International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services

Behind the coronavirus headlines the year 2020 set multiple extreme weather records, including unprecedented wildfires in Australia and California, massive flooding in China, and back-to-back hurricanes in Central America. The impacts on the well-being of local populations have been devastating. We reviewed these extreme weather events, together with the year’s newly published climate and health science reports, and identified three important themes for building health resilience in the decade ahead: (1) preparing for greater magnitude and intensity of climate hazards, extreme events, and population health impacts; (2) better anticipating cascading and compound impacts on population well-being, particularly for the most vulnerable; and (3) identifying appropriate, effective preparedness tools and strategies. While decarbonizing the economy is the urgent goal to protect both human and planetary health from a changing climate, 2020 demonstrates that recognizing the likely magnitude and complexity of future extreme weather events, and preparing local public health agencies and communities with the knowledge and tools to respond to them, will be essential in this critical decade.

This paper investigates the epidemiology and public health response of novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in the Nordic region. The data on cases and deaths due to COVID-19 were drawn from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The data on age- and sex-wise cases, deaths and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and public health interventions in the Nordic region through November 10, 2020, were obtained from respective countries’ health ministries. Sweden accounted for 60.59% of cases (162 240 of 267 768 cases) and 81% of deaths (6057 of 7477 cases) in the Nordic region. The incidence rate for the Nordic region was 989.59 per 100 000, varying from 327.30 per 100 000 in Finland to 1616.51 per 100 000 in Sweden, and the mortality rate for the region was 27.63 per 100 000, ranging from 5.3 per 100 000 in Norway to 60.35 per 100 000 in Sweden. The case–fatality ratio of the Nordic region was 2.79%. Females were more susceptible to COVID-19 infection than males (52.30% vs 47.66%), while males had a greater proportion of deaths (54.7%) and ICU need (71.99%) than females. It is imperative to continue with social distancing, mandatory masks, testing, prohibition of mass gatherings, isolation of confirmed cases, and preventing the importation of cases from other countries to avoid the further resurgence of cases.

The full impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is yet to be well established; however, as the pandemic spreads, and early results emerge, unmet needs are being revealed, and pressing questions are being asked about who is most affected, how, where, and in what ways government responses might be exacerbating inequalities. A number of scholars have called for more in-depth critical research on COVID-19 and health inequalities to produce a strong empirical evidence based on these issues. There are also justifiable concerns about the scarcity of health-equity actions oriented analyses of the situation and calls for more empirical evidence on COVID-19 and health inequalities. A preliminary condition to establish this type of information is strong capacity to conduct health inequalities research. Worldwide, however, this type of capacity is limited, which, alongside other challenges, will likely hinder capacities of many countries to develop comprehensive equity-oriented COVID-19 analyses, and adequate responses to present and future crises. The current pandemic reinforces the pending need to invest in and strengthen these research capacities. These capacities must be supported by widespread recognition and concern, cognitive social capital, and greater commitment to coordinated, transparent action, and responsibility. Otherwise, we will remain inadequately prepared to respond and meet our society’s unmet needs.

In the early days of the COVID crisis, many commentators argued that it presented opportunities for progressive change, notably toward redress of structural inequalities in health. As with the financial slump of 2008, however, such notions have proved almost ridiculously optimistic as it has been capital, through its near symbiosis with the state, that has been best able to respond, with the English government—the devolved nations adopted a markedly different approach—taking every opportunity to ensure the pandemic has proved a bonanza for private-sector healthcare interests. However, this has not just been about individual contracts in, for example, test and trace, vaccination, or personal protective equipment; the crisis has been used to both rescue the private acute market following 2 years of contracted revenues and to provide enormous stimulus for its future growth. This has required the support of several organizations acting in concert, including the NHS Confederation and the Royal Colleges. While the pandemic has served to illuminate such relationships, the author also argues that the oft-recurring governmental praise of the NHS needs to be matched by genuine investment in public hospitals.

Social inequalities in health are known to be influenced by the socioeconomic status of the territory in which people live. In the context of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, this study is aimed at assessing the role of 5 area-level indicators in shaping the risk of contagion in the provinces of Milan and Lodi (Lombardy, Italy), namely: educational disadvantage, unemployment, housing crowding, mobility, and population density. The study area includes the municipalities at the origin of the first Italian epidemic outbreak. Data on COVID-19 patients from the Integrated Datawarehouse for COVID Analysis in Milan were used and matched with aggregate-level data from the National Institute of Statistics Italy (Istat). Multilevel logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between the census block-level predictors and COVID-19 infection, independently of age, sex, country of birth, and preexisting health conditions. All the variables were significantly associated with the outcome, with different effects before and after the lockdown and according to the province of residence. This suggests a pattern of socioeconomic inequalities in the outbreak, which should be taken into account in the eventuality of future epidemics to contain their spread and its related disparities.

Shock events uncover deficits in social cohesion and exacerbate existing social inequalities at the household, community, local, regional, and national levels. National and regional government recovery planning requires careful stakeholder engagement that centers on marginalized people, particularly women and marginalized community leaders. The aim of this rapid scoping review was to inform the United Nations Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery, based on Pillar 5 of the United Nations Framework for the Immediate Socioeconomic Response to COVID-19: Social Cohesion and Community Resilience. We present a summary of key concepts across the literature that helped situate this review. The results include a description of the state of the science and a review of themes identified as being crucial to sustainable and equitable recovery planning by the United Nations. The role of social cohesion during a disaster, particularly its importance for upstream planning and relationship building before a disaster occurs, is not well understood and is a promising area of future research. Understanding the applicability of social cohesion measurement methodologies and outcomes across different communities and geographies, as well as the development of new and relevant instruments and techniques, is urgently needed in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

To promote postpandemic recovery, many countries have adopted economic packages that include fiscal, monetary, and financial policy measures; however, the effects of these policies may not be known for several years or more. There is an opportunity for decision makers to learn from past policies that facilitated recovery from other disease outbreaks, crises, and natural disasters that have had a devastating effect on economies around the world. To support the development of the United Nations Research Roadmap for COVID-19 Recovery, this review examined and synthesized peer-reviewed studies and gray literature that focused on macroeconomic policy responses and multilateral coalition strategies from past pandemics and crises to provide a map of the existing evidence. We conducted a systematic search of academic and gray literature databases. After screening, we found 22 records that were eligible for this review. The evidence found demonstrates that macroeconomic and multilateral coalition strategies have various impacts on a diverse set of countries and populations. Although the studies were heterogeneous in nature, most did find positive results for macroeconomic intervention policies that addressed investments to strengthen health and social protection systems, specifically cash and unconventional/nonstandard monetary measures, in-kind transfers, social security financing, and measures geared toward certain population groups.

In Toronto, Canada, 51.5 % of the population are members of racialized groups. Systemic labor market racism has resulted in an overrepresentation of racialized groups in low-income and precarious jobs, a racialization of poverty, and poor health. Yet, the health care system is structured around a model of service delivery and policies that fail to consider unequal power social relations or racism. This study examines how racialized health care users experience classism and everyday racism in the health care setting and whether these experiences differ within stratifications such as social class, gender, and immigration status. A concept mapping design was used to identify mechanisms of classism and everyday racism. For the rating activity, 41 participants identified as racialized health care users. The data analysis was completed using concept systems software. Racialized health care users reported “race”/ethnic-based discrimination as moderate to high and socioeconomic position-/social class-based discrimination as moderate in importance for the challenges experienced when receiving health care; differences within stratifications were also identified. To improve access to services and quality of care, antiracist policies that focus on unequal power social relations and a broader systems thinking are needed to address institutional racism within the health care system.

Our study examines the association between perceived discrimination due to race and unmet medical needs among a nationally representative sample of children in the United States. We used data from the 2016-2017 National Survey of Children's Health, a population-based cross-sectional survey of randomly selected parents or guardians in the United States. We compared results from the coarsened exact matching (CEM) method and survey-weighted logistic regression to assess the robustness of the results. Using self-reported measures from caregivers, we find that ∼2.7% of US children have experienced racial discrimination with prevalence varying significantly by race. While <1% of non-Hispanic whites have experienced some measure of racism, this increases to 8.8% among non-Hispanic blacks. Perceived discrimination was associated with significantly greater odds of unmet medical needs in the adjusted, survey-weighted multivariate-adjusted model (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.4 and 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2, 4.9) as well as in the CEM-model estimate (OR = 2.8 and 95% CI = 1.8, 4.0). Children who have experienced perceived discrimination had higher odds of unmet medical needs. Awareness of discrimination among children may help inform future intervention development that addresses unmet medical needs during childhood.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hemodialysis facilities. We searched 10 databases for studies published between January 2001 to December 2019 that compared mortality at private hemodialysis facilities. We included observational studies directly comparing adjusted mortality rates between FP and NFP private hemodialysis providers in any language or country. We excluded evaluations of dialysis facilities that changed their profit status, studies with overlapping data, and studies that failed to adjust for patient age and some measure of clinical severity. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and the full text of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving disagreement by discussion. We included nine observational studies of hemodialysis facilities representing 1,163,144 patient-years. In pooled random-effects meta-analysis, the odds ratio of mortality in FP relative to NFP facilities was 1.07 (95% CI 1.04–1.11). Patients at FP hemodialysis facilities have 7 percent greater odds of death annually than patients with similar risk profiles at NFP facilities. Approximately 3,800 excess deaths might be averted annually if U.S. FP hemodialysis operators matched NFP mortality rates.

To identify pharmaceutical spending-control options for the United States, we analyzed the policies of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, which encourage drugmakers to undertake innovations that improve health while controlling spending. Their main strategies today include: using legislation to set default rules that increase the insurer's bargaining position, employing health technology assessment that measures cost-effectiveness or comparative effectiveness and caps the purchase or reimbursement price, setting a single maximum price for similar drugs (reference group pricing), capping prices near prices in other European countries (external reference pricing), prohibiting price increases, contracting to obtain discounts as sales volume rises, procuring drugs through competitive bids, and requiring manufacturers to pay rebates when spending exceeds a global budget. Each strategy addresses a distinct cause of high spending and supports overall goals. Most recent US reform proposals recommend incremental changes that would not address the major sources of high and increasing pharmaceutical prices. However, some US reform proposals resemble certain European strategies and could bring more significant change. US policymakers should consider adopting each of the strategies employed in these countries.

Pharmaceutical companies engage heavily in promoting their products worldwide, and India is no exception. This article begins with an analysis of the therapeutic value of medications on the Indian market because, by definition, if a drug has no therapeutic value or has a negative benefit-to-harm ratio, then any promotion of that drug is inappropriate. It then examines 2 Indian case studies: drug promotion in Mumbai and the misuse of the World Health Organization logo in promotion. Next it describes specific types of promotion: advertisements in medical journals, brochures, and pamphlets; the actions of sales representatives; and the content of continuing medical education courses and medical conferences. The next sections examine medical students’ and trainees’ exposure to promotion and their attitudes about promotion; the attitudes of doctors about their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry; and whether promotion has an influence on prescribing. The article concludes with a critique of the existing industry, professional, and government regulatory regimes in India.

Little is known on current practices and challenges associated with the legal trade of medicines controlled under international conventions in low-income countries. This qualitative survey involved semi-structured interviews of stakeholders engaged in the trade of controlled medicines at a global level or at a country level in 3 African countries (Uganda, Kenya, Democratic Republic of the Congo). Nine interviews were conducted, including 3 international wholesalers, 2 relief organizations, 2 procurement officers, and 2 regulatory officers. Additionally, 4 other participants provided written information. All participants consistently reported that the current process of procuring controlled medicines in compliance with international conventions was long and complex given the number of administrative steps required for obtaining export and import authorizations, which are mandatory for both narcotic and psychotropic medicines. It may be difficult or impossible to obtain import authorizations from some health authorities in low-income countries because of long delays, mistakes in forms, absence or shortage of staff, or when annual national estimates are exceeded. The complexities of the trade of controlled medicines directly contribute to the lack of access to essential controlled medicines, both narcotics and psychotropics, in low-income countries.