Socioeconomic Disparities in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serological Testing and Positivity in New York City.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
We characterized severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody test prevalence and positive test prevalence across New York City (NYC) in order to investigate disparities in testing outcomes by race and socioeconomic status (SES).Methods
Serologic data were downloaded from the NYC Coronavirus data repository (August 2020-December 2020). Area-level characteristics for NYC neighborhoods were downloaded from United States census data and a socioeconomic vulnerability index was created. Spatial generalized linear mixed models were performed to examine the association between SES and antibody testing and positivity.Results
The proportion of Hispanic population (posterior median, 0.001 [95% credible interval, 0.0003-0.002]), healthcare workers (0.003 [0.0001-0.006]), essential workers (0.003 [0.001-0.005]), age ≥65 years (0.003 [0.00002-0.006]), and high SES (SES quartile 3 vs 1: 0.034 [0.003-0.062]) were positively associated with antibody tests per 100000 residents. The White proportion (-0.002 [-0.003 to -0.001]), SES index (quartile 3 vs 1, -0.068 [-0.115 to -0.017]; quartile 4 vs 1, -0.077 [-0.134 to -0.018]) and age ≥65 years (-0.005 [-0.009 to -0.002]) were inversely associated with positive test prevalence (%), whereas the Hispanic (0.004 [0.002-0.006]) and essential worker (0.008 [0.003-0.012]) proportions had positive coefficients.Conclusions
Disparities in serologic testing and seropositivity exist on SES and race/ethnicity across NYC, indicative of excess coronavirus disease burden in vulnerable and marginalized populations.
SUBMITTER: Lieberman-Cribbin W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8643621 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Existing socioeconomic and racial disparities in healthcare access in New York City have likely impacted the public health response to COVID-19. An ecological study was performed to determine the spatial distribution of COVID-19 testing by ZIP code Tabulation Area and investigate if testing was associated with race or SES. METHODS:Data were obtained from the New York City coronavirus data repository and 2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. A combined index of SES was created using principal component analysis and incorporated household income, gross rent, poverty, education, working class status, unemployment, and occupants per room. Multivariable Poisson regressions were performed to predict the number of total tests and the ratio of positive tests to total tests performed, using the SES index, racial composition, and Hispanic composition as predictors. RESULTS:The number of total tests significantly increased with the increasing proportion of white residents (?=0.004, SE=0.001, p=0.0032) but not with increasing Hispanic composition or SES index score. The ratio of positive tests to total tests significantly decreased with the increasing proportion of white residents in the ZIP code Tabulation Area (?= -0.003, SE=0.000 6, p<0.001) and with increasing SES index score (?= -0.001 6, SE=0.0007, p=0.0159). CONCLUSIONS:In New York City, COVID-19 testing has not been proportional to need; existing socioeconomic and racial disparities in healthcare access have likely impacted public health response. There is urgent need for widespread testing and public health outreach for the most vulnerable communities in New York City.
| S-EPMC7316038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEmerging evidence suggests that black and Hispanic communities in the United States are disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A complex interplay of socioeconomic and healthcare disparities likely contribute to disproportionate COVID-19 risk.MethodsWe conducted a geospatial analysis to determine whether individual- and neighborhood-level attributes predict local odds of testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We analyzed 29 138 SARS-CoV-2 tests within the 6-county catchment area for Duke University Health System from March to June 2020. We used generalized additive models to analyze the spatial distribution of SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Adjusted models included individual-level age, gender, and race, as well as neighborhood-level Area Deprivation Index, population density, demographic composition, and household size.ResultsOur dataset included 27 099 negative and 2039 positive unique SARS-CoV-2 tests. The odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were higher for males (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% credible interval [CI], 1.30-1.58), blacks (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.70), and Hispanics (OR, 4.25; 955 CI, 3.55-5.12). Among neighborhood-level predictors, percentage of black population (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.25), and percentage Hispanic population (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.41) also influenced the odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Population density, average household size, and Area Deprivation Index were not associated with SARS-CoV-2 test results after adjusting for race.ConclusionsThe odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were higher for both black and Hispanic individuals, as well as within neighborhoods with a higher proportion of black or Hispanic residents-confirming that black and Hispanic communities are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC7499753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Using data from New York City from January 2020 to April 2020, we found an estimated 28-day lag between the onset of reduced subway use and the end of the exponential growth period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 within New York City boroughs. We also conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the associations between human mobility (i.e., subway ridership) on the week of April 11, 2020, sociodemographic factors, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence as of April 26, 2020. Areas with lower median income, a greater percentage of individuals who identify as non-White and/or Hispanic/Latino, a greater percentage of essential workers, and a greater percentage of health-care essential workers had more mobility during the pandemic. When adjusted for the percentage of essential workers, these associations did not remain, suggesting essential work drives human movement in these areas. Increased mobility and all sociodemographic variables (except percentage of people older than 75 years old and percentage of health-care essential workers) were associated with a higher rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people, when adjusted for testing effort. Our study demonstrates that the most socially disadvantaged not only are at an increased risk for COVID-19 infection, they lack the privilege to fully engage in social distancing interventions.
