RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial stress is considered a risk factor for physical and mental ill-health. Evidence on socioeconomic inequalities with regard to the psychosocial consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany is still limited. We aimed to investigate how pandemic-induced psychosocial stress (PIPS) in different life domains differed between socioeconomic groups. METHODS: Data came from the German Corona-Monitoring nationwide study - wave 2 (RKI-SOEP-2, November 2021-February 2022). PIPS was assessed using 4-point Likert scales with reference to the following life domains: family, partnership, own financial situation, psychological well-being, leisure activity, social life and work/school situation. Responses were dichotomised into "not stressed/slightly stressed/rather stressed" (0) versus "highly stressed" (1). The sample was restricted to the working-age population in Germany (age = 18-67 years, n = 8,402). Prevalence estimates of high PIPS were calculated by sex, age, education and income. Adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) were estimated using Poisson regression to investigate the association between education/income and PIPS; high education and income were the reference groups. RESULTS: The highest stress levels were reported in the domains social life and leisure activity. Women and younger participants reported high stress levels more frequently. The highest inequalities were found regarding people's own financial situation, and PIPS was higher in low vs. high income groups (PR 5.54, 95% CI 3.61-8.52). Inequalities were also found regarding partnerships with higher PIPS in low vs. high education groups (PR 1.68, 95% CI 1.13-2.49) - and psychological well-being with higher PIPS in low vs. high income groups (PR 1.52, 95% CI 1.14-2.04). CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic inequalities in PIPS were found for different life domains. Generally, psychosocial support and preventive interventions to help people cope with stress in a pandemic context should be target-group-specific, addressing the particular needs and circumstances of certain socioeconomic groups.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Factores Socioeconómicos , Estrés Psicológico , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/psicología , Femenino , Masculino , Alemania/epidemiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Estrés Psicológico/epidemiología , Estrés Psicológico/psicología , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Anciano , Pandemias , Disparidades en el Estado de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Earlier mortality in socioeconomically disadvantaged population groups represents an extreme manifestation of health inequity. This study examines the extent, time trends, and mitigation potentials of area-level socioeconomic inequalities in premature mortality in Germany. METHODS: Nationwide data from official cause-of-death statistics were linked at the district level with official population data and the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation (GISD). Age-standardized mortality rates before the age of 75 were calculated stratified by sex and deprivation quintile. A what-if analysis with counterfactual scenarios was applied to calculate how much lower premature mortality would be overall if socioeconomic mortality inequalities were reduced. RESULTS: Men and women in the highest deprivation quintile had a 43% and 33% higher risk of premature death, respectively, than those in the lowest deprivation quintile of the same age. Higher mortality rates with increasing deprivation were found for cardiovascular and cancer mortality, but also for other causes of death. Socioeconomic mortality inequalities had started to increase before the COVID-19 pandemic and further exacerbated in the first years of the pandemic. If all regions had the same mortality rate as those in the lowest deprivation quintile, premature mortality would be 13% lower overall. DISCUSSION: The widening gap in premature mortality between deprived and affluent regions emphasizes that creating equivalent living conditions across Germany is also an important field of action for reducing health inequity.
Asunto(s)
Causas de Muerte , Mortalidad Prematura , Humanos , Mortalidad Prematura/tendencias , Alemania/epidemiología , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Anciano , Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , COVID-19/mortalidad , Preescolar , Adulto Joven , Factores Socioeconómicos , Adolescente , Niño , Lactante , Recién Nacido , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, occupation was assumed to play a central role in the occurrence of infection and disease. For Germany, however, there are only a few studies that analyse occupational differences in risk of COVID-19, COVID-19-associated hospitalisation, and mortality. METHODS: The study uses longitudinal health insurance data from the research database of the Institute for Applied Health Research (InGef) with information on 3.17 million insured persons aged 18-67 years (1,488,452 women; 1,684,705 men). Outcomes (morbidity, hospitalisation, and mortality) were determined on the basis of submitted COVID-19 diagnoses between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021. Occupations were classified according to four groupings of the official German classification of occupations. In addition to cumulative incidences, relative risks (RR) were calculated - separately for men and women. RESULTS: There is an increased risk of disease in personal service occupations, especially in health care, compared to other occupations (RR for women 1.46; for men 1.30). The same applies to social and cultural service occupations (but only for women) and for manufacturing occupations (only for men). In addition, the risks for hospitalisation and mortality are increased for cleaning occupations and transport and logistics occupations (especially for men). For all three outcomes, the risks are higher in non-managerial occupations and differ by skill level (highest for unskilled jobs and lowest for expert positions). CONCLUSION: The study provides important findings on work- and gender-related differences in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in Germany, which indicate starting points for structural infection protection measures.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Exposición Profesional , Lugar de Trabajo , COVID-19/mortalidad , Pandemias , Humanos , Morbilidad , Alemania/epidemiología , Seguro de Salud , Ocupaciones , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Hospitalización , Exposición Profesional/efectos adversos , Masculino , FemeninoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Regional labour markets and their properties are named as potential reasons for regional variations in levels of SARS-CoV-2 infections rates, but empirical evidence is missing. METHODS: Using nationwide data on notified laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, we calculated weekly age-standardised incidence rates (ASIRs) for working-age populations at the regional level of Germany's 400 districts. Data covered nearly 2 years (March 2020 till December 2021), including four main waves of the pandemic. For each of the pandemic waves, we investigated regional differences in weekly ASIRs according to three regional labour market indicators: (1) employment rate, (2) employment by sector, and (3) capacity to work from home. We use spatial panel regression analysis, which incorporates geospatial information and accounts for regional clustering of infections. RESULTS: For all four pandemic waves under study, we found that regions with higher proportions of people in employment had higher ASIRs and a steeper increase of infections during the waves. Further, the composition of the workforce mattered: rates were higher in regions with larger secondary sectors or if opportunities of working from home were comparatively low. Associations remained consistent after adjusting for potential confounders, including a proxy measure of regional vaccination progress. CONCLUSIONS: If further validated by studies using individual-level data, our study calls for increased intervention efforts to improve protective measures at the workplace, particularly among workers of the secondary sector with no opportunities to work from home. It also points to the necessity of strengthening work and employment as essential components of pandemic preparedness plans.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiología , Empleo , Humanos , Ocupaciones , SARS-CoV-2 , Lugar de TrabajoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to physical distancing measures to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Evidence on contact dynamics in different socioeconomic groups is still sparse. This study aimed to investigate the association of socioeconomic status with private and professional contact reductions in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany. METHODS: Data from two especially affected municipalities were derived from the population-based cross-sectional seroepidemiological CORONA-MONITORING lokal study (data collection May-July 2020). The study sample (n = 3,637) was restricted to working age (18-67 years). We calculated the association of educational and occupational status (low, medium, high) with self-reported private and professional contact reductions with respect to former contact levels in the first wave of the pandemic. Multivariate Poisson regressions were performed to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) adjusted for municipality, age, gender, country of birth, household size, contact levels before physical distancing measures, own infection status, contact to SARS-CoV-2 infected people and working remotely. RESULTS: The analyses showed significant differences in the initial level of private and professional contacts by educational and occupational status. Less private contact reductions with lower educational status (PR low vs. high = 0,79 [CI = 0.68-0.91], p = 0.002; PR medium vs. high = 0,93 [CI = 0.89-0.97], p = 0.001) and less professional contact reductions with lower educational status (PR low vs. high = 0,87 [CI = 0.70-1.07], p = 0.179; PR medium vs. high = 0,89 [CI = 0.83-0.95], p = 0.001) and lower occupational status (PR low vs. high = 0,62 [CI = 0.55-0.71], p < 0.001; PR medium vs. high = 0,82 [CI = 0.77-0.88], p < 0.001) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate disadvantages for groups with lower socioeconomic status in private and professional contact reductions in the first wave of the pandemic. This may be associated with the higher risk of infection among individuals in lower socioeconomic groups. Preventive measures that a) adequately explain the importance of contact restrictions with respect to varying living and working conditions and b) facilitate the implementation of these reductions especially in the occupational setting seem necessary to better protect structurally disadvantaged groups during epidemics.