4.6 Article

Disparities in COVID-19 Testing and Positivity in New York City

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 59, 期 3, 页码 326-332

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.06.005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Existing socioeconomic and racial disparities in healthcare access in New York City have likely impacted the public health response to COVID-19. An ecological study was performed to determine the spatial distribution of COVID-19 testing by ZIP code Tabulation Area and investigate if testing was associated with race or SES. Methods: Data were obtained from the New York City coronavirus data repository and 2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. A combined index of SES was created using principal component analysis and incorporated household income, gross rent, poverty, education, working class status, unemployment, and occupants per room. Multivariable Poisson regressions were performed to predict the number of total tests and the ratio of positive tests to total tests performed, using the SES index, racial composition, and Hispanic composition as predictors. Results: The number of total tests significantly increased with the increasing proportion of white residents (beta =0.004, SE=0.001, p=0.0032) but not with increasing Hispanic composition or SES index score. The ratio of positive tests to total tests significantly decreased with the increasing pro-portion of white residents in the ZIP code Tabulation Area (beta= -0.003, SE=0.000 6, p<0.001) and with increasing SES index score (beta= -0.001 6, SE=0.0007, p=0.0159). Conclusions: In New York City, COVID-19 testing has not been proportional to need; existing socioeconomic and racial disparities in healthcare access have likely impacted public health response. There is urgent need for widespread testing and public health outreach for the most vulnerable communities in New York City. (C) 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据