Dataset Information

Differential impact of mitigation policies and socioeconomic status on COVID-19 prevalence and social distancing in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

On 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.

Conclusions

Neighborhoods 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.

SUBMITTER: Chang HY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8201431 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral pathogen that quickly became a global pandemic in the winter of 2020-2021. In response, governments issued social distancing orders to minimize transmission by reducing community contacts. We tested the efficacy of this social distancing at the state level during the first 2 months of the pandemic in the United States. We utilized data on daily SARS-CoV-2 case numbers and human community mobility (anonymized, aggregated cell phone location data stratified into six categories used as an index of social distancing), the date of government-issued social distancing orders, demographics, urbanization and public transportation. We implemented cross-correlation to identify lag times between declines in mobility and SARS-CoV-2 cases. Incorporating state-specific lag times, we tested for associations between case counts and mobility metrics using Bayesian multilevel models. Decreased mobility around grocery stores/pharmacies, retail/recreation locations, transit stations and workplaces was correlated with decreases in SARS-CoV-2 cases with significant lag times of ≥21 days. Social distancing orders were associated with fewer cumulative SARS-CoV-2 cases when they were put in place earlier. Community mobility had already started declining prior to most social distancing orders, especially the more restrictive orders implemented later in the pandemic. Social distancing is an important tool that has been implemented throughout the pandemic to decrease SARS-CoV-2 transmission, although with significant social and economic impacts. Our results suggest that declines in cases were observed several weeks subsequent to implementation of social distancing measures, and that implementing social distancing earlier could potentially minimize the duration of time these policies need to be in effect. Our findings can inform ongoing management of this pandemic and other emerging infectious disease outbreaks by identifying areas where reductions in mobility are associated with reduced disease transmission, and the expected time frame between behavioural changes and measurable population outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundSocial distancing and public policy have been crucial for minimizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States. Publicly available, county-level time series data on mobility are derived from individual devices with global positioning systems, providing a variety of indices of social distancing behavior per day. Such indices allow a fine-grained approach to modeling public behavior during the pandemic. Previous studies of social distancing and policy have not accounted for the occurrence of pre-policy social distancing and other dynamics reflected in the long-term trajectories of public mobility data.ObjectiveWe propose a differential equation state-space model of county-level social distancing that accounts for distancing behavior leading up to the first official policies, equilibrium dynamics reflected in the long-term trajectories of mobility, and the specific impacts of four kinds of policy. The model is fit to each US county individually, producing a nationwide data set of novel estimated mobility indices.MethodsA differential equation model was fit to three indicators of mobility for each of 3054 counties, with T=100 occasions per county of the following: distance traveled, visitations to key sites, and the log number of interpersonal encounters. The indicators were highly correlated and assumed to share common underlying latent trajectory, dynamics, and responses to policy. Maximum likelihood estimation with the Kalman-Bucy filter was used to estimate the model parameters. Bivariate distributional plots and descriptive statistics were used to examine the resulting county-level parameter estimates. The association of chronology with policy impact was also considered.ResultsMobility dynamics show moderate correlations with two census covariates: population density (Spearman r ranging from 0.11 to 0.31) and median household income (Spearman r ranging from -0.03 to 0.39). Stay-at-home order effects were negatively correlated with both (r=-0.37 and r=-0.38, respectively), while the effects of the ban on all gatherings were positively correlated with both (r=0.51, r=0.39). Chronological ordering of policies was a moderate to strong determinant of their effect per county (Spearman r ranging from -0.12 to -0.56), with earlier policies accounting for most of the change in mobility, and later policies having little or no additional effect.ConclusionsChronological ordering, population density, and median household income were all associated with policy impact. The stay-at-home order and the ban on gatherings had the largest impacts on mobility on average. The model is implemented in a graphical online app for exploring county-level statistics and running counterfactual simulations. Future studies can incorporate the model-derived indices of social distancing and policy impacts as important social determinants of COVID-19 health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the differences in timing and composition of physical distancing policies is important to evaluate the early global response to COVID-19. A physical distancing intensity monitoring framework comprising 16 domains was recently published to compare physical distancing approaches across 12 U.S. States. We applied this framework to a diverse set of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Botswana, India, Jamaica, Mozambique, Namibia, and Ukraine) to test the appropriateness of this framework in the global context and to compare the policy responses in these LMICs with a sample of U.S. States during the first 100-days of the pandemic.ResultsThe LMICs in our sample adopted wide ranging physical distancing policies. The highest peak daily physical distancing intensity during this period was: Botswana (4.60); India (4.40); Ukraine (4.40); Namibia (4.20); Mozambique (3.87), and Jamaica (3.80). The number of days each country stayed at peak policy intensity ranged from 12-days (Jamaica) to more than 67-days (Mozambique). We found some key similarities and differences, including substantial differences in whether and how countries expressly required certain groups to stay at home. Despite the much higher number of cases in the US, the physical distancing responses in our LMIC sample were generally more intense than in the U.S. States, but results vary depending on the U.S. State. The peak policy intensity for the U.S. 12-state average was 3.84, which would place it lower than every LMIC in this sample except Jamaica. The LMIC sample countries also reached peak physical distancing intensity earlier in outbreak progression compared to the U.S. states sample. The easing of physical distancing policies in the LMIC sample did not discernably correlate with change in COVID-19 incidence.ConclusionsThis physical distancing intensity framework was appropriate for the LMIC context with only minor adaptations. This framework may be useful for ongoing monitoring of physical distancing policy approaches and for use in effectiveness analyses. This analysis helps to highlight the differing paths taken by the countries in this sample and may provide lessons to other countries regarding options for structuring physical distancing policies in response to COVID-19 and future outbreaks.