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemias/prevención & control , Estudios Transversales , Clase SocialRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: By explaining the development of health inequalities, eco-social theories highlight the importance of social environments that children are embedded in. The most important environment during early childhood is the family, as it profoundly influences children's health through various characteristics. These include family processes, family structure/size, and living conditions, and are closely linked to the socioeconomic position (SEP) of the family. Although it is known that the SEP contributes to health inequalities in early childhood, the effects of family characteristics on health inequalities remain unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to synthesise existing research on the mediating and moderating effects of family characteristics on socioeconomic health inequalities (HI) during early childhood in high-income countries. METHODS: This review followed the methodology of "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews". To identify German and English scientific peer-reviewed literature published from January 1st, 2000, to December 19th, 2019, the following search term blocks were linked with the logical operator "AND": (1) family structure/size, processes, living conditions, (2) inequalities, disparities, diversities, (3) income, education, occupation, (4) health and (5) young children. The search covered the electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus. RESULTS: The search yielded 7,089 records. After title/abstract and full-text screening, only ten peer-reviewed articles were included in the synthesis, which analysed the effects of family characteristics on HI in early childhood. Family processes (i.e., rules /descriptive norms, stress, parental screen time, parent-child conflicts) are identified to have mediating or moderating effects. While families' living conditions (i.e., TVs in children's bedrooms) are suggested as mediating factors, family structure/size (i.e., single parenthood, number of children in the household) appear to moderate health inequalities. CONCLUSION: Family characteristics contribute to health inequalities in early childhood. The results provide overall support of models of family stress and family investment. However, knowledge gaps remain regarding the role of family health literacy, regarding a wide range of children's health outcomes (e.g., oral health, inflammation parameters, weight, and height), and the development of health inequalities over the life course starting at birth.
Asunto(s)
Salud Infantil , Composición Familiar , Niño , Preescolar , Países Desarrollados , Humanos , Renta , Recién Nacido , Padres , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It has not been adequately answered whether the spread of SARS-CoV2 is influenced by social and economic factors. Earlier studies generally looked at cumulative incidences up to the analysis date and did not take into account the development of the spread over time. This study therefore focuses on the regional dynamic of new infections and their relationship to socioeconomic factors. Based on the literature we describe the state of knowledge and present our own analyses of administrative data from Germany. METHODS: For this study, we examined regional progress data of reported COVID-19 cases for 401 cities and counties in Germany and associated them with socioeconomic characteristics of the areas. Age-standardized weekly incidence rates were calculated for the period from 3 February 2020 to 28 March 2021. Macroindicators were added from the INKAR database (e.g., income, employment rate, and crowding). RESULTS: While areas with higher incomes and lower poverty had higher incidences in the first and at the beginning of the second wave of the pandemic, they increased significantly in low-income regions from December 2020 on. Regions with a high proportion of gainfully employed people in general and especially those in the manufacturing sector had high incidences, especially in the second wave and at the beginning of the third wave. A low mean living space per inhabitant was related to higher incidence rates since November 2020. CONCLUSION: The regional temporal course of the pandemic correlates with social and economic indicators. A differentiated consideration of these differences could provide information on target group-specific protection and test strategies and help to identify social factors that generally favor infections. An English full-text version of this article is available at SpringerLink as Supplementary Information.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Factores Socioeconómicos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Empleo , Alemania/epidemiología , Humanos , Renta , Pandemias , PobrezaRESUMEN
The new Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) hits specific population groups harder than others. However, social-epidemiological patterns of the pandemic which go beyond differences by age and gender have hardly been addressed in Germany. First reports from other western industrialised countries indicate that people living in socioeconomically deprived areas and people of color have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 progression and mortality. Social inequalities in the risk of infection due to different living and working conditions, and social inequalities in the susceptibility and risk factors for severe COVID-19, particularly in pre-existing medical conditions, might play an important role in explaining those findings. Such inequalities are well established for Germany, as well. It can therefore be assumed that also in Germany people with a lower socioeconomic status might be more affected during the further course of the pandemic. In addition, the interventions to contain the pandemic might have unequal social, economic and psychological impacts on different social groups. Hence, the COVID-19 pandemic has the overall potential to increase social and health inequalities. Social-epidemiological research into COVID-19 is therefore needed to advance measures of health protection and infection control in an evidence-based, targeted and socially equitable manner.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Factores Socioeconómicos , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Alemania/epidemiología , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
Today, health inequalities are one of the most important issues in public health worldwide. The digitalisation of healthcare is frequently attributed with the potential to reduce health inequalities. At the same time, effective internet usage is a prerequisite of the successful utilisation of digital health interventions. This might be a new obstacle for those who lack the necessary material resources or individual skills.Evidence on how exactly digital health interventions affect health inequalities is scarce. The aim of this study was to present a narrative review of the available literature. The majority of studies showed an association between the usage of digital health interventions and sociodemographic factors. The utilisation was generally higher among younger people and those with higher education and higher income. Only few studies showed no association. Other studies reported higher utilisation among those with higher levels of health literacy while health literacy showed a social gradient to the disadvantage of those in lower socioeconomic position. With a low overall level of evidence, there is currently no indication that digital health interventions are reducing health inequalities.The studies analysed in this review indicate that existing inequalities persist in the digital realm. Further evidence is needed to create a better understanding of the importance of sociodemographic factors for digital health interventions.
Asunto(s)
Brecha Digital , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Atención a la Salud , Alemania , Humanos , Salud Pública , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
Objectives: We aimed to map and synthesize evidence about social inequalities in long-term health effects after COVID-19 (LTHE), often referred to as "long COVID" or "post-COVID-19 conditions." Methods: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed articles by searching the databases Embase and Scopus. According to predefined inclusion criteria, titles/abstracts and full texts were screened for eligibility. Additionally, reference lists of all included studies were hand-searched for eligible studies. This study followed the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. Results: Nineteen articles were included. LTHE were analysed according to ethnicity, education, income, employment and deprivation indices. The studies varied significantly in their definitions of LTHE. Eighty-two analyses showed no statistically significant associations. At least 12 studies had a high risk of type II errors. Only studies associating deprivation indices and long COVID tended to show a higher prevalence of LTHE in deprived areas. Conclusion: Although some studies indicated social inequalities in LTHE, evidence was generally weak and inconclusive. Further studies with larger sample sizes specifically designed to detect social inequalities regarding LTHE are needed to inform future healthcare planning and public health policies.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Factores Socioeconómicos , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Síndrome Post Agudo de COVID-19RESUMEN
Background: The existence of socioeconomic inequalities in the prevalence of symptoms of depression and anxiety is widely acknowledged, and individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to exhibit higher rates of symptoms. However, the direction in which the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced these disparities remains uncertain. We therefore aimed to systematically outline the available evidence on the temporal dynamics of socioeconomic inequalities in symptoms related to depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic across high-income countries. Methods: A scoping review was conducted by searching the databases Embase, Scopus and PsycINFO. According to pre-defined eligibility criteria, two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts as well as full texts of the compiled records. Data from the included studies were extracted using a standardised data-extraction form and analysed numerically and narratively. The scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results: A total of 49 studies comprising 149 analyses of socioeconomic indicators in relation to symptoms of depression and anxiety were included. Despite heterogeneous study designs and results, there was a tendency of increasing (40.9%; n = 61) or persistent (38.2%; n = 57) inequality trends to the detriment of those in socially more disadvantaged positions. Increasing inequalities were most pronounced when income was used as a socioeconomic indicator. Groups with lower socioeconomic status appeared most vulnerable in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, dynamics were diverse, with persistent trends most frequently reported. Conclusion: Overall, to the detriment of those with lower socioeconomic status, mental-health inequalities persisted or increased in most analyses. Continually monitoring socioeconomic inequalities over time is crucial, since this makes it possible to adapt prevention and intervention strategies to specific pandemic phases. Interventions targeting job security, income security and educational attainment could reduce mental-health inequalities. The results can contribute to preparedness plans for future pandemics and crises.
