Considering social inequalities in health in COVID-19 response: insights from a French case study

Developing community resilience in the face of COVID-19: case study from the Estrie region, Canada

The COVID-19 pandemic undeniably impacted population health and several aspects of community organization, including service delivery and social cohesion. Intersectoral collaboration and equity, two key dimensions of community resilience, proved central to an effective and equitable response to the pandemic. Yet the factors that enabled or constrained communities' capacity to enact intersectoral collaboration and equity-focused action in such times of urgency and uncertainty remain poorly understood. This descriptive qualitative study aimed to (1) describe the processes through which intersectoral collaboration and equity-focused action were deployed during the first wave of COVID-19 and (2) identify factors enabling and constraining these processes. We conducted semi-directed interviews with 35 representatives of the governmental, institutional, and public and third sectors from four municipal regional counties of the Estrie region (Québec, Canada). We coded detailed interview notes following a codebook thematic analysis approach. We identified three processes through which intersectoral collaboration and equity-focused action were deployed: (1) networking; (2) adaptation, creation and innovation; and (3) human-centred action. Examples of levers which supported the deployment of these processes included capitalizing on pre-existing networks, adapting practices and services, and investing in solidarity and mutual aid. The influencing factors we describe represent concrete targets for resilience-building action. Although focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, our findings are relevant to other types of health, social, environmental or economic crises, and may guide health promotion and community development practitioners towards more effective community resilience-building responses.

COVID-19 vaccination at a hospital in Paris: Spatial analyses and inverse equity hypothesis

Background

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been deployed in France since January 2021. Without specific action for different population subgroups, the inverse equity hypothesis postulates that people in the most deprived neighbourhoods will be the last to benefit. The article aims to study whether the inverse care law has been verified in the context of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 from a vaccination centre of a hospital in the Paris region.

Methods

We performed a spatial analysis using primary data from the vaccination centre of the Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny from January 8th to September 30th, 2021. Primary data variables include the vaccinated person's date, age, and postal address. Secondary data calculates access times between residential neighbourhoods and the vaccination centre and social deprivation index. We performed flow analysis, k-means aggregation, and mapping.

Results

32,712 people were vaccinated at the study centre. Vaccination flow to the hospital shows that people living in the most disadvantaged areas were the last to be vaccinated. The number of people immunized according to the level of social deprivation then scales out with slightly more access to the vaccination centre for the most advantaged. The furthest have travelled more than 100 km, and more than 1h45 of transport time to get to this vaccination centre.

Conclusion

The study confirms the inverse equity hypothesis and shows that vaccination preparedness strategies must consider equity issues. Public health interventions should be implemented according to proportionate universalism and use community health, health mediation, and outreach activities for more equity.

COVID-19 patient experiences in prehospital pathways: a processual approach using life-events calendar method and state sequence analysis shows detrimental delays

OBJECTIVES

To our best knowledge, no study in France has comprehensively investigated the prehospital history of patients admitted for severe cases of COVID-19. 'Patients' voice is an excellent means to capture data on primary care pathways.We aimed to identify clusters of COVID-19 hospitalised patients with similar prehospital symptom sequences, and to test whether these clusters were associated with a higher risk of poor clinical outcomes.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional online survey using life-event calendars.

SETTING

All patients hospitalised for COVID-19 between September 2020 and May 2021 in the Infectious Disease Departments in Nice and in Marseilles in France.

PARTICIPANTS

312 patients responded to the survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

From the day of symptom onset to the day of hospitalisation, we defined a symptom sequence as the time-ordered vector of the successive symptom grades (grade 1, grade 2, grade 3). State sequence analysis with optimal matching was used to identify clusters of patients with similar symptom sequences. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed to test whether these clusters were associated with admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and COVID-19 sequelae after hospitalisation.

