Socioeconomic status and disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Eastern Oslo, Norway.

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess whether socioeconomic status still remain a barrier to COVID-19 vaccination in eastern Oslo, Norway. Study design: A cross-section study. Methods: We conducted a web-based survey among the residents of six eastern parishes in Oslo, Norway. Text (SMS) messages were sent to 59978 potential participants. 5447 surveys were completed for a response rate of 9.1%. After removing participants who had not been offered the COVID-19 vaccine, we ended up with a valid sample of 4000. Results: We find a significant association between education and the likelihood of taking the COVID-19 vaccine in bivariate logistic regression. Further, we find a significant higher likelihood of taking the vaccine in the above-low-income group compared to the low-income group. However, when we add control variables to the regression, the significant results concerning both income and education are eliminated. In further analysis, we found that age worked as a moderator between socioeconomic status and vaccine uptake: In the youngest age group (18-29), we found a significant higher likelihood of taking the vaccine in the above-low-income group compared to the low-income group, and in the higher education group compared to the primary education group. Conclusion: Socioeconomic status remains a barrier to COVID-19 vaccination in the eastern parishes of Oslo, Norway. Indicating that Norwegians of lower socioeconomic status still disproportionately face barriers such as transportation, language, flexible work hours, and paid sick time. However, our analysis shows that this association is only found in the age group 18-29.

Social and demographic patterns of influenza vaccination coverage in Norway, influenza seasons 2014/15 to 2020/21.

AIMS: To examine influenza vaccination coverage among risk groups (RG) and health care workers (HCW), and study social and demographic patterns of vaccination coverage over time. METHODS: Vaccination coverage was estimated by self-report in a nationally representative telephone survey among 14919 individuals aged 18-79 years over seven influenza seasons from 2014/15 to 2020/21. We explored whether belonging to an influenza RG (being >=65 years of age and/or having >=1 medical risk factor), being a HCW or educational attainment was associated with vaccination status using logistic regression. RESULTS: Vaccination coverage increased from 27 % to 66 % among individuals 65-79 years, from 13 % to 33 % among individuals 18-64 years with >=1 risk factor, and from 9 % to 51 % among HCWs during the study period. Being older, having a risk factor or being a HCW were significantly associated with higher coverage in all multivariable logistic regression analyses. Higher education was also consistently associated with higher coverage, but the difference did not reach significance in all influenza seasons. Educational attainment was not significantly associated with coverage while coverage was at its lowest (2014/15-2017/18), but as coverage increased, so did the differences. Individuals with intermediate or lower education were less likely to report vaccination than those with higher education in season 2018/19, OR = 0.61 (95 % CI 0.46-0.80) and OR = 0.58 (95 % CI 0.41-0.83), respectively, and in season 2019/20, OR = 0.69 (95 % CI 0.55-0.88) and OR = 0.71 (95 % CI 0.53-0.95), respectively. When the vaccine was funded in the COVID-19 pandemic winter of 2020/21, educational differences diminished again and were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: We observed widening educational differences in influenza vaccination coverage as coverage increased from 2014/15 to 2019/20. When influenza vaccination was funded in 2020/21, differences in coverage by educational attainment diminished. These findings indicate that economic barriers influence influenza vaccination decisions among risk groups in Norway.

Identifying obesity and COVID-19 overlapping risk-factors: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review main goal is to identify the common risk factors of obesity and COVID-19 overall, and highlight the ones related to urban settings specifically, using a syndemic framework. COVID-19 highlighted the interaction between infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases. We hypothesise that obesity and COVID-19 share determinants, thus our main goal is to identify the overlapping risk factors and their magnitude of association with both health outcomes. Literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase, Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos, Web of Science and Scopus, ASSIA and SocINDEX and, Google Scholar, in June 2021. Covidence will be used to conduct the title and abstract, and full-text screening, considering the following inclusion criteria: (a) study addresses both health outcomes, (b) full-length articles, (c) study focuses on humans and (d) studies in English. The exclusion criteria will be: (a) study addresses one of the outcomes in combination with other pathologies, (b) not full-length article, (c) study focuses on animals, (d) study not written in English, (e) study focuses on treatment (pharmacological or other), testing (prognostic) or specific patients with other pathologies and (f) study focussed in clinical and/or physiological mechanisms associated with obesity and/or COVID-19. The included studies will be assessed for quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project for quantitative studies and the tool described by Hawker for qualitative studies. Qualitative results will be assessed using thematic analysis methods to synthesise findings and presented in summary tables. Quantitative results - meta-analysis - will be analysed and presented using Q test and Funnel Plot.

Investigating COVID-19 transmission and mortality differences between indigenous and non-indigenous populations in Mexico.

