Abstract
Importance Optimizing the public health response to reduce coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) burden necessitates characterizing population-level heterogeneity of COVID-19 risks. However, heterogeneity in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing may introduce biased estimates depending on analytic design.
Objective Characterizing individual, environmental, and social determinants of SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 diagnosis.
Design We conducted cross-sectional analyses among 14.7 million people comparing individual, environmental, and social determinants among individuals who were tested versus not yet tested. Among those diagnosed, we used three analytic designs to compare predictors of: 1) individuals testing positive versus negative; 2) symptomatic individuals testing positive versus negative; and 3) individuals testing positive versus individuals not testing positive (i.e. testing negative or not being tested). Analyses included tests conducted between March 1 and June 20, 2020.
Setting Ontario, Canada.
Participants All individuals with ≥1 healthcare system contact since March 2012, excluding individuals deceased before, or born after, March 1, 2020, or residing in a long-term care facility.
Exposures Individual-level characteristics (age, sex, underlying health conditions, prior healthcare use), area-based environmental (air pollution) exposures, and area-based social determinants of health (income, education, housing, marital status, race/ethnicity, and recent immigration).
Main Outcomes and Measures Odds of SARS-CoV-2 test, and of COVID-19 diagnosis.
Results Of a total of 14,695,579 individuals, 758,691 had been tested, of whom 25,030 (3.3%) tested positive. The further the odds of testing from the null, the more variability observed in the odds of diagnosis across analytic design, particularly among individual factors. There was less variability in testing by social determinants across analytic design. Residing in areas with highest household density (adjusted odds ratio: 2.08; 95%CI: 1.95-1.21), lowest educational attainment (adjusted odds ratio: 1.52; 95%CI: 1.44-1.60), and highest proportion of recent immigrants (adjusted odds ratio: 1.12; 95%CI: 1.07-1.16) were consistently related to increased odds of COVID-19 across analytic designs.
Conclusions and Relevance Where testing is limited, risk factors may be better estimated using population comparators rather than test-negative comparators. Optimizing COVID-19 responses necessitates investment and sufficient coverage of structural interventions tailored to heterogeneity in social determinants of risk, including household crowding and systemic racism.
Question What are the social determinants of health that contextualize individual-level risks for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and how do selection biases affect our understanding of these risks?
Findings In this province-wide observational study of 14.7 million Canadians, social determinants related to housing, education, and recent immigration were associated with increased COVID-19 risks, with little evidence of selection bias. Individual factors, such as underlying health conditions, were more prone to selection bias using certain analytic approaches.
Meaning Social determinants of health appear to drive COVID-19 incidence in Ontario, Canada. Interventions aiming to prevent COVID-19 transmission should address these empiric structural risks.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by the St. Michael's Hospital Research Innovation Council COVID-19 Research Grant, and research operating grant (VR5-172683) from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. SM is supported by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Mathematical Modelling and Program Science. JCK is supported by a Clinician-Scientist Award from the University of Toronto Department of Family and Community Medicine. This study was supported by ICESS, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). The study sponsors did not participate in the design and conduct of the study; collection; management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
ICES has obtained ethical approval (and repeats this review tri-annually) for its privacy and security policies, procedures, and practices. Each research project that is conducted at ICES is also subject to internal ethical review by the ICES Privacy and Compliance Office. Please find attached to this submission a letter with more information regarding the ethical review and approval process for this research; please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. ICES is a prescribed entity under section 45 of Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA). Section 45 is the provision that enables analysis and compilation of statistical information related to the management, evaluation, and monitoring of, allocation of resources to, and planning for the health system. Section 45 authorizes health information custodians to disclose personal health information to a prescribed entity, like ICES, without consent for such purposes. Projects conducted wholly under section 45, by definition, do not require review by a Research Ethics Board. As a prescribed entity, ICES must submit to trio-annual review and approval of its privacy and security policies, procedures and practices by Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner. These include policies, practices and procedures that require internal review and approval of every project by ICES' Privacy and Compliance Office. ICES was approved by the Commissioner for a fifth time in 2017.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data referred to in the manuscript are private data concerning the health of all individuals living in Ontario, Canada. The data are shared in a secure manner between the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and ICES, a not-for-profit research institute. The de-identified and aggregated data may be available upon consultation with ICES.
