Have COVID-19 Stimulus Packages Mitigated the Negative Health Impacts of Pandemic-Related Job Losses? A Systematic Review of Global Evidence from the First Year of the Pandemic.

Social protection can buffer the negative impacts of unemployment on health. Have stimulus packages introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic mitigated potential harms to health from unemployment? We performed a systematic review of the health effects of job loss during the first year of the pandemic. We searched three electronic databases and identified 49 studies for inclusion. Three United States-based studies found that stimulus programs mitigated the impact of job loss on food security and mental health. Furloughs additionally appeared to reduce negative impacts when they were paid. However, despite the implementation of large-scale stimulus packages to reduce economic harms, we observed a clear pattern that job losses were nevertheless significantly associated with negative impacts, particularly on mental health, quality of life, and food security. We also observe suggestive evidence that COVID-related job loss was associated with child maltreatment, worsening dental health, and poor chronic disease outcomes. Overall, although we did find evidence that income-support policies appeared to help protect people from the negative health consequences of pandemic-related job loss, they were not sufficient to fully offset the threats to health. Future research should ascertain how to ensure adequate access to and generosity of social protection programs during epidemics and economic downturns.

Policy actors' perceptions of public participation to tackle health inequalities in Scotland: a paradox?

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities are persistent and widening with transformative policy change needed. Radically shifting policy to tackle upstream causes of inequalities is likely to require public participation to provide a mandate, evidence and to address questions of co-design, implementation and acceptability. The aim of this paper is to explore perceptions among policy actors on why and how the public should be involved in policymaking for health inequalities. METHODS: In 2019-2020, we conducted exploratory, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 Scottish policy actors from a range of public sector bodies and agencies and third sector organisations that work in, or across, health and non-health sectors. Data were analysed thematically and used to examine implications for the development of participatory policymaking. RESULTS: Policy actors viewed public participation in policymaking as intrinsically valuable for democratic reasons, but the main, and more challenging, concern was with how it could affect positive policy change. Participation was seen as instrumental in two overlapping ways: as evidence to improve policies to tackle health inequalities and to achieve public acceptance for implementing more transformative policies. However, our analysis suggests a paradox: whilst policy actors place importance on the instrumental value of public participation, they simultaneously believe the public hold views about health inequalities that would prevent transformative change. Finally, despite broad agreement on the need to improve public participation in policy development, policy actors were uncertain about how to make the necessary changes due to conceptual, methodological and practical challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Policy actors believe in the importance of public participation in policy to address health inequalities for intrinsic and instrumental reasons. Yet, there is an evident tension between seeing public participation as a route to upstream policies and a belief that public views might be misinformed, individualistic, short-term or self-interested and doubts about how to make public participation meaningful. We lack good insight into what the public think about policy solutions to health inequalities. We propose that research needs to shift from describing the problem to focusing more on potential solutions and outline a potential way forward to undertake effective public participation to tackle health inequalities.

Changes in work-related stressors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: differences by gender and parental status.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic changed people's working conditions worldwide and research suggests increases in work stressors. However, it is not known to what extent these changes differ by gender or parental status. In the present study, we investigate trends in work stressors and whether these differ by gender and parental status. METHODS: We used cross-sectional time series data of the European Working Conditions Survey of 2015 and Living, Working and COVID-19 survey of spring 2020 to examine trends in work stressors by gender and parental status. Work stressors were working in leisure time, lack of psychological detachment and work-life conflict. We applied three-way multilevel regressions reporting prevalence ratios and reported predicted probabilities and average marginal effects to show trends and differences in changes in work stressors. RESULTS: Our multilevel regression results showed elevated prevalence ratios during the pandemic for working leisure time (PR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.34-1.53), psychological detachment (PR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.45-1.99) and work-life conflict (PR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.17-1.43) compared to before the pandemic. Except for working in leisure time, the increase was more significant among women and mothers. The proportion of work-life conflict in 2020 was 20.7% (95% CI 18.7-22.9) for men and 25.8% (95% CI 24.0-27.6) for women, equalling a difference of 5.1% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that work stressors increased disproportionately for women and mothers. This needs to be monitored and addressed to prevent widening gender inequalities in the quality of work.

COVID-19 mortality and deprivation: pandemic, syndemic, and endemic health inequalities.

