[Evidence syntheses in public health: An overview]. / Evidenzsynthesen in Public Health: ein Überblick.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a high demand for rapid evidence syntheses to answer urgent public health questions. This article provides an overview of different types of reviews for public health questions and a synthesis of existing recommendations for the preparation of reviews. The aim is to support the planning of one's own review and the critical evaluation of published reviews. METHODS: The basis of this summary is an extensive search for guidelines and recommendations for different review types. Furthermore, internal journal clubs were held to determine knowledge needs and to critically discuss the various review types. For results dissemination, fact sheets were developed for the individual review types including the most important information, prerequisites and work steps, as well as a decision tree for identifying the appropriate review type for the respective question. RESULTS: Of the review types identified, Systematic, Rapid, Scoping, Umbrella, and Narrative Reviews were considered in more detail because they are particularly relevant to public health issues. Together with scoping and umbrella reviews, systematic reviews have the highest resource requirements due to the demands for extensive, systematic evidence synthesis and reproducibility. Rapid methods can accelerate the review process, for example by a very narrowly formulated question, a limited literature search, or the execution of certain steps by one instead of two persons. DISCUSSION: Systematic Reviews may be considered as the gold standard, but they were developed primarily for clinical questions relating to interventions. Instead, this article was focused on review types that consider the diversity of questions as well as the predominant use of quantitative methods in the field of public health. The fact sheets developed and the decision tree should enable low-threshold access to reviews while linking the perspectives of research and resource planning. They complement existing guidelines and recommendations. CONCLUSION: To answer the diverse spectrum of public health questions, various types of reviews with various requirements and approaches are available. Given this diversity, a systematic introduction can be helpful for researchers planning or assessing a review.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related containment measures on the mental health of children and adolescents.

Children and adolescents are particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the official containment measures. However, the effects on their mental health have been little studied. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize existing evidence on the mental health of children and adolescents in the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic and during the measures taken to contain it in Germany. First international and national studies draw a differential picture. Children and adolescents showed symptoms of anxiety and depression as well as a reduced quality of life. The closure of childcare and educational facilities and the associated loss of the familiar daytime structure as well as loss of contact and independent learning at home posed considerable challenges for affected children and their families. Spatial confinement at home and the lack of alternative options of stay during the containment measures could also have lead to increased family stress, heightened family aggression, and domestic violence. However, the findings of several studies also show that many families coped with the time during the containment measures mostly well. In the event of possible future pandemics or further waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, the needs of adolescents and their families during the containment measures should be given greater consideration.

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.

Health behaviour and COVID-19: Initial findings on the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses new challenges to both individuals and societies that impact health behaviour in many ways. This narrative review brings together initial findings for smoking, alcohol use, nutrition, physical activity and obesity. Smoking and obesity are potential direct risk factors for a severe course of COVID-19, and alcohol abuse, physical inactivity and an unbalanced diet can be indirect risk factors. The constraints of public life to contain the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the opportunities for physical activity and sports, although the initial results on physical activity during this period for Germany do not reflect this assumption. While a part of the population reports making healthier diet choices than before the pandemic, others do not. For smoking and risky alcohol use, data at an aggregate level for the general population do not indicate any behaviour changes. However, different trends appear to be emerging for different population groups pointing to the fact that social inequalities in pandemic-related changes to health behaviour must be assumed. Should further studies confirm these results, this would indicate a need for pandemic-specific prevention measures. Furthermore, specifically during the pandemic, prevention and health promotion measures directed at changes to health behaviour should continue to be implemented and adapted to the restrictions due to the pandemic. Equity in health should be promoted in particular.

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.

[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.