Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e054101, 2022 04 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1788960

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission of tier 3 restrictions introduced in October and December 2020 in England, compared with tier 2 restrictions. We further investigate whether these effects varied between small areas by deprivation. DESIGN: Synthetic control analysis. SETTING: We identified areas introducing tier 3 restrictions in October and December, constructed a synthetic control group of places under tier 2 restrictions and compared changes in weekly infections over a 4-week period. Using interaction analysis, we estimated whether this effect varied by deprivation and the prevalence of a new variant (B.1.1.7). INTERVENTIONS: In both October and December, no indoor between-household mixing was permitted in either tier 2 or 3. In October, no between-household mixing was permitted in private gardens and pubs and restaurants remained open only if they served a 'substantial meal' in tier 3, while in tier 2 meeting with up to six people in private gardens were allowed and all pubs and restaurants remained open. In December, in tier 3, pubs and restaurants were closed, while in tier 2, only those serving food remained open. The differences in restrictions between tier 2 and 3 on meeting outside remained the same as in October. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Weekly reported cases adjusted for changing case detection rates for neighbourhoods in England. RESULTS: Introducing tier 3 restrictions in October and December was associated with a 14% (95% CI 10% to 19%) and 20% (95% CI 13% to 29%) reduction in infections, respectively, compared with the rates expected with tier 2 restrictions only. The effects were similar across levels of deprivation and by the prevalence of the new variant. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tier 2 restrictions, additional restrictions in tier 3 areas in England had a moderate effect on transmission, which did not appear to increase socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19 cases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Family Characteristics , Humans , Restaurants
3.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 6: 100107, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1225323

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Large-scale asymptomatic testing of communities in Liverpool (UK) for SARS-CoV-2 was used as a public health tool for containing COVID-19. The aim of the study is to explore social and spatial inequalities in uptake and case-detection of rapid lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (LFTs) offered to people without symptoms of COVID-19. METHODS: Linked pseudonymised records for asymptomatic residents in Liverpool who received a LFT for COVID-19 between 6th November 2020 to 31st January 2021 were accessed using the Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action resource. Bayesian Hierarchical Poisson Besag, York, and Mollié models were used to estimate ecological associations for uptake and positivity of testing. FINDINGS: 214 525 residents (43%) received a LFT identifying 5192 individuals as positive cases of COVID-19 (1.3% of tests were positive). Uptake was highest in November when there was military assistance. High uptake was observed again in the week preceding Christmas and was sustained into a national lockdown. Overall uptake were lower among males (e.g. 40% uptake over the whole period), Black Asian and other Minority Ethnic groups (e.g. 27% uptake for 'Mixed' ethnicity) and in the most deprived areas (e.g. 32% uptake in most deprived areas). These population groups were also more likely to have received positive tests for COVID-19. Models demonstrated that uptake and repeat testing were lower in areas of higher deprivation, areas located further from test sites and areas containing populations less confident in the using Internet technologies. Positive tests were spatially clustered in deprived areas. INTERPRETATION: Large-scale voluntary asymptomatic community testing saw social, ethnic, digital and spatial inequalities in uptake. COVID-19 testing and support to isolate need to be more accessible to the vulnerable communities most impacted by the pandemic, including non-digital means of access. FUNDING: Department of Health and Social Care (UK) and Economic and Social Research Council.

4.
J Public Health (Oxf) ; 2021 Mar 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1149960

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Policy responses to the Global Financial Crisis emphasized wide-ranging fiscal austerity measures, many of which have been found to negatively impact health outcomes. This paper investigates change in patterns of mortality at local authority level in England (2010-11 to 2017-18) and the relation with fiscal austerity measures. METHODS: Data from official local authority administrative records are used to quantify the gap between observed deaths and what was anticipated in the 2010-based subnational population projections. Regression analyses are used to explore the relation between excess deaths, austerity and wider process of population change at local authority level. RESULTS: We estimate 231 707 total excess deaths, the majority of which occurred since 2014-15 (89%) across the majority of local authorities (91%). Austerity is positively associated with excess deaths. For working age adults, there is a clear gradient to the impact of austerity, whereas for older adults, the impact is more uniform. CONCLUSIONS: Fiscal austerity policies contributed to an excess of deaths for older people and widened social inequalities for younger populations. These results call for an end to all austerity measures and require further research into areas with the highest total excess deaths as a priority following the COVID-19 pandemic.

5.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(2)2021 01 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067721

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how people with dementia and/or their family carers access health and social care services after a diagnosis. The aim of this study was to explore potential inequalities in care pathways for people with young-onset and late on-set dementia (YOD/LOD), including their family carers, with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) occurring throughout the course of the study and enabling a comparison between pre-pandemic and COVID-19 times. METHODS: People with YOD and LOD with their family carers were recruited via local support groups in the North West Coast region of England. Semi-structured interviews explored the experiences of people with YOD and LOD and family carers on their access to both health and social care services and community-based services. Transcripts were coded by two researchers and analysed using thematic analysis. Fifteen interviews were conducted with seven people with YOD or LOD and 14 family carers between January and March 2020. Some interviews were conducted only with the person with dementia, because they did not have a family carer, and others were conducted only with the family carer, because the person with dementia was in the severe stages of the condition. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the interviews: (1) Getting the ball rolling: the process of diagnosis; (2) Balancing the support needs of people with dementia and carers; (3) Barriers to accessing support; and (4) Facilitators to accessing support. Inequities existed for both YOD and LOD, with emerging evidence of unequal experiences in accessing care at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: People with YOD and LOD and their carers require better support in accessing services after a diagnosis. Greater understanding of the pathways through which inequalities materialise are needed, especially those that might have been disrupted or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dementia , Health Status Disparities , Healthcare Disparities , Caregivers , Dementia/epidemiology , England/epidemiology , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Pandemics
6.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(2)2021 01 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1028655

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how people with dementia and/or their family carers access health and social care services after a diagnosis. The aim of this study was to explore potential inequalities in care pathways for people with young-onset and late on-set dementia (YOD/LOD), including their family carers, with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) occurring throughout the course of the study and enabling a comparison between pre-pandemic and COVID-19 times. METHODS: People with YOD and LOD with their family carers were recruited via local support groups in the North West Coast region of England. Semi-structured interviews explored the experiences of people with YOD and LOD and family carers on their access to both health and social care services and community-based services. Transcripts were coded by two researchers and analysed using thematic analysis. Fifteen interviews were conducted with seven people with YOD or LOD and 14 family carers between January and March 2020. Some interviews were conducted only with the person with dementia, because they did not have a family carer, and others were conducted only with the family carer, because the person with dementia was in the severe stages of the condition. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the interviews: (1) Getting the ball rolling: the process of diagnosis; (2) Balancing the support needs of people with dementia and carers; (3) Barriers to accessing support; and (4) Facilitators to accessing support. Inequities existed for both YOD and LOD, with emerging evidence of unequal experiences in accessing care at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: People with YOD and LOD and their carers require better support in accessing services after a diagnosis. Greater understanding of the pathways through which inequalities materialise are needed, especially those that might have been disrupted or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dementia , Health Status Disparities , Healthcare Disparities , Caregivers , Dementia/epidemiology , England/epidemiology , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Pandemics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL