Impact and variability of social determinants of health on the transmission and outcomes of COVID-19 across the world: a systematic review protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated health inequalities across the globe, disproportionately affecting those with poor social determinants of health (SDOHs). It is imperative to understand how SDOH influences the transmission and outcomes (positive case, hospitalisation and mortality) of COVID-19. This systematic review will investigate the impact of a wide range of SDOHs across the globe on the transmission and outcomes of COVID-19.Methods and analysis
This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guidelines. We will search three electronic bibliographical databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and Scopus), as well as the WHO COVID-19 Global Research on Coronavirus Disease database. We will consider observational studies that report statistical relationships between the SDOHs (as listed in PROGRESS-Plus and Healthy People 2020) and COVID-19 transmission and outcomes. There will be no limitation on the geographical location of publications. The quality of included observational studies will be assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A narrative synthesis without meta-analysis reporting standards will be used to report the review findings.Ethics and dissemination
This review will be based on published studies obtained from publicly available sources, and therefore, ethical approval is not required. We will publish the results of this review in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as present the study findings at a national conference.Prospero registration number
CRD42021228818.
SUBMITTER: Abedin M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8637315 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceAs the United States continues to accumulate COVID-19 cases and deaths, and disparities persist, defining the impact of risk factors for poor outcomes across patient groups is imperative.ObjectiveOur objective is to use real-world healthcare data to quantify the impact of demographic, clinical, and social determinants associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes, to identify high-risk scenarios and dynamics of risk among racial and ethnic groups.DesignA retrospective cohort of COVID-19 patients diagnosed between March 1 and August 20, 2020. Fully adjusted logistical regression models for hospitalization, severe disease and mortality outcomes across 1-the entire cohort and 2-within self-reported race/ethnicity groups.SettingThree sites of the NewYork-Presbyterian health care system serving all boroughs of New York City. Data was obtained through automated data abstraction from electronic medical records.ParticipantsDuring the study timeframe, 110,498 individuals were tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the NewYork-Presbyterian health care system; 11,930 patients were confirmed for COVID-19 by RT-PCR or covid-19 clinical diagnosis.Main outcomes and measuresThe predictors of interest were patient race/ethnicity, and covariates included demographics, comorbidities, and census tract neighborhood socio-economic status. The outcomes of interest were COVID-19 hospitalization, severe disease, and death.ResultsOf confirmed COVID-19 patients, 4,895 were hospitalized, 1,070 developed severe disease and 1,654 suffered COVID-19 related death. Clinical factors had stronger impacts than social determinants and several showed race-group specificities, which varied among outcomes. The most significant factors in our all-patients models included: age over 80 (OR=5.78, p= 2.29×10 -24 ) and hypertension (OR=1.89, p=1.26×10 -10 ) having the highest impact on hospitalization, while Type 2 Diabetes was associated with all three outcomes (hospitalization: OR=1.48, p=1.39×10 -04 ; severe disease: OR=1.46, p=4.47×10 -09 ; mortality: OR=1.27, p=0.001). In race-specific models, COPD increased risk of hospitalization only in Non-Hispanics (NH)-Whites (OR=2.70, p=0.009). Obesity (BMI 30+) showed race-specific risk with severe disease NH-Whites (OR=1.48, p=0.038) and NH-Blacks (OR=1.77, p=0.025). For mortality, Cancer was the only risk factor in Hispanics (OR=1.97, p=0.043), and heart failure was only a risk in NH-Asians (OR=2.62, p=0.001).Conclusions and relevanceComorbidities were more influential on COVID-19 outcomes than social determinants, suggesting clinical factors are more predictive of adverse trajectory than social factors.Key pointsQUESTION: What is the impact of patient self-reported race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and clinical profile on COVID-19 hospitalizations, severity, and mortality?FINDINGS: In patients diagnosed with COVID-19, being over 50 years of age, having type 2 diabetes and hypertension were the most important risk factors for hospitalization and severe outcomes regardless of patient race or socioeconomic status.MEANING: In this large sample pf patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in New York City, we found that clinical comorbidity, more so than social determinants of health, was associated with important patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC8043490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInfectious disease models are important tools to inform public health policy decisions. These models are primarily based on an average population approach and often ignore the role of social determinants in predicting the course of a pandemic and the impact of policy interventions. Ignoring social determinants in models may cause or exacerbate inequalities. This limitation has not been previously explored in the context of the current pandemic, where COVID-19 has been found to disproportionately affect marginalised racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Therefore, our primary goal is to identify the extent to which COVID-19 models incorporate the social determinants of health in predicting outcomes of the pandemic.