COVID-19 has exacerbated endemic health inequalities resulting in a syndemic pandemic of higher mortality and morbidity rates among the most socially disadvantaged. We did a scoping review to identify and synthesise published evidence on geographical inequalities in COVID-19 mortality rates globally. We included peer-reviewed studies, from any country, written in English that showed any area-level (eg, neighbourhood, town, city, municipality, or region) inequalities in mortality by socioeconomic deprivation (ie, measured via indices of multiple deprivation: the percentage of people living in poverty or proxy factors including the Gini coefficient, employment rates, or housing tenure). 95 papers from five WHO global regions were included in the final synthesis. A large majority of the studies (n=86) found that COVID-19 mortality rates were higher in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage than in affluent areas. The subsequent discussion reflects on how the unequal nature of the pandemic has resulted from a syndemic of COVID-19 and endemic inequalities in chronic disease burden.

COVID-19 and the role of Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprises in northern England in responding to the needs of marginalised communities: a qualitative focus group study.

BACKGROUND: The Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise sector has a crucial role in supporting the health and wellbeing of people who are marginalised or who have multiple complex needs. We aimed to understand perceptions of those working in the sector and examine the short-term, medium-term, and long-term effects of COVID-19 on Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise organisations in northern England as they respond to the needs of marginalised communities. This research formed one component of a regional multiagency Health Inequalities Impact Assessment. METHODS: We conducted qualitative focus groups with staff and volunteers from five organisations between March and July, 2021, via a video conferencing platform. Eight of nine focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. One focus group was not recorded due to concerns raised over anonymity and safeguarding, but non-ascribed fieldnotes were taken. Focus group transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. FINDINGS: One organisation supported children and young people; two organisations supported vulnerable women, young people, and families; one organisation supported refugees and asylum seekers, and one organisation supported disadvantaged individuals to improve their mental and physical health and wellbeing. Three central themes were identified: the exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities, adversity, and challenges for vulnerable and marginalised populations; the cost of being flexible, innovative, and agile for Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise staff and volunteers; and the voluntary sector as a lifeline (organisational pride and resilience). INTERPRETATION: The considerable expertise, capacity, and resilience of Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise organisations and the crucial role they have in supporting marginalised communities has been clearly shown in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise sector therefore has an essential role in the post-COVID levelling-up agenda. The implications of these findings for service provision are that the Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise sector must be recognised as an integral partner within any effectively functioning local health system and, as such, adequately resourced to safeguard sustainability and to ensure that attempts to involve the sector in addressing the social determinants of health are not jeopardised. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria (grant reference NIHR200173) and Public Health England. SSo is supported by a Health Education England and National Institute for Health and Care Research Integrated Clinical Academic Lecturer award (reference CA-CL-2018-04-ST2-010) and Research Capability Funding, National Health Service North of England Care System Support. VJM is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Public Health Research (grant reference PD-SPH-2015).

COVID-19 and deprivation amplification: An ecological study of geographical inequalities in mortality in England.

'Deprivation amplification' is used to understand the relationship between deprivation, scale and COVID-19 mortality rates. We found that more deprived Middle Super Output Areas (MSOAs) in the more deprived northern regions suffered greater COVID-19 mortality rates. Across England, the most deprived 20% of MSOAs had higher mortality than the least deprived (44.1% more COVID-19 deaths/10,000). However, the most deprived MSOAs in the north fared worse than equally deprived areas in the rest of England (14.5% more deaths/10,000, beta = 0.136, p < 0.01). There was also strong evidence of spatial clustering and spill-overs. We discuss these findings in relation to 'deprivation amplification', the 'syndemic pandemic', and the health and place literature.

Levelling up health: A practical, evidence-based framework for reducing health inequalities.

