Invited Commentary: Some Social Epidemiologic Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In their recent article, Dimitris et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(6):980-986) presented a series of challenges modern epidemiology has faced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including challenges around the scientific progress, epidemiologic methods, interventions, equity, team science, and training needed to address these issues. Here, 2 social epidemiologists who have been working on COVID-19 inequities reflect on further lessons with an added year of perspective. We focus on 2 key challenges: 1) dominant biomedical individualistic narratives around the production of population health, and 2) the role of profit in policy-making. We articulate a need to consider social epidemiologic approaches, including acknowledging the importance of considering how societal systems lead to health inequities. To address these challenges, future (and current) epidemiologists should be trained in theories of population health distribution and political structures of governance. Last, we close with the need for better investment in public health infrastructure as a crucial step toward achieving population health equity.

Higher COVID-19 Vaccination And Narrower Disparities In US Cities With Paid Sick Leave Compared To Those Without.

Paid sick leave provides workers with paid time off to receive COVID-19 vaccines and to recover from potential vaccine adverse effects. We hypothesized that US cities with paid sick leave would have higher COVID-19 vaccination coverage and narrower coverage disparities than those without such policies. Using county-level vaccination data and paid sick leave data from thirty-seven large US cities in 2021, we estimated the association between city-level paid sick leave policies and vaccination coverage in the working-age population and repeated the analysis using coverage in the population ages sixty-five and older as a negative control. We also examined associations by neighborhood social vulnerability. Cities with a paid sick leave policy had 17 percent higher vaccination coverage than cities without such a policy. We found stronger associations between paid sick leave and vaccination in the most socially vulnerable neighborhoods compared with the least socially vulnerable ones, and no association in the population ages sixty-five and older. Paid sick leave policies are associated with higher COVID-19 vaccination coverage and narrower coverage disparities. Increasing access to these policies may help increase vaccination and reduce inequities in coverage.

Heterogeneity in Disparities in Life Expectancy Across US Metropolitan Areas.

BACKGROUND: Life expectancy in the United States has declined since 2014 but characterization of disparities within and across metropolitan areas of the country is lacking. METHODS: Using census tract-level life expectancy from the 2010 to 2015 US Small-area Life Expectancy Estimates Project, we calculate 10 measures of total and income-based disparities in life expectancy at birth, age 25, and age 65 within and across 377 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) of the United States. RESULTS: We found wide heterogeneity in disparities in life expectancy at birth across MSAs and regions: MSAs in the West show the narrowest disparities (absolute disparity: 8.7 years, relative disparity: 1.1), while MSAs in the South (absolute disparity: 9.1 years, relative disparity: 1.1) and Midwest (absolute disparity: 9.8 years, relative disparity: 1.1) have the widest life expectancy disparities. We also observed greater variability in life expectancy across MSAs for lower income census tracts (coefficient of variation [CoV] 3.7 for first vs. tenth decile of income) than for higher income census tracts (CoV 2.3). Finally, we found that a series of MSA-level variables, including larger MSAs and greater proportion college graduates, predicted wider life expectancy disparities for all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic and policy factors likely help explain variation in life expectancy disparities within and across metro areas.

Considering multiple governance levels in epidemiologic analysis of public policies.

Epidemiology is increasingly asking questions about the use of policies to address structural inequities and intervene on health disparities and public health challenges. However, there has been limited explicit consideration of governance structures in the design of epidemiologic policy analysis. To advance empirical and theoretical inquiry in this space, we propose a model of governance analysis in which public health researchers consider at what level 1) decision-making authority for policy sits, 2) policy is implemented, 3) and accountability for policy effects appear. We follow with examples of how these considerations might improve the evaluation of the policy drivers of population health. Consideration and integration of multiple levels of governance, as well as interactions between levels, can help epidemiologists design studies including new opportunities for quasi-experimental designs and stronger counterfactuals, better quantify the policy drivers of inequities, and aid research evidence and policy development work in targeting multiple levels of governance, ultimately supporting evidence-based policy making.

The Impact of Keeping Indoor Dining Closed on COVID-19 Rates Among Large US Cities: A Quasi-Experimental Design.

BACKGROUND: Indoor dining is one of the potential drivers of COVID-19 transmission. We used the heterogeneity among state government preemption of city indoor dining closures to estimate the impact of keeping indoor dining closed on COVID-19 incidence. METHODS: We obtained case rates and city or state reopening dates from March to October 2020 in 11 US cities. We categorized cities as treatment cities that were allowed by the state to reopen but kept indoor dining closed or comparison cities that would have kept indoor dining closed but that were preempted by their state and had to reopen indoor dining. We modeled associations using a difference-in-difference approach and an event study specification. We ran negative binomial regression models, with city-day as the unit of analysis, city population as an offset, and controlling for time-varying nonpharmaceutical interventions, as well as city and time fixed effects in sensitivity analysis and the event study specification. RESULTS: Keeping indoor dining closed was associated with a 55% (IRR = 0.45; 95% confidence intervals = 0.21, 0.99) decline in the new COVID-19 case rate over 6 weeks compared with cities that reopened indoor dining, and these results were consistent after testing alternative modeling strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Keeping indoor dining closed may be directly or indirectly associated with reductions in COVID-19 spread. Evidence of the relationship between indoor dining and COVID-19 case rates can inform policies to restrict indoor dining as a tailored strategy to reduce COVID-19 incidence. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B902.

