Assessing the Impact of Individual Characteristics and Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Provinces of Milan and Lodi
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2021
Assessing the Impact of Individual Characteristics and Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Provinces of Milan and Lodi
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.
GrasselliGZangrilloAZanellaA, et al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy region, Italy. JAMA. 2020;323(16): 1574–1581.
2.
GuanWJNiZYHuY, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med.2020;382(18):1708–1720.
3.
HuangCWangYLiX, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 Novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497–506.
4.
GuoWLiMDongY, et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(7): e3319.
5.
LiXXuSYuM, et al. Risk factors for severity and mortality in adult COVID-19 inpatients in Wuhan. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146(1):110–118.
6.
ShiSQinMShenB, et al. Association of cardiac injury with mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(7):802–810.
7.
WangBLiRLuZHuangY. Does comorbidity increase the risk of patients with COVID-19: evidence from meta-analysis. Aging. 2020;12(7):6049.
8.
YangJZhengYGouX, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities and its effects in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;94:91–95.
9.
ZhengZPengFXuB, et al. Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Infect. 2020;81(2):e16–e25.
10.
ZhouFYuTDuR, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10229):1054–1062.
11.
BerkmanLFKawachiI. A historical framework for social epidemiology: social determinants of population health. In: BerkmanLFKawachiIGlymourMM, eds. Social epidemiology. Oxford University Press; 2014:1–16.
12.
MarmotMWilkinsonR, eds. Social Determinants of Health. OUP; 2005.
13.
PhelanJCLinkBGTehranifarP. Social conditions as fundamental causes of health inequalities: theory, evidence, and policy implications. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51(1_suppl):S28–S40.
14.
SolarOIrwinA. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Social Determinants of Health Discussion Paper 2 (Policy and Practice). WHO, Geneve. 2007.
15.
SantosaAWallSFottrellEHögbergUByassP. The development and experience of epidemiological transition theory over four decades: a systematic review. Glob Health Action. 2014;7(1): 23574.
16.
Diez RouxAV. Estimating neighborhood health effects: the challenges of causal inference in a complex world. Social Science & Medicine. 2004;58:1953–1960.
17.
GalsterGC. The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: theory, evidence, and policy implications. In: Neighbourhood effects research: new perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht; 2012:23–56.
18.
MacintyreSEllawayACumminsS. Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them?Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(1);125–139.
KraemerMUYangCHGutierrezB, et al. The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science. 2020;368(6490):493–497.
21.
RocklövJSjödinH. High population densities catalyse the spread of COVID-19. J Travel Med. 2020;27(3):taaa038.
MugglinASCarlinBPZhuLConlonE. Bayesian areal interpolation, estimation, and smoothing: an inferential approach for geographic information systems. Environ Plan A. 1999;31(8):1337–1352.
24.
ThygesenLCErsbøllAK. When the entire population is the sample: strengths and limitations in register-based epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014;29(8):551–558.
RaudenbushSWBrykAS. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. 2nd ed. Sage; 2002.
27.
SnijdersTABBoskerRJ. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling. 1st ed. Sage; 1999.
28.
DuncanCJonesKMoonG. Context, composition and heterogeneity: using multilevel models in health research. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(1): 97–117.
29.
LeylandAHGoldsteinH. Multilevel Modelling of Health Statistics. Wiley; 2001.
30.
SubramanianSVJonesKDuncanC. Multilevel methods for public health research. In: KawachiIBerkmanLF, eds. Neighborhoods and health. Oxford University Press; 2003:65–111.
31.
HoxJJ. Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. Taylor & Francis; 2010.
32.
JonesKSubramanianSV. Developing multilevel models for analysing contextuality, heterogeneity and change using MLwiN 3 volume. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol; 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260771330
33.
MerloJChaixBYangMLynchJRåstamL. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: linking the statistical concept of clustering to the idea of contextual phenomenon. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005a;59(6):443–449.
34.
MerloJChaixBYangMLynchJRåstamL. A brief conceptual tutorial on multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: interpreting neighbourhood differences and the effect of neighbourhood characteristics on individual health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005b;59(12):1022–1029.
35.
