The equitable impact of sugary drink taxation structures on sugary drink consumption among Canadians: a modelling study using the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the impact of 20 % flat-rate and tiered sugary drink tax structures on the consumption of sugary drinks, sugar-sweetened beverages and 100 % juice by age, sex and socio-economic position. DESIGN: We modelled the impact of price changes - for each tax structure - on the demand for sugary drinks by applying own- and cross-price elasticities to self-report sugary drink consumption measured using single-day 24-h dietary recalls from the cross-sectional, nationally representative 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition. For both 20 % flat-rate and tiered sugary drink tax scenarios, we used linear regression to estimate differences in mean energy intake and proportion of energy intake from sugary drinks by age, sex, education, food security and income. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 19 742 respondents aged 2 and over. RESULTS: In the 20 % flat-rate scenario, we estimated mean energy intake and proportion of daily energy intake from sugary drinks on a given day would be reduced by 29 kcal/d (95 % UI: 18, 41) and 1·3 % (95 % UI: 0·8, 1·8), respectively. Similarly, in the tiered tax scenario, additional small, but meaningful reductions were estimated in mean energy intake (40 kcal/d, 95 % UI: 24, 55) and proportion of daily energy intake (1·8 %, 95 % UI: 1·1, 2·5). Both tax structures reduced, but did not eliminate, inequities in mean energy intake from sugary drinks despite larger consumption reductions in children/adolescents, males and individuals with lower education, food security and income. CONCLUSIONS: Sugary drink taxation, including the additional benefit of taxing 100 % juice, could reduce overall and inequities in mean energy intake from sugary drinks in Canada.

Sexual Identity and Heavy Drinking Among Adults in Canada by Racially Minoritized Status and Income, 2015-2020.

Purpose: Our objective was to estimate inequities in heavy drinking between heterosexual, gay or lesbian, and bisexual or pansexual individuals, by sex/gender, and to determine whether this association is heterogeneous across racially minoritized status and income groups in Canadians aged 15 and older. Methods: We pooled three Canadian Community Health Survey cycles (2015-2020) and used separate modified Poisson regressions to explore the sex/gender-specific association between sexual identity and heavy drinking prevalence by racially minoritized status, and income, adjusted for survey cycle, age, marital status, and region. Results: With racially minoritized status, and income categories collapsed, heavy drinking was 1.3 times higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-1.7) among bisexual or pansexual women compared with heterosexual women, with no differences among men. Among racially minoritized women, heavy drinking was 2.9 (95% CI = 1.3-6.4) times higher among bisexual or pansexual women and 1.9 (95% CI = 0.7-5.2) times higher among gay or lesbian women compared with heterosexual women. Among racially minoritized men, heavy drinking was 1.9 (95% CI = 0.9-4.0) times higher among gay men compared with heterosexual men. No differences were observed across sexual identity in White men or women. Bisexual or pansexual women reported increased heavy drinking relative to heterosexual women across income quintiles. Conclusion: Heavy drinking is distributed heterogeneously across sexual identity, sex/gender, racially minoritized status, and income. These results encourage equity-focused interventions to reduce heavy drinking among intersecting sociodemographic groups experiencing a greater burden of heavy drinking.

Bridging ethics and epidemiology: Modelling ethical standards of health equity.

Health inequities are differences in health that are 'unjust'. Yet, despite competing ethical views about what counts as an 'unjust difference in health', theoretical insights from ethics have not been systematically integrated into epidemiological research. Using diabetes as an example, we explore the impact of adopting different ethical standards of health equity on population health outcomes. Specifically, we explore how the implementation of population-level weight-loss interventions using different ethical standards of equity impacts the intervention's implementation and resultant population health outcomes. We conducted a risk prediction modelling study using the nationally representative 2015-16 Canadian Community Health Survey (n = 75,044, 54% women). We used the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) to calculate individual-level 10-year diabetes risk. Hypothetical weight-loss interventions were modelled in individuals with overweight or obesity based on each ethical standard: 1) health sufficiency (reduce DPoRT risk below a high-risk threshold (16.5%); 2) health equality (equalize DPoRT risk to the low risk group (5%)); 3) social-health sufficiency (reduce DPoRT risk <16.5 in individuals with lower education); 4) social-health equality (equalize DPoRT risk to the level of individuals with high education). For each scenario, we calculated intervention impacts, diabetes cases prevented or delayed, and relative and absolute educational inequities in diabetes. Overall, we estimated that achieving health sufficiency (i.e., all individuals below the diabetes risk threshold) was more feasible than achieving health equality (i.e., diabetes risk equalized for all individuals), requiring smaller initial investments and fewer interventions; however, fewer diabetes cases were prevented or delayed. Further, targeting only diabetes inequalities related to education reduced the target population size and number of interventions required, but consequently resulted in even fewer diabetes cases prevented or delayed. Using diabetes as an example, we found that an explicit, ethically-informed definition of health equity is essential to guide population-level interventions that aim to reduce health inequities.

Neighbourhood-level socio-demographic characteristics and risk of COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Ontario, Canada: A population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate associations between COVID-19 incidence and mortality with neighbourhood-level immigration, race, housing, and socio-economic characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of 28,808 COVID-19 cases in the provincial reportable infectious disease surveillance systems (Public Health Case and Contact Management System) which includes all known COVID-19 infections and deaths from Ontario, Canada reported between January 23, 2020 and July 28, 2020. Residents of congregate settings, Indigenous communities living on reserves or small neighbourhoods with populations <1,000 were excluded. Comparing neighbourhoods in the 90th to the 10th percentiles of socio-demographic characteristics, we estimated the associations between 18 neighbourhood-level measures of immigration, race, housing and socio-economic characteristics and COVID-19 incidence and mortality using Poisson generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of immigrants (relative risk (RR): 4.0, 95%CI:3.5-4.5) and visible minority residents (RR: 3.3, 95%CI:2.9-3.7) showed the strongest association with COVID-19 incidence in adjusted models. Among individual race groups, COVID-19 incidence was highest among neighbourhoods with the high proportions of Black (RR: 2.4, 95%CI:2.2-2.6), South Asian (RR: 1.9, 95%CI:1.8-2.1), Latin American (RR: 1.8, 95%CI:1.6-2.0) and Middle Eastern (RR: 1.2, 95%CI:1.1-1.3) residents. Neighbourhoods with the highest average household size (RR: 1.9, 95%CI:1.7-2.1), proportion of multigenerational families (RR: 1.8, 95%CI:1.7-2.0) and unsuitably crowded housing (RR: 2.1, 95%CI:2.0-2.3) were associated with COVID-19 incidence. Neighbourhoods with the highest proportion of residents with less than high school education (RR: 1.6, 95%CI:1.4-1.8), low income (RR: 1.4, 95%CI:1.2-1.5) and unaffordable housing (RR: 1.6, 95%CI:1.4-1.8) were associated with COVID-19 incidence. Similar inequities were observed across neighbourhood-level sociodemographic characteristics and COVID-19 mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Neighbourhood-level inequities in COVID-19 incidence and mortality were observed in Ontario, with excess burden experienced in neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of immigrants, racialized populations, large households and low socio-economic status.