Asunto(s)
Ansiedad , COVID-19 , Depresión , Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Factores Socioeconómicos , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/psicología , Depresión/epidemiología , Ansiedad/epidemiología , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2 infections were unequally distributed during the pandemic, with those in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions being at higher risk. Little is known about the underlying mechanism of this association. This study assessed to what extent educational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infections were mediated by working from home. METHODS: We used data of the German working population derived from the seroepidemiological study "Corona Monitoring Nationwide - Wave 2 (RKI-SOEP-2)" (N=6826). Infections were assessed by seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 antigens and self-reports of previous PCR-confirmed infections from the beginning of the pandemic until study participation (November 2021 - February 2022). The frequency of working from home was assessed between May 2021 and January 2022.We used the Karlson-Holm-Breen (KHB) method to decompose the effect of education on SARS-CoV-2 infections. RESULTS: Individuals with lower educational attainment had a higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted prevalence ratio of low versus very high = 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.88; P=0.023). Depending on the level of education, between 27% (high education) and 58% (low education) of the differences in infection were mediated by the frequency of working from home. CONCLUSIONS: Working from home could prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and contribute to the explanation of socioeconomic inequalities in infection risks. Wherever possible, additional capacities to work remotely, particularly for occupations that require lower educational attainment, should be considered as an important measure of pandemic preparedness. Limitations of this study are the observational cross-sectional design and that the temporal order between infection and working from home remained unclear.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Humanos , Estudios Transversales , Escolaridad , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
Objective: To evaluate the socioeconomic patterns of SARS-CoV-2 antigen contacts through infection, vaccination or both ("hybrid immunity") after 1 year of vaccination campaign. Methods: Data were derived from the German seroepidemiological Corona Monitoring Nationwide study (RKI-SOEP-2; n = 10,448; November 2021-February 2022). Combining serological and self-report data, we estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 vaccination, basic immunization (at least two SARS-CoV-2 antigen contacts through vaccination and/or infection), and three antigen contacts by education and income. Results: Low-education groups had 1.35-times (95% CI 1.01-1.82) the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to high-education groups. COVID-19 vaccination (at least one dose) and basic immunization decreased with lower education and income. Low-education and low-income groups were less likely to have had at least three antigen contacts (PR low vs. high education: 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.84; PR low vs. high income: 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.77). Conclusion: The results suggest a lower level of protection against severe COVID-19 for individuals from low and medium socioeconomic groups. Pandemic response and vaccination campaigns should address the specific needs and barriers of these groups.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación , Alemania/epidemiología , Programas de Inmunización , Pobreza , Estudios SeroepidemiológicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a high demand for rapid evidence syntheses to answer urgent public health questions. This article provides an overview of different types of reviews for public health questions and a synthesis of existing recommendations for the preparation of reviews. The aim is to support the planning of one's own review and the critical evaluation of published reviews. METHODS: The basis of this summary is an extensive search for guidelines and recommendations for different review types. Furthermore, internal journal clubs were held to determine knowledge needs and to critically discuss the various review types. Relating to the dissemination of results, fact sheets were developed for the individual review types including the most important information, prerequisites and work steps, as well as a decision tree for identifying the appropriate review type for the respective question. RESULTS: Of the review types identified, Systematic, Rapid, Scoping, Umbrella, and Narrative Reviews were considered in more detail because they are particularly relevant to public health issues. Together with scoping and umbrella reviews, systematic reviews have the highest resource requirements due to the demands for extensive, systematic evidence synthesis and reproducibility. Rapid methods can accelerate the review process, for example by a very narrowly formulated question, a limited literature search, or the execution of certain steps by one instead of two persons. DISCUSSION: Systematic Reviews may be considered as the gold standard, but they were developed primarily for clinical questions relating to interventions. This article, however, focusses on review types that consider the diversity of questions as well as the predominant use of quantitative methods in the field of public health. The fact sheets developed and the decision tree should enable low-threshold access to reviews while linking the perspectives of research and resource planning. They complement existing guidelines and recommendations. CONCLUSION: To answer the diverse spectrum of public health questions, various types of reviews with various requirements and approaches are available. Given this diversity, a systematic introduction can be helpful for researchers planning or assessing a review.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Salud Pública , Humanos , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Pandemias , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , AlemaniaRESUMEN
Objectives: International evidence of socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19 outcomes is extensive and growing, but less is known about the temporal dynamics of these inequalities over the course of the pandemic. Methods: We systematically searched the Embase and Scopus databases. Additionally, several relevant journals and the reference lists of all included articles were hand-searched. This study follows the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. Results: Forty-six studies were included. Of all analyses, 91.4% showed stable or increasing socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19 outcomes over the course of the pandemic, with socioeconomically disadvantaged populations being most affected. Furthermore, the study results showed temporal dynamics in socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19, frequently initiated through higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates in better-off populations and subsequent crossover dynamics to higher rates in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations (41.9% of all analyses). Conclusion: The identified temporal dynamics of socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19 outcomes have relevant public health implications. Socioeconomic inequalities should be monitored over time to enable the adaption of prevention and interventions according to the social particularities of specific pandemic phases.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Humanos , Salud Pública , Factores Socioeconómicos , Poblaciones VulnerablesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and infections with SARS-CoV-2 is still limited as most of the available studies are ecological in nature. This is the first German nationwide study to examine differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections according to SEP at the individual level. METHODS: The 'CORONA-MONITORING bundesweit' (RKI-SOEP) study is a seroepidemiological survey among a dynamic cohort of the German adult population (n=15 122; October 2020-February 2021). Dried blood samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and oral-nasal swabs for viral RNA. SEP was measured by education and income. Robust logistic regression was used to examine adjusted associations of SARS-CoV-2 infections with SEP. RESULTS: 288 participants were seropositive, PCR positive or self-reported a previous laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The adjusted odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection were 1.87-fold (95% CI 1.06 to 3.29) higher among low-educated than highly educated adults. Evidence was weaker for income differences in infections (OR=1.65; 95% CI 0.89 to 3.05). Highly educated adults had lower odds of undetected infection. CONCLUSION: The results indicate an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in low-educated groups. To promote health equity in the pandemic and beyond, social determinants should be addressed more in infection protection and pandemic planning.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiología , Promoción de la Salud , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The main objective was to systematically map evidence regarding the emergence of health inequalities in individuals aged 16-24 years during school-to-work and school-to-university transition (STWT). Second, we aimed to summarise the evidence on potential effects of contextual and compositional characteristics of specific institutional contexts entered during STWT on health and health behaviours. DESIGN: Scoping review. STUDY SELECTION: Relevant literature was systematically searched following the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, and websites of the International Labour Organization and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health were searched, using a predetermined search strategy. Articles in English or German published between 1 January 2000 and 3 February 2020 were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: To collect the main information from the selected studies, a data extraction spreadsheet was created. Data were summarised and grouped into five health outcomes and five institutional contexts (school, vocational training, university, work, unemployment). RESULTS: A total of 678 articles were screened for inclusion. To be able to draw a picture of the development of various health outcomes over time, we focused on longitudinal studies. Forty-six prospective studies mapping health-related outcomes during STWT were identified. Higher family socioeconomic position (SEP) was associated with higher levels of health behaviour and lower levels of health-damaging behaviour, but there was also some evidence pointing in the opposite direction. Disadvantaged family SEP negatively impacted on mental health and predicted an adverse weight development. There was limited evidence for the outcomes physical/somatic symptoms and self-rated health. Meso-level characteristics of the institutional contexts identified were not systematically assessed, only individual-level factors resulting from an exposure to these contexts, rendering an analysis of effects of contextual and compositional characteristics on health and health behaviours impossible. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review demonstrated a wide range of health inequalities during STWT for various health outcomes. However, knowledge on the role of the core institutional contexts regarding the development of health inequalities is limited.
