Socioeconomic inequalities in pandemic-induced psychosocial stress in different life domains among the working-age population.

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.

Age-specific and cause-specific mortality contributions to the socioeconomic gap in life expectancy in Germany, 2003-21: an ecological study.

BACKGROUND: Earlier death among people in socioeconomically deprived circumstances has been found internationally and for various causes of death, resulting in a considerable life-expectancy gap between socioeconomic groups. We examined how age-specific and cause-specific mortality contributions to the socioeconomic gap in life expectancy have changed at the area level in Germany over time. METHODS: In this ecological study, official German population and cause-of-death statistics provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany for the period Jan 1, 2003, to Dec 31, 2021, were linked to district-level data of the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation. Life-table and decomposition methods were applied to calculate life expectancy by area-level deprivation quintile and decompose the life-expectancy gap between the most and least deprived quintiles into age-specific and cause-specific mortality contributions. FINDINGS: Over the study period, population numbers varied between 80 million and 83 million people per year, with the number of deaths ranging from 818 000 to 1 024 000, covering the entire German population. Between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2019, the gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived quintiles of districts increased by 0·7 years among females (from 1·1 to 1·8 years) and by 0·1 years among males (from 3·0 to 3·1 years). Thereafter, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the gap increased more rapidly to 2·2 years in females and 3·5 years in males in 2021. Between 2003 and 2021, the causes of death that contributed the most to the life-expectancy gap were cardiovascular diseases and cancer, with declining contributions of cardiovascular disease deaths among those aged 70 years and older and increasing contributions of cancer deaths among those aged 40-74 years over this period. COVID-19 mortality among individuals aged 45 years and older was the strongest contributor to the increase in life-expectancy gap after 2019. INTERPRETATION: To reduce the socioeconomic gap in life expectancy, effective efforts are needed to prevent early deaths from cardiovascular disease and cancer in socioeconomically deprived populations, with cancer prevention and control becoming an increasingly important field of action in this respect. FUNDING: German Cancer Aid and European Research Council.

[Socioeconomic deprivation and premature mortality in Germany, 1998-2021 : An ecological study with what-if scenarios of inequality reduction]. / Sozioökonomische Deprivation und vorzeitige Sterblichkeit in Deutschland 1998­2021 : Eine ökologische Studie mit What-if-Szenarien der Ungleichheitsreduktion.

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.

Social Inequalities in Long-Term Health Effects After COVID-19-A Scoping Review.

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.

Widening area-based socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality in Germany between 2003 and 2019.

Cancer mortality has declined in recent decades, but-due to a lack of national individual-level data-it remains unclear whether this applies equally to all socioeconomic groups in Germany. Using an area-based approach, this study investigated socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality and their secular trends on a German nationwide scale for the first time. Official cause-of-death data from 2003 to 2019 were linked to the district-level German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation. Age-standardised mortality rates for all cancers combined and the most common site-specific cancers were calculated according to the level of regional socioeconomic deprivation. To quantify the extent of area-based socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality, absolute (SII) and relative (RII) indices of inequality were estimated using multilevel Poisson models. On average, cancer mortality was 50% (women) and 80% (men) higher in Germany's most deprived than least deprived districts (absolute difference: 84 deaths per 100,000 in women and 185 deaths per 100,000 in men). As declines in cancer mortality were larger in less deprived districts, the socioeconomic gap in cancer mortality widened over time. This trend was observed for various common cancers. Exceptions were cancers of the lung in women and of the pancreas in both sexes, for which mortality rates increased over time, especially in highly deprived districts. Our study provides first evidence on increasing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality on a nationwide scale for Germany. Area-based linkage allows to examine socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality across Germany and identify regions with high needs for cancer prevention and control.

[Occupational differences of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in Germany. An analysis of health insurance data from 3.17 million insured persons]. / Berufsbedingte Unterschiede bei COVID-19-Morbidität und -Mortalität in Deutschland. Eine Analyse von Krankenkassendaten von 3,17 Mio. Versicherten.

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.

Social differences in COVID-19 vaccination status - Results of the GEDA 2021 study.

Background: The COVID-19 vaccination is a key measure to contain the pandemic. It aims to restrict new infections and to reduce severe courses of the disease. This paper examines the influence of various social determinants on COVID-19 vaccination status. Methods: The analyses are based on data from the study German Health Update (GEDA 2021), a nationwide telephone-based survey of the adult population in Germany, which was conducted between July and December 2021. In addition to bivariate analyses, the association between the COVID-19 vaccination status and the social determinants was examined using Poisson regression. Results: A total of 86.7% of people aged 18 years and older who participated in GEDA 2021 have been received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Social differences are evident: The proportion of people vaccinated against COVID-19 increases with age, income and higher education group. Lower vaccination rates are found among people with a history of migration, people living in rural areas and people from East Germany. An age-differentiated analysis shows that the social differences in COVID-19 vaccination uptake are lower among those aged 60 years and older. Conclusions: The presented results should be considered when designing targeted interventions to overcome potential barriers to COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Further research is needed regarding the explanatory factors for the social differences in vaccination behaviour, such as structural and group-specific barriers or psychological determinants.

