Cited by 103COVID-19 epidemiological studiesCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesHealth disparities and outcomes

Social determinants of mortality from COVID-19: A simulation study using NHANES

Open access
Seligman, Benjamin, Ferranna, Maddalena, Bloom, David E.·2021·PLOS Medicine

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 epidemic in the United States is widespread, with more than 200,000 deaths reported as of September 23, 2020. While ecological studies show higher burdens of COVID-19 mortality in areas with higher rates of poverty, little is known about social determinants of COVID-19 mortality at the individual level. Methods and findings: We estimated the proportions of COVID-19 deaths by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbid conditions using their reported univariate proportions among COVID-19 deaths and correlations among these variables in the general population from the 2017–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We used these proportions to randomly sample individuals from NHANES. We analyzed the distributions of COVID-19 deaths by race/ethnicity, income, education level, and veteran status. We analyzed the association of these characteristics with mortality by logistic regression. Summary demographics of deaths include mean age 71.6 years, 45.9% female, and 45.1% non-Hispanic white. We found that disproportionate deaths occurred among individuals with nonwhite race/ethnicity (54.8% of deaths, 95% CI 49.0%–59.6%,p< 0.001), individuals with income below the median (67.5%, 95% CI 63.4%–71.5%,p< 0.001), individuals with less than a high school level of education (25.6%, 95% CI 23.4% –27.9%,p< 0.001), and veterans (19.5%, 95% CI 15.8%–23.4%,p< 0.001). Except for veteran status, these characteristics are significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality in multiple logistic regression. Limitations include the lack of institutionalized people in the sample (e.g., nursing home residents and incarcerated persons), the need to use comorbidity data collected from outside the US, and the assumption of the same correlations among variables for the noninstitutionalized population and COVID-19 decedents. Conclusions: Substantial inequalities in COVID-19 mortality are likely, with disproportionate burdens falling on those who are of racial/ethnic minorities, are poor, have less education, and are veterans. Healthcare systems must ensure adequate access to these groups. Public health measures should specifically reach these groups, and data on social determinants should be systematically collected from people with COVID-19.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003490

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Caregiver loss is even more heavily concentrated in vulnerable populations than shown in our results.

    “Our ability to observe more specific geographic and demographic disparities is constrained by the limitations of available data, but we can infer from other analyses that caregiver loss is even more heavily concentrated in vulnerable populations than shown in our results.”

    From Parental and Other Caregiver Loss Due to COVID-19 in the United States: Prevalence by Race, State, Relationship, and Child Age (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Discussion says COVID-19 mortality disproportionately affects socially disadvantaged groups and that the disparities found by its simulation are likely underestimated. The paper studies deaths, not caregiver loss, so it does not establish that caregiver loss is more concentrated in vulnerable populations than the citing authors’ results show. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Low-income individuals are at highest risk of death from COVID-19, and low-income counties faced disproportionately large shares of COVID-19 deaths, even after controlling for other indicators of wellbeing.

    “Low-income individuals are at highest risk of death from COVID-19 and low-income counties faced disproportionately large shares of COVID-19 deaths, even after controlling for other indicators of wellbeing in two studies focused on individual and communitylevel associations with COVID-19 mortality rates of all persons [11, 28].”

    From Parental and Other Caregiver Loss Due to COVID-19 in the United States: Prevalence by Race, State, Relationship, and Child Age (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results report that people below median income accounted for a disproportionate 67.5% of simulated COVID-19 deaths, and the Discussion describes disproportionate mortality among low- or middle-income families. The paper does not establish that low-income individuals had the highest risk. The county-level finding appears to be attributed to the other study cited in the sentence, not this one. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [40]Santé Publique France. [ COVID-19: epidemiological update for 3 September 2020]. Saint-Maurice: Santé Publique France; 2020 [cited 2020 Sep 10]. Available from: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/maladies-et-infections-respiratoires/infection-a-coronavirus/documents/bulletin-national/covid-19-point-epidemiologique-du-3-septembre-2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seligman, B., Ferranna, M., & Bloom, D. E.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Seligman, Benjamin
Venue
PLOS Medicine
Published
2021-01-11
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
e1003490
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W3119998633
Cited by
103
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 1
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1158136)
  • Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
COVID-19 mortality, social determinants of health, racial and ethnic disparities, income inequality, educational attainment, veteran status, comorbidities, health disparities, NHANES, health care access, public health measures, age and sex differences in mortality, health equity policy, health workforce diversity, health workforce shortage
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Aged, Ethnicity, Female, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Male, Mortality, Public Health, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Comorbidity, Healthcare Disparities, Veterans Health, Quality Improvement, Social Determinants of Health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review