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from December 2019 to August 2020. We will assess all infectious disease modelling studies for inclusion of social factors that meet the following criteria: (a) focused on human spread of SARS-CoV-2; (b) modelling studies; (c) interventional or non-interventional studies; and (d) focused on one of the following outcomes: COVID-19-related outcomes (eg, cases, deaths), non-COVID-19-related outcomes (ie, impacts of the pandemic or control policies on other health conditions or health services), or impact of the pandemic or control policies on economic outcomes. Data will only be extracted from models incorporating social factors. We will report the percentage of models that considered social factors, indicate which social factors were considered, and describe how social factors were incorporated into the conceptualisation and implementation of the infectious disease models. The extracted data will also be used to create a narrative synthesis of the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as only secondary data will be collected. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference proceedings.Prospero registration numberCRD42020207706.
| S-EPMC8260285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImproving the delivery, uptake, and implementation of cancer screening to meet evidence-based recommendations is needed to reduce persistent cancer health disparities in the USA. Current national public health targets emphasize the role of social determinants of health (SDOH) on cancer screening. However, there remains a need to explicate these linkages, toward the goal of identifying and implementing effective interventions that target and address SDOH to reduce inequities in cancer screening.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of English language peer-reviewed original research articles published between 2010 and 2021 that describe observational (qualitative and quantitative) and intervention studies conducted in the USA. In alignment with Healthy People 2030, we will include studies of breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer screening. Guided by multiple SDOH frameworks, we will broadly define SDOH by five domain areas: economic stability, education access and quality, healthcare access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context. Following systematic literature searches in five databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) and piloting of screening procedures, reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts for potential relevance. Reviewer pairs will then screen full text articles for eligibility criteria. We will extract data items from included articles, including study characteristics, cancer screening intervention information, and coding of SDOH constructs. We will assess study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and synthesize our findings using narrative, descriptive statistics, tables, and figures. Our approach will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations.DiscussionBy completing this systematic review, we will summarize recent literature on SDOH and cancer screening, identify research gaps for inclusion of SDOH, and propose future opportunities for advancing equity in cancer screening by integrating SDOH as part of the implementation context to promote uptake, sustainability, and scale-up in the implementation of screening guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021276582 .
| S-EPMC9175338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early reports indicate that the social determinants of health are implicated in COVID-19 incidence and outcomes. To inform the ongoing response to the pandemic, we conducted a rapid review of peer-reviewed studies to examine the social determinants of COVID-19. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from December 1, 2019 to April 27, 2020. We also searched the bibliographies of included studies, COVID-19 evidence repositories and living evidence maps, and consulted with expert colleagues internationally. We included studies identified through these supplementary sources up to June 25, 2020. We included English-language peer-reviewed quantitative studies that used primary data to describe the social determinants of COVID-19 incidence, clinical presentation, health service use and outcomes in adults with a confirmed or presumptive diagnosis of COVID-19. Two reviewers extracted data and conducted quality assessment, confirmed by a third reviewer. Forty-two studies met inclusion criteria. The strongest evidence was from three large observational studies that found associations between race or ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation and increased likelihood of COVID-19 incidence and subsequent hospitalization. Limited evidence was available on other key determinants, including occupation, educational attainment, housing status and food security. Assessing associations between sociodemographic factors and COVID-19 was limited by small samples, descriptive study designs, and the timeframe of our search. Systematic reviews of literature published subsequently are required to fully understand the magnitude of any effects and predictive utility of sociodemographic factors related to COVID-19 incidence and outcomes. PROSPERO: CRD4202017813.