There are substantial inequalities in health across society which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The UK government have committed to a programme of levelling-up to address geographical inequalities. Here we undertake rapid review of the evidence base on interventions to reduce such health inequalities and developed a practical, evidence-based framework to 'level up' health across the country. This paper overviews a rapid review undertaken to develop a framework of guiding principles to guide policy. To that end and based on an initial theory, we searched one electrotonic database (MEDLINE) from 2007 to July 2021 to identify published umbrella reviews and undertook an internet search to identify relevant systematic reviews, primary studies, and grey literature. Titles and abstracts were screened according to the eligibility criteria. Key themes were extracted from the included studies and synthesised into an overarching framework of guiding principles in consultation with an expert panel. Included studies were cross checked with the initial theoretical domains and further searching undertaken to fill any gaps. We identified 16 published umbrella reviews (covering 667 individual studies), 19 grey literature publications, and 15 key systematic reviews or primary studies. Based on these studies, we develop a framework applicable at national, regional and local level which consisted of five principles - 1) healthy-by-default and easy to use initiatives; 2) long-term, multi-sector action; 3) locally designed focus; 4) targeting disadvantaged communities; and 5) matching of resources to need. Decision-makers working on policies to level up health should be guided by these five principles.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of the health inequalities strategy in England between 1999 and 2010.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review is to explore the effectiveness of the National Health Inequality Strategy, which was conducted in England between 1999 and 2010. DESIGN: Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase and PsycINFO) and grey literature were searched for articles published that reported on changes in inequalities in health outcomes in England over the implementation period. Articles published between January 1999 and November 2021 were included. Title and abstracts were screened according to an eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from eligible studies, and risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 10 311 unique studies, which were screened. 42 were reviewed in full text and 11 were included in the final review. Six studies contained data on inequalities of life expectancy or mortality, four on disease-specific mortality, three on infant mortality and three on morbidities. Early government reports suggested that inequalities in life expectancy and infant mortality had increased. However, later publications using more accurate data and more appropriate measures found that absolute and relative inequalities had decreased throughout the strategy period for both measures. Three of four studies found a narrowing of inequalities in all-cause mortality. Absolute inequalities in mortality due to cancer and cardiovascular disease decreased, but relative inequalities increased. There was a lack of change, or widening of inequalities in mental health, self-reported health, health-related quality of life and long-term conditions. CONCLUSIONS: With respect to its aims, the strategy was broadly successful. Policymakers should take courage that progress on health inequalities is achievable with long-term, multiagency, cross-government action. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021285770).

Explaining the deprivation gap in COVID-19 mortality rates: A decomposition analysis of geographical inequalities in England.

One of the most consistent and worrying features of the COVID-19 pandemic globally has been the disproportionate burden of the epidemic in the most deprived areas. Most of the literature so far though has focused on estimating the extent of these inequalities. There has been much less attention paid to exploring the main pathways underpinning them. In this study, we employ the syndemic pandemic theoretical framework and apply novel decomposition methods to investigate the proportion of the COVID-19 mortality gap by area-level deprivation in England during the first wave of the pandemic (January to July 2020) was accounted for by pre-existing inequalities in the compositional and contextual characteristics of place. We use a decomposition approach to explicitly quantify the independent contribution of four inequalities pathways (vulnerability, susceptibility, exposure and transmission) in explaining the more severe COVID-19 outcomes in the most deprived local authorities compared to the rest. We find that inequalities in transmission (73%) and in vulnerability (49%) factors explained the highest proportion of mortality by deprivation. Our results suggest that public health agencies need to develop short- and long-term strategies to alleviate these underlying inequalities in order to alleviate the more severe impacts on the most vulnerable communities.

Inequalities in the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic: an ecological study of inequalities in mortality in the first wave and the effects of the first national lockdown in England.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how ecological inequalities in COVID-19 mortality rates evolved in England, and whether the first national lockdown impacted them. This analysis aimed to provide evidence for important lessons to inform public health planning to reduce inequalities in any future pandemics. DESIGN: Longitudinal ecological study. SETTING: 307 lower-tier local authorities in England. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Age-standardised COVID-19 mortality rates by local authority, regressed on Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and relevant epidemic dynamics. RESULTS: Local authorities that started recording COVID-19 deaths earlier were more deprived, and more deprived authorities saw faster increases in their death rates. By 6 April 2020 (week 15, the earliest time that the 23 March lockdown could have begun affecting death rates) the cumulative death rate in local authorities in the two most deprived deciles of IMD was 54% higher than the rate in the two least deprived deciles. By 4 July 2020 (week 27), this gap had narrowed to 29%. Thus, inequalities in mortality rates by decile of deprivation persisted throughout the first wave, but reduced during the lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: This study found significant differences in the dynamics of COVID-19 mortality at the local authority level, resulting in inequalities in cumulative mortality rates during the first wave of the pandemic. The first lockdown in England was fairly strict-and the study found that it particularly benefited those living in more deprived local authorities. Care should be taken to implement lockdowns early enough, in the right places-and at a sufficiently strict level-to maximally benefit all communities, and reduce inequalities.