RESULTS

Three clusters of symptom sequences were identified among 312 complete prehospital pathways. A specific group of patients (29%) experienced extended symptoms of severe COVID-19, persisting for an average duration of 7.5 days before hospitalisation. This group had a significantly higher probability of being admitted to ICU (adjusted OR 2.01). They were less likely to know a loved one who was a healthcare worker, and more likely to have a lower level of education. Similarly, this group of patients, who were more likely to have previously visited the emergency room without exhibiting severe symptoms at that time, may have been inclined to postpone reassessment when their health worsened.Their relatives played a decisive role in their hospitalisation.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

This study highlights the negative impact of delayed hospitalisation on the health outcomes of French patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave and underscores the influence of socioeconomic factors, such as lower education levels and limited connections to the medical field, on patients' experiences.

COVID-19-related global health governance and population health priorities for health equity in G20 countries: a scoping review

Since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, the promotion of health equity including the health of various population sub-groups has been compromised, human rights jeopardised, and social inequities further exacerbated. Citizens worldwide, including in the Group of 20 (G20) countries, were affected by both global health governance (GHG) processes and decisions and public health measures taken by governments to respond to COVID-19. While it is critical to swiftly respond to COVID-19, little is known about how and to what extent the GHG is affecting population health priorities for health equity in global economies such as the G20 countries. This scoping review synthesised and identified knowledge gaps on how the COVID-19-related GHG is affecting population health priorities for policy, programme, and research in G20 countries. We followed the five-stage scoping review methodology promoted by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We searched four bibliographic databases for references conducted in G20 countries and regions and published in English and French, between January 2020 and April 2023. Out of 4,625 references and after two phases of screening, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. G20 countries included in the review were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the European Union. We found insufficient collaboration and coordination and misalignment among governance actors at multiple levels. In most cases, equity considerations were not prioritised while unequal consequences of COVID-19 public health measures on population groups were widely reported. COVID-19-related population health priorities mainly focused on upstream and midstream determinants of health. Our scoping review showed the stark inequities of COVID-19 public health outcomes, coupled with a prevalent lack of coherent collaboration and coordination among governance actors. Moreover, governance as an object of empirical study is still emerging when examining its intersection with global health and population health policy, programme, and research. An urgent shift is required to effectively act upon structural health determinants that include transformative and comprehensive policies for prevention, equity, resilience, and sustainable health.

Did the design and planning of testing and contact tracing interventions for COVID-19 consider social inequalities in health? A multiple case study from Brazil, Canada, France & Mali

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented global crisis. It has exposed and exacerbated weaknesses in public health systems worldwide, particularly with regards to reaching the most vulnerable populations, disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. The objective of our study was to examine whether and how social inequalities in health (SIH) were considered in the design and planning of public health responses to COVID-19 in jurisdictions of Brazil, Canada, France, and Mali. This article reports on a qualitative multiple case study of testing and contact tracing interventions in regions with high COVID-19 incidence in each country, namely: Manaus (Brazil), Montréal (Canada), Île-de-France (France), and Bamako (Mali). We conducted interviews with 108 key informants involved in these interventions in the four jurisdictions, focusing on the first and second waves of the pandemic. We analyzed our data thematically using a theoretical bricolage framework. Our analysis suggests that the lack of a common understanding of SIH among all actors involved and the sense of urgency brought by the pandemic eclipsed the prioritization of SIH in the initial responses. The pandemic increased intersectoral collaboration, but decision-making power was often unequal between Ministries of Health and other actors in each jurisdiction. Various adaptations to COVID-19 interventions were implemented to reach certain population groups, therefore improving the accessibility, availability, and acceptability of testing and contact tracing. Our study contributes to identifying lessons learned from the current pandemic, namely that the ways in which SIH are understood shape how interventions are planned; that having clear guidelines on how to integrate SIH into public health interventions could lead to more inclusive pandemic responses; that for intersectoral collaboration to be fruitful, there needs to be sufficient resources and equitable decision-making power between partners; and that interventions must be flexible to respond to emerging needs while considering long-standing structural inequalities.