OBJECTIVES: Indigenous populations have been disproportionately affected during pandemics. We investigated COVID-19 mortality estimates among indigenous and non-indigenous populations at national and sub-national levels in Mexico. METHODS: We obtained data from the Ministry of Health, Mexico, on 2,173,036 laboratory-confirmed RT-PCR positive COVID-19 cases and 238,803 deaths. We estimated mortality per 1000 person-weeks, mortality rate ratio (RR) among indigenous vs. non-indigenous groups, and hazard ratio (HR) for COVID-19 deaths across four waves of the pandemic, from February 2020 to March 2022. We also assessed differences in the reproduction number (Rt). RESULTS: The mortality rate among indigenous populations of Mexico was 68% higher than that of non-indigenous groups. Out of 32 federal entities, 23 exhibited higher mortality rates among indigenous groups (P < 0.05 in 13 entities). The fourth wave showed the highest RR (2.40). The crude HR was 1.67 (95% CI: 1.62, 1.72), which decreased to 1.08 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.11) after controlling for other covariates. During the intense fourth wave, the Rt among the two groups was comparable. CONCLUSION: Indigenous status is a significant risk factor for COVID-19 mortality in Mexico. Our findings may reflect disparities in non-pharmaceutical (e.g., handwashing and using facemasks), and COVID-19 vaccination interventions among indigenous and non-indigenous populations in Mexico.

Disparities in the offer of COVID-19 vaccination to migrants and non-migrants in Norway: a cross sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is key to reducing the spread and impacts of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. Migrants, compared to majority populations, tend to have lower vaccination rates, as well as higher infection disease burdens. Previous studies have tried to understand these disparities based on factors such as misinformation, vaccine hesitancy or medical mistrust. However, the necessary precondition of receiving, or recognizing receipt, of an offer to get a vaccine must also be considered. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey in six parishes in Oslo that have a high proportion of migrant residents and were hard-hit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate differences in reporting being offered the COVID-19 vaccine based on migrant status. Different models controlling for vaccination prioritization variables (age, underlying health conditions, and health-related jobs), socioeconomic and demographic variables, and variables specific to migrant status (language spoken at home and years lived in Norway) were conducted. RESULTS: Responses from 5,442 participants (response rate of 9.1%) were included in analyses. The sample included 1,284 (23.6%) migrants. Fewer migrants than non-migrants reported receiving a vaccine offer (68.1% vs. 81.1%), and this difference was significant after controlling for prioritization variables (OR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.82). Subsequent models showed higher odds ratios for reporting having been offered the vaccine for females, and lower odds ratios for those with university education. There were few to no significant differences based on language spoken at home, or among birth countries compared to each other. Duration of residence emerged as an important explanatory variable, as migrants who had lived in Norway for fewer than 15 years were less likely to report offer of a vaccine. CONCLUSION: Results were consistent with studies that show disparities between non-migrants and migrants in actual vaccine uptake. While differences in receiving an offer cannot fully explain disparities in vaccination rates, our analyses suggest that receiving, or recognizing and understanding, an offer does play a role. Issues related to duration of residence, such as inclusion in population and health registries and health and digital literacy, should be addressed by policymakers and health services organizers.

Historically High Excess Mortality During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Excess mortality quantifies the overall mortality impact of a pandemic. Mortality data have been accessible for many countries in recent decades, but few continuous data have been available for longer periods. OBJECTIVE: To assess the historical dimension of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 for 3 countries with reliable death count data over an uninterrupted span of more than 100 years. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain, which were militarily neutral and not involved in combat during either world war and have not been affected by significant changes in their territory since the end of the 19th century. PARTICIPANTS: Complete populations of these 3 countries. MEASUREMENTS: Continuous series of recorded deaths (from all causes) by month from the earliest available year (1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain) were jointly modeled with annual age group-specific death and total population counts using negative binomial and multinomial models, which accounted for temporal trends and seasonal variability of prepandemic years. The aim was to estimate the expected number of deaths in a pandemic year for a nonpandemic scenario and the difference in observed and expected deaths aggregated over the year. RESULTS: In 2020, the number of excess deaths recorded per 100 000 persons was 100 (95% credible interval [CrI], 60 to 135) for Switzerland, 75 (CrI, 40 to 105) for Sweden, and 155 (CrI, 110 to 195) for Spain. In 1918, excess mortality was 6 to 7 times higher. In all 3 countries, the peaks of monthly excess mortality in 2020 were greater than most monthly excess mortality since 1918, including many peaks due to seasonal influenza and heat waves during that period. LIMITATION: Historical vital statistics might be affected by minor completeness issues before the beginning of the 20th century. CONCLUSION: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the second-largest infection-related mortality disaster in Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain since the beginning of the 20th century. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, Swiss National Science Foundation, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Not the great equalizers: Covid-19, 1918-20 influenza, and the need for a paradigm shift in pandemic preparedness.

