little trouble hearing" to being "deaf," 12.9 million (32.2%) had never seen a clinician for hearing problems and 11.1 million (28.0%) had never had their hearing tested.Conclusions and relevanceThere are considerable gaps between self-reported hearing loss and patients receiving medical evaluation and recommended treatments for hearing loss. Improved awareness regarding referrals to otolaryngologists and audiologists as well as auditory rehabilitative options among clinicians may improve hearing loss care.

Dataset Information

Assessing the Impact of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Characteristics on COVID-19 Prevalence Across Seven States in the United States.

Publications

Assessing the Impact of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Characteristics on COVID-19 Prevalence Across Seven States in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets