RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Spatial risk factors for Pillar 1 COVID-19 case counts and mortality in rural eastern England, UK
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.03.20239681
DO 10.1101/2020.12.03.20239681
A1 Brainard, Julii
A1 Rushton, Steve
A1 Winters, Tim
A1 Hunter, Paul R.
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/04/2020.12.03.20239681.abstract
AB Understanding is still developing about risk factors for COVID-19 infection or mortality. This is especially true with respect to identifying spatial risk factors and therefore identifying which geographic areas have populations who are at greatest risk of acquiring severe disease. This is a secondary analysis of patient records in a confined area of eastern England, covering persons who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 through end May 2020, including dates of death and residence area. For each residence area (local super output area), we obtained data on air quality, deprivation levels, care home bed capacity, age distribution, rurality, access to employment centres and population density. We considered these covariates as risk factors for excess cases and excess deaths in the 28 days after confirmation of positive covid status relative to the overall case load and death recorded for the study area as a whole. We used the conditional autoregressive Besag-York-Mollie model to investigate the spatial dependency of cases and deaths allowing for a Poisson error structure. Structural equation models were also applied to clarify relationships between predictors and outcomes. Excess case counts or excess deaths were both predicted by the percentage of population age 65 years, care home bed capacity and less rurality: older population and more urban areas saw excess cases. Greater deprivation did not correlate with excess case counts but was significantly linked to higher mortality rates after infection. Neither excess cases nor excess deaths were predicted by population density, travel time to local employment centres or air quality indicators. Only 66% of mortality could be explained by locally high case counts. The results show a clear link between greater deprivation and higher COVID-19 mortality that is separate from wider community prevalence and other spatial risk factors.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementProfessor Hunter and Dr. Brainard were funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at Kings College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) and collaboration with the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, UEA, the Department of Health or PHE.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The data generator (Norfolk and Waveney Clinical Commissioning Group) shared the audit dataset to enable us to undertake this research. Research governance was also provided by the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ethics Research Ethics Committee at UEA; their approval reference is 2019/20-127.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe data are not available. They are anonymised but still records of individuals who did not give consent for wide distribution. Our IRB did not include wide distribution.