Asunto(s)
Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Instituciones Académicas , Humanos , Salud Mental , Estudios Prospectivos , Estados Unidos , Universidades , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Although health inequalities in adolescence are well documented, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Few studies have examined the role of the family in explaining the association between the family's socioeconomic position and adolescents' self-rated health. The current study aimed to explore whether the association between socioeconomic position and self-rated health was mediated by familial determinants. METHODS: Using data from wave 2 of the"German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents" (KiGGS) (1,838 female and 1,718 male 11- to 17-year-olds), linear regression analyses were conducted to decompose the total effects of income, education, occupational status, socioeconomic position index and adolescents' subjective social status on self-rated health into direct effects and indirect effects through familial determinants (family cohesion, parental well-being, parental stress, parenting styles, parental obesity, smoking and sporting activity). RESULTS: A significant total effect of all socioeconomic position indicators on self-rated health was found, except for income in male adolescents. In female adolescents, more than 70% of the total effects of each socioeconomic position indicator were explained by familial mediators, whereas no significant direct effects remained. The most important mediator was parental well-being, followed by family cohesion, parental smoking and sporting activity. In male adolescents, the associations between income, parental education, the socioeconomic position index and subjective social status were also mediated by familial determinants (family cohesion, parental smoking, obesity and living in a single-mother family). However, a significant direct effect of subjective social status remained. CONCLUSION: The analysis revealed how a family's position of socioeconomic disadvantage can lead to poorer health in adolescents through different family practices. The family appears to play an important role in explaining health inequalities, particularly in female adolescents. Reducing health inequalities in adolescence requires policy interventions (macro-level), community-based strategies (meso-level) and programs to improve parenting and family functioning (micro-level).
Asunto(s)
Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Padres , Adolescente , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Renta , Masculino , Obesidad , Clase Social , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in infections with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is still limited as most of the available studies are ecological in nature and individual-level data is sparse. We therefore analysed individual-level data on socioeconomic differences in the prevalence and perceived dangerousness of SARS-CoV-2 infections in local populations. Data were obtained from a population-based seroepidemiological study of adult individuals in two early German SARS-CoV-2 hotspots (n = 3903). Infection was determined by IgG antibody ELISA, RT-PCR testing and self-reports on prior positive PCR tests. The perceived dangerousness of an infection and socioeconomic position (SEP) were assessed by self-reports. Logistic and linear regression were applied to examine associations of multiple SEP measures with infection status and perceptions of dangerousness. RESULTS: We found no evidence of socioeconomic inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 infections by education, occupation, income and subjective social status. Participants with lower education and lower subjective social status perceived an infection as more dangerous than their better-off counterparts. In successfully contained local outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany, infections may have been equally distributed across the socioeconomic spectrum. But residents in disadvantaged socioeconomic groups might have experienced a higher level of mental distress due to the higher perceived dangerousness of an infection.