MerloJYangMChaixBLynchJRåstamL. A brief conceptual tutorial on multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: investigating contextual phenomena in different groups of people. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005c;59(9):729–736.
36.
MerloJChaixBOhlssonH, et al. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(4):290–297.
37.
LintonNMKobayashiTYangY, et al. Incubation period and other epidemiological characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus infections with right truncation: a statistical analysis of publicly available case data. J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):538.
38.
InglesbyTV. Public health measures and the reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2. JAMA. 2020;323(21):2186–2187.
39.
PanALiuLWangC, et al. Association of public health interventions with the epidemiology of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1915–1923.
40.
CharltonCRasbashJBrowneWJHealyMCameronB. MLwiN Version 3.05. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol; 2020.
41.
BerkmanNDDavisTCMcCormackL. Health literacy: what is it?J Health Commun. 2010;15(S2): 9–19.
42.
RatzanSCParkerRM. Health literacy—identification and response. J Health Commun. 2006;11:713–715.
43.
PaakkariLOkanO. COVID-19: health literacy is an underestimated problem. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(5):e249–e250.
44.
SaracenoCBenassiDMorlicchioE. Poverty in Italy. Features and drivers in a European perspective. Bristol University Press; 2020.
45.
YouHWuXGuoX. Distribution of COVID-19 morbidity rate in association with social and economic factors in Wuhan, China: implications for urban development. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3417.
46.
SáF. Socioeconomic determinants of Covid-19 infections and mortality: evidence from England and Wales. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP14781; 2020. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3612850
47.
DahalSMizumotoKChowellG. Investigating spatial variability in COVID-19 pandemic severity across 19 geographic areas, Spain, 2020. medRxiv (preprinted article)
48.
MogiRKatoGAnnakaS. Socioeconomic inequality and COVID-19 prevalence across municipalities in Catalonia, Spain. SocArXiv (preprinted article). 2020.
49.
TakagiHKunoTYokoyamaY, et al. Meta-regression of COVID-19 prevalence/fatality on socioeconomic characteristics of data from top 50 US large cities. medRxiv (preprinted article). 2020.
50.
Schmitt-GrohéSTeohKUribeM. Covid-19: testing inequality in New York City (No. w27019). National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020.
MamelundSE. 1918 pandemic morbidity: the first wave hits the poor, the second wave hits the rich. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018;12(3):307–313.
53.
QuinnSCKumarS. Health inequalities and infectious disease epidemics: a challenge for global health security. Biosecur Bioterror. 2014;12(5):263–273.
54.
BourdieuP. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press; 1984.
55.
FotheringhamASWongDW. The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environ Plan A. 1991;23(7):1025–1044.
56.
BoyleMH.WillmsJD. Place effects for areas defined by administrative boundaries. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(6): 577–585.
57.
GullifordMCUkoumunneOCChinnS. Components of variance and intraclass correlations for the design of community-based surveys and intervention studies: data from the health survey for England 1994. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(9):876–883.
58.
MorelliNPratschkeJVitaleTCousinBDel FabbroMPiolattoM. Perché il Movimento 5 Stelle non ha sfondato a Milano? Un’analisi strutturale a scala metropolitana. Meridiana. 2019;96:159–184.
59.
ChiesiAM. Le specificità della terziarizzazione in Italia. Un’analisi delle differenze territoriali della struttura occupazionale. Quaderni di Sociologia. 1998;17:41–64.
60.
MartinottiG. La nuova morfologia sociale delle città. QA Rivista dell’Associazione Rossi-Doria. 2002;2:111–128.
61.
SaloneC. Città e regioni in Italia negli anni della “crisi”. Mélanges de l’École française de Rome-Italie et Méditerranée modernes et contemporaines. 2013;CXXV(2):1–10.
62.
SforziF. Il sistema locale come unità d’analisi integrata del territorio. In: GoriEGiovanniniPBatiN, eds. Verso i censimenti del, 2000. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Statistica; 2000:185–192.
63.
MamelundSE. Social inequality—a forgotten factor in pandemic influenza preparedness. Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening: tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke. 2017;137(12-13):911–913.
