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.

Socioeconomic differences in the reduction of face-to-face contacts in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to physical distancing measures to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Evidence on contact dynamics in different socioeconomic groups is still sparse. This study aimed to investigate the association of socioeconomic status with private and professional contact reductions in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany. METHODS: Data from two especially affected municipalities were derived from the population-based cross-sectional seroepidemiological CORONA-MONITORING lokal study (data collection May-July 2020). The study sample (n = 3,637) was restricted to working age (18-67 years). We calculated the association of educational and occupational status (low, medium, high) with self-reported private and professional contact reductions with respect to former contact levels in the first wave of the pandemic. Multivariate Poisson regressions were performed to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) adjusted for municipality, age, gender, country of birth, household size, contact levels before physical distancing measures, own infection status, contact to SARS-CoV-2 infected people and working remotely. RESULTS: The analyses showed significant differences in the initial level of private and professional contacts by educational and occupational status. Less private contact reductions with lower educational status (PR low vs. high = 0,79 [CI = 0.68-0.91], p = 0.002; PR medium vs. high = 0,93 [CI = 0.89-0.97], p = 0.001) and less professional contact reductions with lower educational status (PR low vs. high = 0,87 [CI = 0.70-1.07], p = 0.179; PR medium vs. high = 0,89 [CI = 0.83-0.95], p = 0.001) and lower occupational status (PR low vs. high = 0,62 [CI = 0.55-0.71], p < 0.001; PR medium vs. high = 0,82 [CI = 0.77-0.88], p < 0.001) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate disadvantages for groups with lower socioeconomic status in private and professional contact reductions in the first wave of the pandemic. This may be associated with the higher risk of infection among individuals in lower socioeconomic groups. Preventive measures that a) adequately explain the importance of contact restrictions with respect to varying living and working conditions and b) facilitate the implementation of these reductions especially in the occupational setting seem necessary to better protect structurally disadvantaged groups during epidemics.

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.

Nationally representative results on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and testing in Germany at the end of 2020.

Pre-vaccine SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data from Germany are scarce outside hotspots, and socioeconomic disparities remained largely unexplored. The nationwide representative RKI-SOEP study (15,122 participants, 18-99 years, 54% women) investigated seroprevalence and testing in a supplementary wave of the Socio-Economic-Panel conducted predominantly in October-November 2020. Self-collected oral-nasal swabs were PCR-positive in 0.4% and Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2-S1-IgG ELISA from dry-capillary-blood antibody-positive in 1.3% (95% CI 0.9-1.7%, population-weighted, corrected for sensitivity = 0.811, specificity = 0.997). Seroprevalence was 1.7% (95% CI 1.2-2.3%) when additionally correcting for antibody decay. Overall infection prevalence including self-reports was 2.1%. We estimate 45% (95% CI 21-60%) undetected cases and lower detection in socioeconomically deprived districts. Prior SARS-CoV-2 testing was reported by 18% from the lower educational group vs. 25% and 26% from the medium and high educational group (p < 0.001, global test over three categories). Symptom-triggered test frequency was similar across educational groups. Routine testing was more common in low-educated adults, whereas travel-related testing and testing after contact with infected persons was more common in highly educated groups. This countrywide very low pre-vaccine seroprevalence in Germany at the end of 2020 can serve to evaluate the containment strategy. Our findings on social disparities indicate improvement potential in pandemic planning for people in socially disadvantaged circumstances.

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.

Corona Monitoring Nationwide (RKI-SOEP-2): Seroepidemiological Study on the Spread of SARS-CoV-2 Across Germany

SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus, spread across Germany within just a short period of time. Seroepidemiological studies are able to estimate the proportion of the population with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection (seroprevalence) as well as the level of undetected infections, which are not captured in official figures. In the seroepidemiological study Corona Monitoring Nationwide (RKI-SOEP-2), biospecimens and interview data were collected in a nationwide population-based subsample of the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). By using laboratory-analyzed blood samples to detect antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we were able to identify a history of vaccination or infection in study participants. By combining these results with survey data, we were able to identify groups within the population that are at increased risk of infection. By linking the RKI-SOEP-2 survey data with data from other waves of the SOEP survey, we will be able to examine the medium- to long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including effects of long COVID, in diverse areas of life. Furthermore, the data provide insight into the population's willingness to be vaccinated as well as related attitudes and conditions. In sum, the RKI-SOEP-2 survey data offer a better understanding of the scope of the epidemic in Germany and can help in identifying target groups for infection control in the present and future pandemics.

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.

Seroepidemiological study on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany: Study protocol of the CORONA-MONITORING bundesweit' study (RKI-SOEP study).