Evaluation of the mental health impacts of Universal Credit: protocol for a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: The UK social security system is being transformed by the implementation of Universal Credit (UC), which combines six existing benefits and tax credits into a single payment for low-income households. Despite extensive reports of hardship associated with the introduction of UC, no previous studies have comprehensively evaluated its impact on mental health. Because payments are targeted at low-income households, impacts on mental health will have important consequences for health inequalities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a mixed methods study. Work package (WP) 1 will compare health outcomes for new recipients of UC with outcomes for legacy benefit recipients in two large population surveys, using the phased rollout of UC as a natural experiment. We will also analyse the relationship between the proportion of UC claimants in small areas and a composite measure of mental health. WP2 will use data collected by Citizen's Advice to explore the sociodemographic and health characteristics of people who seek advice when claiming UC and identify features of the claim process that prompt advice-seeking. WP3 will conduct longitudinal in-depth interviews with up to 80 UC claimants in England and Scotland to explore reasons for claiming and experiences of the claim process. Up to 30 staff supporting claimants will also be interviewed. WP4 will use a dynamic microsimulation model to simulate the long-term health impacts of different implementation scenarios. WP5 will undertake cost-consequence analysis of the potential costs and outcomes of introducing UC and cost-benefit analyses of mitigating actions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained ethical approval for the primary data gathering from the University of Glasgow, College of Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee, application number 400200244. We will use our networks to actively disseminate findings to UC claimants, the public, practitioners and policy-makers, using a range of methods and formats. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study is registered with the Research Registry: researchregistry6697.

Pandemic inequalities: emerging infectious diseases and health equity.

The frequency and scale of Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs) with pandemic potential has been increasing over the last two decades and, as COVID-19 has shown, such zoonotic spill-over events are an increasing threat to public health globally. There has been considerable research into EIDs - especially in the case of COVID-19. However, most of this has focused on disease emergence, symptom identification, chains of transmission, case prevalence and mortality as well as prevention and treatment. Much less attention has been paid to health equity concerns and the relationship between socio-economic inequalities and the spread, scale and resolution of EID pandemics. This commentary article therefore explores socio-economic inequalities in the nature of EID pandemics. Drawing on three diverse case studies (Zika, Ebola, COVID-19), it hypothesises the four main pathways linking inequality and infectious disease (unequal exposure, unequal transmission, unequal susceptibility, unequal treatment) - setting out a new model for understanding EIDs and health inequalities. It concludes by considering the research directions and policy actions needed to reduce inequalities in future EID outbreaks.

Which Non-Pharmaceutical Primary Care Interventions Reduce Inequalities in Common Mental Health Disorders? A Protocol for a Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies.

Common mental health disorders (CMDs) represent a major public health concern and are particularly prevalent in people experiencing disadvantage or marginalisation. Primary care is the first point of contact for people with CMDs. Pharmaceutical interventions, such as antidepressants, are commonly used in the treatment of CMDs; however, there is concern that these treatments are over-prescribed and ineffective for treating mental distress related to social conditions. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as psychological therapies and "social prescribing", provide alternatives for CMDs. Little is known, however, about which such interventions reduce social inequalities in CMD-related outcomes, and which may, unintentionally, increase them. The aim of this protocol (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021281166) is to describe how we will undertake a systematic review to assess the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on CMD-related outcomes and social inequalities. A systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods primary studies will be undertaken and reported according to the PRISMA-Equity guidance. The following databases will be searched: Assia, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo and Scopus. Retrieved records will be screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria and synthesised using a narrative approach, with meta-analysis if feasible. The findings of this review will guide efforts to commission more equitable mental health services.