Racial and ethnic inequities in occupational exposure across and between US cities.

Research suggests that racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 in the US are largely driven by higher rates of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 among Hispanic/Latino and Black populations. Occupational exposures play a large role in structuring risk of exposure, and essential workers are at elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. At a national-level, workers categorized as "essential" and "high-risk" are disproportionately Hispanic/Latino, but we lack analysis examining local-level racial/ethnic disparities in potential occupational exposures. Using the 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey, we estimated disparities between the proportion of US Born Hispanic/Latino, foreign-born Hispanic/Latino, and non-Hispanic white (NHW) essential or high-risk workers in 27 of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. We found that, on average, 66.3%, 69.9%, and 62.6% of US-born Hispanics, foreign-born Hispanics, and NHW, respectively, are essential workers, while 50.7%, 49.9%, 49.5% are high exposure risk workers, respectively. The median absolute difference in proportions of US born Hispanic/Latino and NHW essential workers was 4.2%, and between foreign-born Hispanic/Latino and NHW essential workers was 7.5%, but these disparities varied widely by city. High likelihood of occupational transmission may help explain disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality for Hispanic/Latino populations, especially foreign-born, and may also help explain heterogeneity in the magnitude of these disparities, with relevance for other acute infectious respiratory illnesses spread in the workplace.

Indoor Dining and In-Person Learning: A Comparison of 30 US Cities.

With limited US federal leadership on closing and re-opening strategies to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, cities and states were left to enact their own policies. This article examines two key sets of policies-in-person learning in public elementary schools and indoor dining-across 30 of the largest US cities in the summer, fall, and winter of 2020. We review indoor dining and in-person elementary education policy decisions between 1 May 2020 and 14 December 2020 across 30 US cities. We review the public health evidence, political power, and jurisdictional challenges that cities faced, and the policy implications of these factors. Overwhelmingly, indoor dining re-opened in cities while in-person elementary schools were kept closed; indoor dining re-opened in all cities in fall 2020, while only 40% of public elementary schools re-opened for in-person instruction. Looking ahead to fully bringing students back for in-person learning, and considering future potential community outbreaks, this retrospective analysis can help inform city and state governments on policy decisions around indoor dining and reopening/closing schools for in-person learning.

Schnake-Mahl and Bilal Respond to "Structural Racism and COVID-19 Mortality in the US".

In their commentary, Zalla et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(8):1439-1446) argue that the approach taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, comparing the proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths by race/ethnicity with a weighted population distribution, ignores how systemic racism structures the composition of places. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have abandoned their measure, they did so because of the changing geographic distribution of COVID-19, not because the measure underestimates racial disparities. We further Zalla et al.'s argument, advocating for a relational approach to estimating COVID-19 racial inequities that integrates the reciprocal relationship between context and composition through the interaction of places and people over time. To support our argument, we present a series of figures exploring the heterogeneous relationships between places, people, and time, using publicly available, US county-level COVID-19 mortality data from February to December 2020 from Johns Hopkins University. Longitudinal and more geographically granular data that allows for disaggregation by person, place, and time will improve our estimation and understanding of inequities in COVID-19.

Gentrification, Neighborhood Change, and Population Health: a Systematic Review.

Despite a proliferation of research on neighborhood effects on health, how neighborhood economic development, in the form of gentrification, affects health and well-being in the USA is poorly understood, and no systematic assessment of the potential health impacts has been conducted. Further, we know little about whether health impacts differ for residents of neighborhoods undergoing gentrification versus urban development, or other forms of neighborhood socioeconomic ascent. We followed current guidelines for systematic reviews and present data on the study characteristics of the 22 empirical articles that met our inclusion criteria and were published on associations between gentrification, and similar but differently termed processes (e.g., urban regeneration, urban development, neighborhood upgrading), and health published between 2000 and 2018. Our results show that impacts on health vary by outcome assessed, exposure measurement, the larger context-specific determinants of neighborhood change, and analysis decisions including which reference and treatment groups to examine. Studies of the health impacts of gentrification, urban development, and urban regeneration describe similar processes, and synthesis and comparison of their results helps bridge differing theoretical approaches to this emerging research. Our article helps to inform the debate on the impacts of gentrification and urban development for health and suggests that these neighborhood change processes likely have both detrimental and beneficial effects on health. Given the influence of place on health and the trend of increasing gentrification and urban development in many American cities, we discuss how future research can approach understanding and researching the impacts of these processes for population health.

Health Care In The Suburbs: An Analysis Of Suburban Poverty And Health Care Access.

There are 16.9 million Americans living in poverty in the suburbs-more than in cities or rural communities. Despite recent increases in suburban poverty, the perception of the suburbs as areas of uniform affluence remains, and there has been little research into health care barriers experienced by people living in these areas. The objectives of this study were to compare patterns of insurance coverage and health care access in suburban, urban, and rural areas using national survey data from 2005 to 2015 and to compare outcomes by geography before and after the Affordable Care Act took effect. We found that nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population lived in suburban areas. Though unadjusted rates of health care access were better in suburban areas, compared to urban and rural communities, this advantage was greatly reduced after income and other demographics are accounted for. Overall, a substantial portion of the US population residing in the suburbs lacked health insurance and experienced difficulties accessing care. Increased policy attention is needed to address these challenges for vulnerable populations living in the suburbs.