| S-EPMC7799254 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to determine whether long-term ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm (PM2.5)) were associated with increased risk of testing positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among pregnant individuals who were universally screened at delivery and whether socioeconomic status (SES) modified this relationship. We used obstetrical data collected from New-York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, New York, between March and December 2020, including data on Medicaid use (a proxy for low SES) and COVID-19 test results. We linked estimated 2018-2019 PM2.5 concentrations (300-m resolution) with census-tract-level population density, household size, income, and mobility (as measured by mobile-device use) on the basis of residential address. Analyses included 3,318 individuals; 5% tested positive for COVID-19 at delivery, 8% tested positive during pregnancy, and 48% used Medicaid. Average long-term PM2.5 concentrations were 7.4 (standard deviation, 0.8) μg/m3. In adjusted multilevel logistic regression models, we saw no association between PM2.5 and ever testing positive for COVID-19; however, odds were elevated among those using Medicaid (per 1-μg/m3 increase, odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.0, 2.5). Further, while only 22% of those testing positive showed symptoms, 69% of symptomatic individuals used Medicaid. SES, including unmeasured occupational exposures or increased susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to concurrent social and environmental exposures, may explain the increased odds of testing positive for COVID-19 being confined to vulnerable pregnant individuals using Medicaid.
| S-EPMC9384549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate differences in severe maternal morbidity between Hispanic mothers and three major Hispanic subgroups compared with non-Hispanic white mothers and the extent to which differences in delivery hospitals may contribute to excess morbidity among Hispanic mothers.MethodsWe conducted a population-based cross-sectional study using linked 2011-2013 New York City discharge and birth certificate data sets (n=353,773). Rates of severe maternal morbidity were calculated using a published algorithm based on diagnosis and procedure codes. Mixed-effects logistic regression with a random hospital-specific intercept was used to generate risk-standardized severe maternal morbidity rates for each hospital taking into consideration patient sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities. Differences in the distribution of Hispanic and non-Hispanic white deliveries were assessed among these hospitals in relation to their risk-adjusted morbidity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted after excluding isolated blood transfusion from the morbidity composite.ResultsSevere maternal morbidity occurred in 4,541 deliveries and was higher among Hispanic than non-Hispanic white women (2.7% compared with 1.5%, P<.001); this rate was 2.9% among those who were Puerto Rican, 2.7% among those who were foreign-born Dominican, and 3.3% among those who were foreign-born Mexican. After adjustment for patient characteristics, the risk remained elevated for Hispanic women (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-1.66) and for all three subgroups compared with non-Hispanic white women (P<.001). Risk for Hispanic women was attenuated in sensitivity analyses (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02-1.33). Risk-standardized morbidity across hospitals varied sixfold. We estimate that Hispanic-non-Hispanic white differences in delivery location may contribute up to 37% of the ethnic disparity in severe maternal morbidity rates in New York City hospitals.ConclusionHispanic compared with non-Hispanic white mothers are more likely to deliver at hospitals with higher risk-adjusted severe maternal morbidity rates and these differences in site of delivery may contribute to excess morbidity among Hispanic mothers. Our results suggest improving quality at the lowest performing hospitals could benefit both non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women and reduce ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity rates.