Factors associated with vaccine intention in adults living in England who either did not want or had not yet decided to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Early studies showed that 28-36% of UK adults were unsure or unwilling to be vaccinated against COVID-19. We wanted to identify which socio-demographic, socio-economic, personal health and psychological factors were associated with COVID-19 vaccine intentions (CVI) in adults living in England who did not want, yet to consider, or not sure whether to vaccinate. In October/November 2020, prior to vaccine availability, we surveyed adults stratified by gender, region, and deprivation, with additional purposive sampling of those aged 50 and over and those from an ethnic minority. Two hundred and ten did not want; 407 had yet to consider; and 1,043 were not sure whether to be vaccinated. Factors positively associated with CVI were: favorable vaccine views, trust in institutions associated with vaccine approval, vaccine subjective norms, anticipated regret of not having a vaccine, perceived vaccine benefits, perceived safety knowledge sufficiency, and a history of having an influenza vaccine. Factors negatively associated were: anti-lockdown views, and being a health or social care worker. Whilst showing significant relationships with CVI when analyzed in isolation, neighborhood deprivation and ethnicity did show an independent relationship to intention when all study measures were controlled for. Our findings suggest vaccine promotion focusing on the anticipated regret of not having a vaccine, the benefits of a mass COVID-19 immunization program, and the safety of a vaccine whilst ensuring or engendering trust in those bodies that brand a campaign may be most supportive of COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

COVID-19 and the Nordic Paradox: a call to measure the inequality reducing benefits of welfare systems in the wake of the pandemic.

The Nordic Paradox of inequality describes how the Nordic countries have puzzlingly high levels of relative health inequalities compared to other nations, despite extensive universal welfare systems and progressive tax regimes that redistribute income. However, the veracity and origins of this paradox have been contested across decades of literature, as many scholars argue it relates to measurement issues or historical coincidences. Disentangling between potential explanations is crucial to determine if widespread adoption of the Nordic model could represent a sufficient panacea for lowering health inequalities, or if new approaches must be pioneered. As newfound challenges to welfare systems continue to emerge, evidence describing the benefits of welfare systems is becoming ever more important. Preliminary evidence indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic is drastically exacerbating social inequalities in health across the world, via direct and indirect effects. We argue that the COVID-19 pandemic therefore represents a unique opportunity to measure the value of welfare systems in insulating their populations from rising social inequalities in health. However, COVID-19 has also created new measurement challenges and interrupted data collection mechanisms. Robust academic studies will therefore be needed-drawing on novel data collection methods-to measure increasing social inequalities in health in a timely fashion. In order to assure that policies implemented to reduce inequalities can be guided by accurate and updated information, policymakers, academics, and the international community must work together to ensure streamlined data collection, reporting, analysis, and evidence-based decision-making. In this way, the pandemic may offer the opportunity to finally clarify some of the mechanisms underpinning the Nordic Paradox, and potentially more firmly establish the merits of the Nordic model as a global example for reducing social inequalities in health.

How to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake in those that are either undecided or more resistant to receiving a vaccine in England? Content analysis of survey open text responses

BackgroundAs of 15 February 2021, over 20 million people in England have received their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Population-level immunological protection requires the large majority to be vaccinated, though given the spread of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy concerns, this may be challenging. Therefore, this study aimed to elicit from those either undecided or more resistant to having a COVID-19 vaccine, what would make them more likely to have a vaccine when made available to them.MethodsIn October/November 2020 we delivered an online population-wide survey of COVID-19 vaccine intention in England. Sampling was stratified by gender, geographical region, and deprivation, with additional purposive sampling of those from an ethnic minority background. An open question ‘What might make it more likely that you, your family, or friends would have a coronavirus vaccine when one is ready?’ was included. We used content analysis to identify and code emergent themes.ResultsWe recruited 1660 participants, who did not want (210), had yet to consider (407), or were not sure (1043) whether to be vaccinated. Of these: 946 (57%) were female, 363 (22%) were of an ethnic minority, and 453 (27%) lived in the lowest three Index of Multiple Deprivation (small area deprivation statistic) deciles. We received 922 (56%) open-text responses, with 733 (44%) detailing at least one factor that would increase their likelihood of receiving a vaccine. The most common concerns expressed was the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, particularly potential side-effects. Participants wanted to see the evidence that supported vaccine approval as many were worried about how quickly vaccines had been developed. Distrust in the Government, specific ministers, and the pharmaceutical companies was a consideration. Some stipulated that it would take mandating for them to have a vaccine. Others wanted it to be free and easy to access. The broader implications of an immunisation programme were of interest, participants wanted to know if the vulnerable would be prioritised and protected and that restrictive conditions would be removed enabling them to engage in a greater range of social activities.ConclusionPromotional campaigns that focus on COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness, should be prioritised. Provision of accessible comprehendible information that accurately and transparently reports the findings from COVID-19 vaccine trials through a trusted source will be required. Contextualising how vaccines will support the ending of the pandemic and increasing personal and population benefits will be of value.

Evolution of geographical inequalities in COVID-19 mortality over the first wave of the pandemic in England

BackgroundEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic it was clear that inequalities were emerging in the distribution of deaths, with more deprived areas harder hit than less deprived ones. How these inequalities began, evolved, and changed with the implementation of the first national lockdown did not receive as much attention. We used COVID-19 death counts per local authority (LA) over the first wave (up to 4th July, 2020) to understand how COVID-19 impacted different areas, and to shed light on the equity effects of a strict national lockdown.MethodsWeekly COVID-19 death counts per LA were provided by the Office for National Statistics, along with population estimates for mid-2019 and data on the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and median age per LA. Mortality rates for each area were calculated as deaths per 100,000 persons. Characteristics of the evolution of mortality rate per LA and decile of IMD were calculated, for example the speed of increase to each LAs peak rate. Simple linear models and descriptive statistics were used to compare areas.ResultsMore deprived LAs tended to begin recording COVID-19 deaths earlier than less deprived areas. Mortality rates in more deprived LAs rose at a faster rate to their peak, which was also higher than in less deprived LAs. All LA death rates peaked between 3 and 9 weeks following the implementation of the first lockdown. The time between the lockdown announcement and the peak death rate was significantly negatively associated with the speed of increase, adjusted for the median age of the population (95% CI -0.33 to -0.31 deaths per 100,000 per week). Total cumulative mortality varied from 10.79 to 170.61 deaths per 100,000 persons per LA. Cumulative death rates were significantly higher in the most deprived 10% of LAs compared to others (p<0.001). Until lockdown, the most deprived 20% of LA’s recorded 64% more deaths than the most deprived 20%. By 4th July, this gap had narrowed to 16%.ConclusionVariation in the timing and speed of increase of local mortality rate curves occurred in the first wave and led to large inequalities across deprivation quintiles. This inequality was reduced but not completely abolished by the strict national lockdown imposed in March 2020. Timings of future national lockdowns should consider differences in local epidemic evolution, with extra support offered to those areas hardest hit.

Food insecurity and the nutritional health and well-being of women and children in high-income countries: protocol for a qualitative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Since the global financial crises of 2008, there has been a rise in the number of people experiencing food insecurity. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this. Many more are unable to afford or access food of sufficient quality and quantity to enable good health and well-being. Particularly vulnerable are mothers with young children, pregnant women and lone parents (the majority of whom are women). This review aims to understand experiences of food insecurity and how it affects women and children's nutritional health and well-being, focusing on experiences explicitly related to nutrition. Findings will help guide health policy and practice to support food-insecure women and children from high-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-ethnography exploring (1) food-insecure women's own accounts of their nutritional health and (2) food-insecure household's accounts of their children's nutritional health. Six major databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL and ASSIA), grey literature databases and relevant stakeholder websites will be searched from 1 January 2008 to 30 March 2021. Reference list and citation searches will supplement electronic database searches. Outcomes of interest are accounts of nutrition and nutritional health, including diet, food practices, infant feeding practices and physical and mental health. The review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines, but as this is a meta-ethnography it will adhere to eMERGe Reporting Guidance for synthesis and writing findings of the final report. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist will assess the quality of studies. A meta-ethnographic analysis will be conducted for all included studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As a qualitative systematic review, without primary data collection, ethical approval will not be required. Findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020214159.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020217871.

COVID-19 and the gender health paradox.

This article examines gender-based health inequalities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic by drawing on insights from research into the 'gender health paradox'. Decades of international research shows that, across Europe, men have shorter life expectancies and higher mortality rates than women, and yet, women report higher morbidity. These gender-based health inequalities also appear to be evident within the pandemic and its aftermath. The article starts by providing an overview of the 'gender health paradox' and the biological, social, economic and political explanations for it. It then outlines the international estimates of gender-based inequalities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates - where emerging data suggests that women are more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 but that men have a higher mortality rate. It then explores the longer term consequences for gender-based health inequalities of the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the impacts of government policy responses and the emerging economic crisis, suggesting that this might lead to increased mortality amongst men and increased morbidity amongst women. The essay concludes by reflecting on the pathways shaping gender-based health inequalities in the COVID-19 pandemic and the responses needed to ensure that it does not exacerbate gender-based health inequalities into the future.