Temporal Dynamics of Socioeconomic Inequalities in COVID-19 Outcomes Over the Course of the Pandemic-A Scoping Review.

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.

Monitoring Health Inequalities in 12 European Countries: Lessons Learned from the Joint Action Health Equity Europe.

To raise awareness about health inequalities, a well-functioning health inequality monitoring system (HIMS) is crucial. Drawing on work conducted under the Joint Action Health Equity Europe, the aim of this paper is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses in current health inequality monitoring based on lessons learned from 12 European countries and to discuss what can be done to strengthen their capacities. Fifty-five statements were used to collect information about the status of the capacities at different steps of the monitoring process. The results indicate that the preconditions for monitoring vary greatly between countries. The availability and quality of data are generally regarded as strong, as is the ability to disaggregate data by age and gender. Regarded as poorer is the ability to disaggregate data by socioeconomic factors, such as education and income, or by other measures of social position, such as ethnicity. Few countries have a proper health inequality monitoring strategy in place and, where in place, it is often regarded as poorly up to date with policymakers' needs. These findings suggest that non-data-related issues might be overlooked aspects of health inequality monitoring. Structures for stakeholder involvement and communication that attracts attention from policymakers are examples of aspects that deserve more effort.

Regional disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infections by labour market indicators: a spatial panel analysis using nationwide German data on notified infections.

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.

Time Trends and Income Inequalities in Cancer Incidence and Cancer-Free Life Expectancy - a Cancer Site-Specific Analysis of German Health Insurance Data.

Cancer represents a major burden of morbidity and mortality globally. So far, however, little is known on time trends and inequalities in the lengths of life spent free of any cancer. This study steps into this gap by analyzing time trends and income inequalities in cancer-free life expectancy (CFLE). For this retrospective cohort study, data of a large German health insurer were used (N = 3,405,673individuals, 2006-2018). Income inequalities were assessed using individual income (<60% of German average income (GAI) and ≥60% of GAI). Trends in incidence risks were analysed employing proportional-hazard regression models by splitting the observation time into three periods of 52 months. Trends in CFLE in total and for the most common site-specific cancers were calculated based on multiple decrement life tables. Incidence rates declined in almost all cancers and CFLE increased substantially over time (49.1 (95% CI 48.8-49.4) to 51.9 (95% CI 51.6-52.2) years for men, 53.1 (95% CI 52.7-53.5) to 55.4 (95% CI 55.1-55.8) years for women at age 20 for total cancer) and income groups. Considerable income inequalities in cancer risks were evident in both sexes, but were more pronounced in men (total cancer HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.87)), with higher-income individuals having lower risks. The highest income inequalities were found in colon (HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.93)), stomach (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.73-0.84)), and lung cancer (HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.56-0.60)) in men. A reverse gradient was found for skin (HR 1.39 (95% CI 1.30-1.47) men; HR 1.27 (95% CI 1.20-1.35) women) and prostate cancer (HR 1.13 (95% CI 1.11-1.15)). The proportion of CFLE in total life expectancy declined for lung, skin and cervical cancer in women, indicating a relative shortening of lifetime spent cancer-free. In contrast, increasing proportions were found in breast and prostate cancer. To our knowledge, this is the first study analysing trends and income inequalities in CFLE. The life span free of cancer increased clearly over time. However, not all cancer types contributed equally to this positive development. Income inequalities persisted or tended to widen, which underlines the need for increased public health efforts in socioeconomically vulnerable groups.

Association of regional socioeconomic deprivation and rurality with global developmental delay in early childhood: Data from mandatory school entry examinations in Germany.

BACKGROUND: From birth to young adulthood, health and development of young people are strongly linked to their living situation, including their family's socioeconomic position (SEP) and living environment. The impact of regional characteristics on development in early childhood beyond family SEP has been rarely investigated. This study aimed to identify regional predictors of global developmental delay at school entry taking family SEP into consideration. METHOD: We used representative, population-based data from mandatory school entry examinations of the German federal state of Brandenburg in 2018/2019 with n=22,801 preschool children. By applying binary multilevel models, we hierarchically analyzed the effect of regional deprivation defined by the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation (GISD) and rurality operationalized as inverted population density of the children's school district on global developmental delay (GDD) while adjusting for family SEP (low, medium and high). RESULTS: Family SEP was significantly and strongly linked to GDD. Children with the highest family SEP showed a lower odds for GDD compared to a medium SEP (female: OR=4.26, male: OR=3.46) and low SEP (female: OR=16.58, male: OR=12.79). Furthermore, we discovered a smaller, but additional and independent effect of regional socioeconomic deprivation on GDD, with a higher odds for children from a more deprived school district (female: OR=1.35, male: OR=1.20). However, rurality did not show a significant link to GDD in preschool children beyond family SEP and regional deprivation. CONCLUSION: Family SEP and regional deprivation are risk factors for child development and of particular interest to promote health of children in early childhood and over the life course.

Socioeconomic position and SARS-CoV-2 infections: seroepidemiological findings from a German nationwide dynamic cohort.

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.