| S-EPMC5380443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEquitable access to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing is important for reducing disparities. We sought to examine differences in the health care setting choice for SARS-CoV-2 testing by race/ethnicity and insurance. Options included traditional health care settings and mobile testing units (MTUs) targeting communities experiencing disproportionately high coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rates.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, observational study among patients in a large health system in the Southeastern US. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression analyses were employed to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and health care setting choice for SARS-CoV-2 testing, defined as: (1) outpatient (OP) care; (2) emergency department (ED); (3) urgent care (UC); and (4) MTUs. Patient characteristics included race/ethnicity, insurance, and the existence of an established relationship with the health care system.ResultsOur analytic sample included 105,386 adult patients tested for SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 55% of patients sought care at OP, 24% at ED, 12% at UC, and 9% at MTU. The sample was 58% White, 24% Black, 11% Hispanic, and 8% other race/ethnicity. Black patients had a higher likelihood of getting tested through the ED compared with White patients. Hispanic patients had the highest likelihood of testing at MTUs. Patients without a primary care provider had a higher relative risk of being tested through the ED and MTUs versus OP.ConclusionsDisparities by race/ethnicity were present in health care setting choice for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Health care systems may consider implementing mobile care delivery models to reach vulnerable populations. Our findings support the need for systemic change to increase primary care and health care access beyond short-term pandemic solutions.
| S-EPMC8662947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLimited data on vertical and perinatal transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and health outcomes of neonates born to mothers with symptomatic or asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are available. Studies are needed to inform evidence-based infection prevention and control (IP&C) policies.ObjectiveTo describe the outcomes of neonates born to mothers with perinatal SARS-CoV-2 infection and the IP&C practices associated with these outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort analysis reviewed the medical records for maternal and newborn data for all 101 neonates born to 100 mothers positive for or with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 13 to April 24, 2020. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 was performed using Cobas (Roche Diagnostics) or Xpert Xpress (Cepheid) assays. Newborns were admitted to well-baby nurseries (WBNs) (82 infants) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) (19 infants) in 2 affiliate hospitals at a large academic medical center in New York, New York. Newborns from the WBNs roomed-in with their mothers, who were required to wear masks. Direct breastfeeding after appropriate hygiene was encouraged.ExposuresPerinatal exposure to maternal asymptomatic/mild vs severe/critical COVID-19.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was newborn SARS-CoV-2 testing results. Maternal COVID-19 status was classified as asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic vs severe/critical. Newborn characteristics and clinical courses were compared across maternal COVID-19 severity.ResultsIn total, 141 tests were obtained from 101 newborns (54 girls [53.5%]) on 0 to 25 days of life (DOL-0 to DOL-25) (median, DOL-1; interquartile range [IQR], DOL-1 to DOL-3). Two newborns had indeterminate test results, indicative of low viral load (2.0%; 95% CI, 0.2%-7.0%); 1 newborn never underwent retesting but remained well on follow-up, and the other had negative results on retesting. Maternal severe/critical COVID-19 was associated with newborns born approximately 1 week earlier (median gestational age, 37.9 [IQR, 37.1-38.4] vs 39.1 [IQR, 38.3-40.2] weeks; P = .02) and at increased risk of requiring phototherapy (3 of 10 [30.0%] vs 6 of 91 [7.0%]; P = .04) compared with newborns of mothers with asymptomatic/mild COVID-19. Fifty-five newborns were followed up in a new COVID-19 Newborn Follow-up Clinic at DOL-3 to DOL-10 and remained well. Twenty of these newborns plus 3 newborns followed up elsewhere had 32 nonroutine encounters documented at DOL-3 to DOL-25, and none had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including 6 with negative retesting results.Conclusions and relevanceNo clinical evidence of vertical transmission was identified in 101 newborns of mothers positive for or with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, despite most newborns rooming-in and direct breastfeeding practices.