The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has spread rapidly across Germany. Infections are likely to be under-recorded in the notification data from local health authorities on laboratory-confirmed cases since SARS-CoV-2 infections can proceed with few symptoms and then often remain undetected. Seroepidemiological studies allow the estimation of the proportion in the population that has been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (seroprevalence) as well as the extent of undetected infections. The 'CORONA-MONITORING bundesweit' study (RKI-SOEP study) collects biospecimens and interview data in a nationwide population sample drawn from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Participants are sent materials to self-collect a dry blood sample of capillary blood from their finger and a swab sample from their mouth and nose, as well as a questionnaire. The samples returned are tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 RNA to identify past or present infections. The methods applied enable the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infections, including those that previously went undetected. In addition, by linking the data collected with available SOEP data, the study has the potential to investigate social and health-related differences in infection status. Thus, the study contributes to an improved understanding of the extent of the epidemic in Germany, as well as identification of target groups for infection protection.

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.

Socioeconomic inequalities and COVID-19 - A review of the current international literature.

Social epidemiological research describes correlations between socioeconomic status and the population's risk to become diseased or die. Little research of such correlations for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 has so far been conducted. This scoping review provides an overview of the international research literature. Out of the 138 publications found, 46 were later included in the analysis. For the US and the UK, the reported findings indicate the presence of socioeconomic inequalities in infection risks as well as the severity of the course of the disease, with socioeconomically less privileged populations being hit harder. There are far fewer findings for Germany to date, as is the case for most other European countries. However, the scant evidence available so far already indicates that social inequalities are a factor in COVID-19. Most of these analyses have been ecological studies with only few studies considering socioeconomic inequalities at the individual level. Such studies at the individual level are particularly desirable as they could help to increase our understanding of the underlying pathways that lead to the development of inequalities in infection risks and the severity of disease and thereby could provide a basis to counteract the further exacerbation of health inequalities.

Socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection - First results from an analysis of surveillance data from Germany.

Experiences with acute respiratory diseases which caused virus epidemics in the past and initial findings in the research literature on the current COVID-19 pandemic suggest a higher SARS-CoV-2 infection risk for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Nevertheless, further research on such a potential association between socioeconomic status and SARS-CoV-2 incidence in Germany is required. This article reports on the results of a first Germany-wide analysis of COVID-19 surveillance data to which an area-level index of socioeconomic deprivation was linked. The analysis included 186,839 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, the data of which was transferred to the Robert Koch Institute by 16 June 2020, 00:00. During the early stage of the epidemic up to mid-April, the data show a socioeconomic gradient with higher incidence in less deprived regions of Germany. Over the course of the epidemic, however, this gradient becomes less measurable and finally reverses in south Germany, the region hardest hit by the epidemic, to the greater detriment of the more deprived regions. These results highlight the need to continue monitoring social epidemiological patterns in COVID-19 and analysing the underlying causes to detect dynamics and trends early on and countering a potential exacerbation of health inequalities.

Seroepidemiological study on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in populations in especially affected areas in Germany - Study protocol of the CORONA-MONITORING lokal study.

At a regional and local level, the COVID-19 pandemic has not spread out uniformly and some German municipalities have been particularly affected. The seroepidemiological data from these areas helps estimate the proportion of the population that has been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (seroprevalence), as well as the number of undetected infections and asymptomatic cases. In four municipalities which were especially affected, 2,000 participants will be tested for an active SARS-CoV-2 infection (oropharyngeal swab) or a past infection (blood specimen IgG antibody test). Participants will also be asked to fill out a short written questionnaire at study centres and complete a follow-up questionnaire either online or by telephone, including information on issues such as possible exposure, susceptability, symptoms and medical history. The CORONA-MONITORING lokal study will allow to determine the proportion of the population with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in four particularly affected locations. This study will increase the accuracy of estimates regarding the scope of the epidemic, help determine risk and protective factors for an infection and therefore also identify especially exposed groups and, as such, it will be crucial towards planning of prevention measures.

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 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.

[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.

Serology- and PCR-based cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults in a successfully contained early hotspot (CoMoLo study), Germany, May to June 2020.

Three months after a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Kupferzell, Germany, a population-based study (n = 2,203) found no RT-PCR-positives. IgG-ELISA seropositivity with positive virus neutralisation tests was 7.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5-9.1) and 4.3% with negative neutralisation tests. We estimate 12.0% (95% CI: 10.4-14.0%) infected adults (24.5% asymptomatic), six times more than notified. Full hotspot containment confirms the effectiveness of prompt protection measures. However, 88% naïve adults are still at high COVID-19 risk.

[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.