Depressive symptoms in the general population before and in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of the GEDA 2019/2020 study.

Background: Study results on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the first year of the pandemic are contradictory. The GEDA 2019/2020 study makes it possible to examine changes in depressive symptoms in the population. Methods: A standardised telephone interview was used to survey a random sample of the population in Germany aged 15 and older. To exclude seasonal effects, 10,220 interviewees from the period April 2019 to January 2020 were compared with 11,900 from the period April 2020 to January 2021. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the internationally established 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8). Results: The prevalence of depressive symptoms decreased from 9.2% to 7.6% in the first year of the pandemic. Changes differ between women and men as well as between age and education groups. The analysis of individual symptoms suggests that it is not about a reduction of mental disorders of the depressive type in the narrower sense, but rather a decrease in stress-associated individual symptoms. Conclusions: The decrease in stress-associated depressive symptoms in parts of the population can be interpreted as an indication that pandemic-related changes in everyday life and the working environment may have had a positive effect on individual areas of mental health in certain groups, at least temporarily in the first year of the pandemic. The continuing strong social inequality in depressive symptoms to the disadvantage of low education groups confirms that the need for social situation-related health promotion and prevention with regard to the living and working conditions of socially disadvantaged people must not be lost sight of in times of pandemic. For groups in the population that partly showed a worsening of symptoms in this phase of the pandemic, e.g. the diminished ability to concentrate of very old men, targeted support options should be created in the future.

German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation (GISD): Revision, update and applications.

Background: Regional deprivation indices enable researchers to analyse associations between socioeconomic disadvantages and health outcomes even if the health data of interest does not include information on the individuals' socioeconomic position. This article introduces the recent revision of the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation (GISD) and presents associations with life expectancy as well as age-standardised cardiovascular mortality rates and cancer incidences as applications. Methods: The GISD measures the level of socioeconomic deprivation using administrative data of education, employment, and income situations at the district and municipality level from the INKAR database. The indicators are weighted via principal component analyses. The regional distribution is depicted cartographically, regional level associations with health outcomes are presented. Results: The principal component analysis indicates medium to high correlations of the indicators with the index subdimensions. Correlation analyses show that in districts with the lowest deprivation, the average life expectancy of men is approximately six years longer (up to three years longer for women) than for those from districts with the highest deprivation. A similar social gradient is observed for cardiovascular mortality and lung cancer incidence. Conclusions: The GISD provides a valuable tool to analyse socioeconomic inequalities in health conditions, diseases, and their determinants at the regional level.

Emerging socio-economic disparities in COVID-19-related deaths during the second pandemic wave in Germany.

Over the course of the second pandemic wave in late 2020, new infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 shifted from the most affluent to the most deprived regions of Germany. This study investigated how this trend in infections played out for deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by examining area-level socio-economic disparities in COVID-19-related mortality during the second pandemic wave in Germany. The analysis was based on nationwide data on notified deaths, which were linked to an area-based index of socio-economic deprivation. In the autumn and winter of 2020/2021, COVID-19-related deaths increased faster among residents in Germany's more deprived districts. From late 2020 onwards, the mortality risks of men and women in the most deprived districts were 1.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.82] and 1.44 (95% CI 1.19-1.73) times higher than among those in the most affluent districts, respectively, after adjustment for age, urbanization and population density. To promote health equity in the pandemic and beyond, deprived populations should receive increased attention in pandemic planning, infection control and disease prevention.

Socioeconomic inequalities in the prevalence and perceived dangerousness of SARS-CoV-2 infections in two early German hotspots: findings from a seroepidemiological study.

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.

[Social inequalities in the regional spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections]. / Soziale Ungleichheit in der regionalen Ausbreitung von SARS-CoV-2.

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.

Socioeconomic inequalities in primary-care and specialist physician visits: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of primary-care and specialist physicians seems to be associated differently with socioeconomic status (SES). This review aims to summarize and compare the evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in consulting primary-care or specialist physicians in the general adult population in high-income countries. METHODS: We carried out a systematic search across the most relevant databases (Web of Science, Medline) and included all studies, published since 2004, reporting associations between SES and utilization of primary-care and/or specialist physicians. In total, 57 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Many studies found socioeconomic inequalities in physician utilization, but inequalities were more pronounced in visiting specialists than primary-care physicians. The results of the studies varied strongly according to the operationalization of utilization, namely whether a physician was visited (probability) or how often a physician was visited (frequency). For probabilities of visiting primary-care physicians predominantly no association with SES was found, but frequencies of visits were higher in the most disadvantaged. The most disadvantaged often had lower probabilities of visiting specialists, but in many studies no link was found between the number of visits and SES. CONCLUSION: This systematic review emphasizes that inequalities to the detriment of the most deprived is primarily a problem in the probability of visiting specialist physicians. Healthcare policy should focus first off on effective access to specialist physicians in order to tackle inequalities in healthcare. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019123222 .

[Social Inequalities and COVID-19: Social-Epidemiological Perspectives on the Pandemic]. / Soziale Ungleichheit und COVID-19: Sozialepidemiologische Perspektiven auf die Pandemie.

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.