| S-EPMC7551222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExcessive environmental noise exposure and noise annoyance have been linked to adverse physical and mental health outcomes. Although socioeconomic disparities in acoustically measured and geospatially estimated noise have been established, less is known about disparities in noise complaints, one of the most common sources of distress reported to local municipalities. Furthermore, although some studies have posited urban quieting during the COVID-19 pandemic, little empirical work has probed this and probed noise complaints during the pandemic.ObjectivesUsing over 4 million noise complaints from the New York City (NYC) 311 database, we quantified census tract-level socioeconomic disparities in noise complaints since 2010 and examined how such disparities changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsUsing data from January 2010 through February 2020, we fit linear mixed-effects models, estimating monthly tract-level noise complaints by the proportion of residents who were low-income, time in months since January 2010, categorical month, their interactions, and potential confounds, such as total population and population density. To estimate COVID-19 pandemic effects, we included additional data from March 2020 through February 2021 and additional interactions between proportion low-income, month of year, and an indicator variable for COVID-19 pandemic onset in March 2020.ResultsCensus tracts with a higher proportion of low-income residents reported more monthly noise complaints and this increased over time (time × month × proportion low-income interaction p-values < .0001 for all months), particularly in warmer months. Socioeconomic disparities in noise complaints were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic (month × proportion low-income × pandemic era interaction p-values < .0001 for March through November), also in a seasonal manner.DiscussionSince 2010, noise complaints have increased the most in the most economically distressed communities, particularly in warmer seasons. This disparity was particularly exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, contrary to some theories of urban quieting. Community-based interventions to ameliorate noise and noise annoyance, both public health hazards, are needed in underserved communities.
| S-EPMC8838876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previously published analyses showed that inequalities in mortality rates between residents of poor and wealthy neighborhoods in New York City (NYC) narrowed between 1990 and 2000, but these trends may have been influenced by population in-migration and gentrification. The NYC public housing population has been less subject to these population shifts than those in other NYC neighborhoods. We compared changes in mortality rates (MRs) from 1989-1991 to 1999-2001 among residents of NYC census blocks consisting entirely of public housing residences with residents of nonpublic housing low-income and higher-income blocks. Public housing and nonpublic housing low-income blocks were those in census block groups with > or =50% of residents living at <1.5 times the federal poverty level (FPL); nonpublic housing higher-income blocks were those in census block groups with <50% of residents living at <1.5 times the FPL. Information on deaths was obtained from NYC's vital registry, and US Census data were used for denominators. Age-standardized all-cause MRs in public housing, low-income, and higher-income residents decreased between the decades by 16%, 28%, and 22%, respectively. While mortality rate ratios between low-income and higher-income residents narrowed by 8%, the relative disparity between public housing and low-income residents widened by 21%. Diseases amenable to prevention including malignancies, diabetes, and chronic lung disease contributed to the increased overall mortality disparity between public housing and lower-income residents. These findings temper previous findings that inequalities in the health of poor and wealthier NYC neighborhood residents have narrowed. NYC public housing residents should be a high-priority population for efforts to reduce health disparities.
| S-EPMC2729862 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Lateral flow assays can detect anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies to monitor transmission. However, standardized evaluation of their accuracy and tools to aid in interpreting results are needed.MethodsWe evaluated 20 IgG and IgM assays selected from available tests in April 2020. We evaluated the assays' performance using 56 pre-pandemic negative and 56 SARS-CoV-2-positive plasma samples, collected 10-40 days after symptom onset, confirmed by a molecular test and analyzed by an ultra-sensitive immunoassay. Finally, we developed a user-friendly web app to extrapolate the positive predictive values based on their accuracy and local prevalence.ResultsCombined IgG + IgM sensitivities ranged from 33.9 to 94.6%, while combined specificities ranged from 92.6 to 100%. The highest sensitivities were detected in Lumiquick for IgG (98.2%), BioHit for both IgM (96.4%), and combined IgG + IgM sensitivity (94.6%). Furthermore, 11 LFAs and 8 LFAs showed perfect specificity for IgG and IgM, respectively, with 15 LFAs showing perfect combined IgG + IgM specificity. Lumiquick had the lowest estimated limit-of-detection (LOD) (0.1 μg/mL), followed by a similar LOD of 1.5 μg/mL for CareHealth, Cellex, KHB, and Vivachek.ConclusionWe provide a public resource of the accuracy of select lateral flow assays with potential for home testing. The cost-effectiveness, scalable manufacturing process, and suitability for self-testing makes LFAs an attractive option for monitoring disease prevalence and assessing vaccine responsiveness. Our web tool provides an easy-to-use interface to demonstrate the impact of prevalence and test accuracy on the positive predictive values.
| S-EPMC8206878 | biostudies-literature