Despite common perceptions to the contrary, pandemic diseases do not affect populations indiscriminately. In this paper, we review literature produced by demographers, historians, epidemiologists, and other researchers on disparities during the 1918-20 influenza pandemic and the Covid-19 pandemic. Evidence from these studies demonstrates that lower socio-economic status and minority/stigmatized race or ethnicity are associated with higher morbidity and mortality. However, such research often lacks theoretical frameworks or appropriate data to explain the mechanisms underlying these disparities fully. We suggest using a framework that considers proximal and distal factors contributing to differential exposure, susceptibility, and consequences as one way to move this research forward. Further, current pandemic preparedness plans emphasize medically defined risk groups and epidemiological approaches. Therefore, we conclude by arguing in favour of a transdisciplinary paradigm that recognizes socially defined risk groups, includes input from the social sciences and humanities and other diverse perspectives, and contributes to the reduction of health disparities before a pandemic hits.

Social Disparities in Adopting Non-pharmaceutical Interventions During COVID-19 in Norway

In the absence of vaccines to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2020 governments had to respond by rely on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Socioeconomic inequalities likely influenced the uptake of NPIs. Using Norwegian survey data, we study whether income was associated with increased handwashing, keeping 1 m distance, using facemasks increased use of home office, and less use of public transportation. Except for using facemasks and less public transportation in a non-work context, all analyzed NPIs showed an independent positive association with income. Social disparities in NPI uptake may be important drivers of higher risks of disease outcomes for people of lower socioeconomic status.

The association between socioeconomic status and pandemic influenza: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to document whether and to what extent there is an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and disease outcomes in the last five influenza pandemics. METHODS/PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: The review included studies published in English, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. Records were identified through systematic literature searches in six databases. We summarized results narratively and through meta-analytic strategies. Only studies for the 1918 and 2009 pandemics were identified. Of 14 studies on the 2009 pandemic including data on both medical and social risk factors, after controlling for medical risk factors 8 demonstrated independent impact of SES. In the random effect analysis of 46 estimates from 35 studies we found a pooled mean odds ratio of 1.4 (95% CI: 1.2-1.7, p < 0.001), comparing the lowest to the highest SES, but with substantial effect heterogeneity across studies,-reflecting differences in outcome measures and definitions of case and control samples. Analyses by pandemic period (1918 or 2009) and by level of SES measure (individual or ecological) indicated no differences along these dimensions. Studies using healthy controls tended to document that low SES was associated with worse influenza outcome, and studies using infected controls find low SES associated with more severe outcomes. A few studies compared severe outcomes (ICU or death) to hospital admissions but these did not find significant SES associations in any direction. Studies with more unusual comparisons (e.g., pandemic vs seasonal influenza, seasonal influenza vs other patient groups) reported no or negative non-significant associations. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We found that SES was significantly associated with pandemic influenza outcomes with people of lower SES having the highest disease burden in both 1918 and 2009. To prepare for future pandemics, we must consider social vulnerability. The protocol for this study has been registered in PROSPERO (ref. no 87922) and has been published Mamelund et al. (2019).

Black-white disparities in 2009 H1N1 vaccination among adults in the United States: A cautionary tale for the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has highlighted racial and ethnic disparities in H1N1 vaccination in the United States. Our study adds to this literature by utilizing an intersectionality framework to examine the joint influence of race and sex on H1N1 vaccination beliefs and behaviors among non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites (hereafter blacks and whites). METHODS: Using data from the National H1N1 Flu Survey of U.S. adults, we measured differences in beliefs about the safety and efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine among black women, black men, white women, and white men. We then estimated a series of nested logistic regression models to examine how race/sex vaccination disparities were influenced by health beliefs, socioeconomic status (SES), pre-existing conditions, and healthcare. RESULTS: Black respondents were more likely than white respondents to express reservations about the safety and efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine. Consistent with those beliefs, white females reported the highest rate of H1N1 vaccination (28.4%), followed by white males (26.3%), black males (21.6%), and black females (17.5%). Differences in health beliefs, SES, pre-existing conditions, and healthcare explained lower odds of H1N1 vaccination among white men and black men, relative to white women. However, black women experienced 35-45% lower odds of vaccination than white women across all models, highlighting the intersectional nature of these associations. DISCUSSION: The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic provides a cautionary tale about the distribution of new vaccines across large populations with diverse racial, sex, and socioeconomic characteristics. Despite differences between the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics, our study warns that many black Americans will forego COVID-19 vaccines unless swift action is taken to address black-white disparities in access to vital resources. Public health stakeholders can also encourage widespread adoption of COVID-19 vaccines by tailoring health promotion messages for different groups of racial minorities, especially groups like black women who face intersecting disadvantages.