| S-EPMC8011781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesize the best available evidence on the relationship between the social determinants of health and health outcomes among adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.IntroductionCOVID-19 has created widespread global transmission. Rapid increase in individuals infected with COVID-19 prompted significant public health responses from governments globally. However, the social and economic impact on communities may leave some individuals more susceptible to the detrimental effects.MethodsA three-step search strategy was used to find published and unpublished papers. Databases searched included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. All identified citations were uploaded into Endnote X9, with duplicates removed. Methodological quality of eligible papers was assessed by two reviewers, with meta-synthesis conducted in accordance with JBI methodology.ResultsFifteen papers were included. Three synthesized-conclusions were established (a) Vulnerable populations groups, particularly those from a racial minority and those with low incomes, are more susceptible and have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 including mortality; (b) Gender inequalities and family violence have been exacerbated by COVID-19, leading to diminished wellbeing among women; and (c) COVID-19 is exacerbating existing social determinants of health through loss of employment/income, disparities in social class leading to lack of access to health care, housing instability, homelessness, and difficulties in physical distancing.ConclusionReflection on social and health policies implemented are necessary to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic does not exacerbate health inequalities into the future.
| S-EPMC8446962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoalitions are a popular mechanism for delivering community-based health promotion. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize research that has quantitatively analyzed the association between coalition characteristics and outcomes in community-based initiatives targeting the social determinants of health. Coalition characteristics described elements of their structure or functioning, and outcomes referred to both proximal and distal community changes.MethodsAuthors searched six electronic databases to identify peer reviewed, published studies that analyzed the relationship between coalition characteristics and outcomes in community-based initiatives between 1980 and 2021. Studies were included if they were published in English and quantitatively analyzed the link between coalition characteristics and outcomes. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute analytical cross-sectional studies assessment tool.ResultsThe search returned 10,030 unique records. After screening, 26 studies were included from six countries. Initiatives targeted drug use, health equity, nutrition, physical activity, child and youth development, crime, domestic violence, and neighbourhood improvement. Community outcomes measured included perceived effectiveness (n=10), policy, systems or environment change (n=9), and community readiness or capacity (n=7). Analyses included regression or correlation analysis (n=16) and structural equation or pathway modelling (n=10). Studies varied in quality, with a lack of data collection tool validation presenting the most prominent limitation to study quality. Statistically significant associations were noted between community outcomes and wide range of coalition characteristics, including community context, resourcing, coalition structure, member characteristics, engagement, satisfaction, group facilitation, communication, group dynamics, relationships, community partnership, and health promotion planning and implementation.ConclusionExisting literature demonstrates that coalition characteristics, including best practice health promotion planning and evaluation, influence community outcomes. The field of coalition research would benefit from more consistent description and measurement of coalition characteristics and outcomes, and efforts to evaluate coalitions in a wider range of countries around the world. Further research using empirical community outcome indicators, and methods that consider the interrelationship of variables, is warranted.Trial registrationA protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO ( CRD42020205988 ).
| S-EPMC9288063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe social determinants of health affect a wide range of health outcomes and risks. To date, there have been no studies evaluating the impact of social determinants of health on laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS). We sought to describe the social determinants in a cohort of LTS patients and explore their association with treatment outcome.MethodsSubjects diagnosed with LTS undergoing surgical procedures between 2013 and 2018 were identified. Matched controls were identified from intensive care unit (ICU) patients who underwent intubation for greater than 24 hours. Medical comorbidities, stenosis characteristics, and patient demographics were abstracted from the clinical record. Tracheostomy at last follow-up was recorded from the medical record and phone calls. Socioeconomic data was obtained from the American Community Survey.ResultsOne hundred twenty-two cases met inclusion criteria. Cases had significantly lower education compared to Tennessee (P = .009) but similar education rates as ICU controls. Cases had significantly higher body mass index (odds ratio [OR]: 1.04, P = .035), duration of intubation (OR: 1.21, P < .001), and tobacco use (OR: 1.21, P = .006) in adjusted analysis when compared to controls. Tracheostomy dependence within the case cohort was significantly associated with public insurance (OR: 1.33, P = .016) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 1.34, P = .018) in adjusted analysis.ConclusionIntubation practices, medical comorbidities and social determinants of health may influence the development of LTS and tracheostomy dependence after treatment. Identification of at-risk populations in ICUs may allow for prevention of tracheostomy dependence through the use of early tracheostomy and specialized follow-up.Level of evidenceLevel 3, retrospective review comparing cases and controls Laryngoscope, 130:1000-1006, 2020.
| S-EPMC7808241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionImplementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) protect the public from COVID-19. However, the impact of NPIs has been inconsistent and remains unclear. This study, therefore, aims to measure the impact of major NPIs (social distancing, social isolation and quarantine) on reducing COVID-19 transmission.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis research of both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. We will undertake a systematic search of: MEDLINE, Embase, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research, WHO database on COVID-19, ClinicalTrails.Gov for clinical trials on COVID-19, Cochrane Resources on Coronavirus (COVID-19), Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service and Google Scholar for published and unpublished literatures on COVID-19 including preprint engines such as medRxiv, bioRxiv, Litcovid and SSRN for unpublished studies on COVID-19 and will be reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Outcomes of interest for impact analysis will include the reduction of COVID-19 transmission, avoiding crowds and restricting movement, isolating ill and psychological impacts. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. For quality of included studies, we will use the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will grade the certainty of the evidence for all outcome measures across studies. Random-effects model for meta-analysis will measure the effect size of NPIs or the strengths of relationships. For quantitative data, risk ratio or OR, absolute risk difference (for dichotomous outcome data), or mean difference or standardised mean difference (for continuous data) and their 95% CIs will be calculated. Where statistical pooling is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted for the included studies. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects will be evaluated to provide the true effects in the analysis.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval from an institutional review board or research ethics committee is not required as primary data will not be collected. The final results of this study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences or workshops. We will also share important information with public health authorities as well as with the WHO. In addition, we may post the submitted manuscript under review to medRxiv, or other relevant preprint servers.Trial registration numberCRD42020207338.
| S-EPMC7582337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Prior research suggests an association between clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF) and social determinants of health (SDoH). Because providers should identify and address SDoH in care delivery, we evaluated how SDoH have been defined, measured, and evaluated in studies that examine HF outcomes. Methods and Results Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, databases were searched for observational or interventional studies published between 2009 and 2021 that assessed the influence of SDoH on outcomes. Selected articles were assessed for quality using a validated rating scheme. We identified 1373 unique articles for screening; 104 were selected for full-text review, and 59 met the inclusion criteria, including retrospective and prospective cohort, cross-sectional, and intervention studies. The majority examined readmissions and hospitalizations (k=33), mortality or survival (k=29), and success of medical devices and transplantation (k=8). SDoH examined most commonly included race, ethnicity, age, sex, socioeconomic status, and education or health literacy. Studies used a range of 1 to 9 SDoH as primary independent variables and 0 to 7 SDoH as controls. Multiple data sources were employed and frequently were electronic medical records linked with national surveys and disease registries. The effects of SDoH on HF outcomes were inconsistent because of the heterogeneity of data sources and SDoH constructs. Conclusions Our systematic review reveals shortcomings in measurement and deployment of SDoH variables in HF care. Validated measures need to be prospectively and intentionally collected to facilitate appropriate analysis, reporting, and replication of data across studies and inform the design of appropriate, evidence-based interventions that can ameliorate significant HF morbidity and societal costs.
| S-EPMC9973629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the past thirty years, disaster scholars have highlighted that communities with stronger social infrastructure-including social ties that enable trust, mutual aid, and collective action-tend to respond to and recover better from crises. However, comprehensive measurements of social capital across communities have been rare. This study adapts Kyne and Aldrich's (Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 11, 61-86, 2020) county-level social capital index to the census-tract level, generating social capital indices from 2011 to 2018 at the census-tract, zipcode, and county subdivision levels. To demonstrate their usefulness to disaster planners, public health experts, and local officials, we paired these with the CDC's Social Vulnerability Index to predict the incidence of COVID-19 in case studies in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Illinois, and New York City. We found that social capital predicted 41-49% of the variation in COVID-19 outbreaks, and up to 90% with controls in specific cases, highlighting its power as diagnostic and predictive tools for combating the spread of COVID.
| S-EPMC9022050 | biostudies-literature