Search

Life expectancy in the United States is decreasing. Health disparities are widening. Growing evidence for and integration of social and structural determinants into theory and practice has not yet improved outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the fact. In this paper, we argue that the biomedical model and its underlying scientific paradigm of causal determinism, which currently dominate population health, cannot meet population health needs. While criticism of the biomedical model is not new, this paper advances the field by going beyond criticism to recognize the need for a paradigm shift. In the first half of the paper, we present a critical analysis of the biomedical model and the paradigm of causal determinism. In the second half, we outline the agentic paradigm and present a structural model of health based on generalizable, group-level processes. We use the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate the practical applications of our model. It will be important for future work to investigate the empirical and pragmatic applications of our structural model of population health. • Population health must move beyond the biomedical model. • This requires going beyond the model to critique the paradigm of causal determinism. • The agentic paradigm is an alternative to causal determinism. • The structural model is an alternative to the biomedical model. • The structural model highlights structural resilience and congruence in the population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Delta-Omicron wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Wave 4) in the United States occurred in Fall of 2021 through Spring of 2022. Although vaccinations were widely available, this was the deadliest period to date in the U.S., and the toll was especially high in rural areas, exacerbating an existing rural mortality penalty. This paper uses county-level multilevel regression models and publicly available data for 47 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. We describe differences in COVID-19 case and mortality rates across the rural-urban continuum during Wave 4 of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a progressive modeling approach, we evaluate the relative contribution of a range of explanatory factors for the rural disadvantage we observe, including: pre-pandemic population health composition, vaccination rates, political partisanship, socioeconomic composition, access to broadband internet rate, and primary care physicians per capita. Results show that rural counties had higher observed burdens of cases and deaths in Wave 4 compared to more urban counties. The most remote rural counties had Wave 4 COVID-19 mortality rates 52% higher than the most urban counties. Older age composition, worse pre-pandemic population health, lower vaccination rates, higher share of votes cast for Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential election, and lower socioeconomic composition completely explained the rural disadvantage in reported COVID-19 case rates in Wave 4, and accounting for these factors reversed the observed rural disadvantage in COVID-19 mortality. In models of mortality rate, Trump vote share had the largest effect size, followed by the percentage of the population age 50 or older, the poverty rate, the pre-pandemic mortality rate, the share of residents with a 4-year college degree, and the vaccination rate. These findings add to a growing literature describing the disproportionate toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural America, highlighting the combined effect of multiple sources of rural disadvantage. • Rural counties had higher case and death rates in the Delta-Omicron wave. • Rural counties had up to 51% more deaths per capita than the most urban counties. • Age, health, and SES composition partially explained the rural disadvantage. • Vaccination and Trump vote share were separate factors in the rural disadvantage. • Multiple sources of disadvantage combined in rural areas to produce poor outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many parts of the world nursing home residents have experienced a disproportionate risk of exposure to COVID-19 and have died at much higher rates than other groups. There is a critical need to identify the factors driving COVID-19 risk in nursing homes to better understand and address the conditions contributing to their vulnerability during public health crises. This study investigates the characteristics associated with COVID-19 cases and deaths among residents in U.S. nursing homes from 2020 to 2021, with a focus on geospatial and racial inequalities. Using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and LTCFocus, this paper uses zero-inflated negative binomial regression models, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Local Moran's I to generate statistical and geospatial results. Our analysis reveals that majority Hispanic facilities have alarmingly high COVID-19 cases and deaths, suggesting that these facilities have the greatest need for policy improvements in staffing and financing to reduce racial inequalities in nursing home care. At the same time we also detect COVID-19 hot spots in rural areas with predominately White residents, indicating a need to rethink public messaging strategies in these areas. The top states with COVID-19 hot spots are Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Oklahoma. This research provides new insights into the socio-spatial contexts and inequities that contribute to the vulnerability of nursing home residents during a pandemic. • Geographic and racial inequalities are important indicators of covid-19 risk. • Covid-19 cases & deaths are high among facilities with majority Hispanic residents. • Facilities with majority Hispanic residents have high covid-19 vaccination rates. • Most covid-19 hot spots of cases & deaths are in predominantly White, rural areas. • The top states with covid-19 hot spots of cases & deaths are KY, PA, IL, and OK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. population health has been devastating, it has not affected everyone equally. The risks of hospitalization and death from the disease are relatively low for the population as a whole, but much higher for specific subpopulations defined by age, health status, and race or ethnicity. The extent to which Americans perceive these disparities is an open question, with potentially important political implications. Recognition of unequal impacts may prime concerns about justice and fairness, making Americans more concerned and willing to support government intervention. On the other hand, belief that the pandemic primarily threatens "other people" or out-groups may reduce, rather than increase, a person's concern. Partisanship and media consumption habits are also likely to play a role in these perceptions, as they do in most issues related to COVID-19. In this paper, we use original survey data from the Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000) to explore Americans' perceptions of which groups are most harmed by the pandemic, the demographic and political determinants of these perceptions, and the relationship of these perceptions with their opinions about COVID-related mitigation policy. We find that, on average, people perceived accurately that certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, older people) were more affected, but these group perceptions varied by demographic and political characteristics of respondents. We find, in contrast with recent experimental evidence, that the perception that populations of color were harmed was associated with more support for pandemic mitigation strategies. More research should investigate the relationships among pandemic politics and the racial dynamics of the target populations most affected. • In fall 2020, survey participants recognized groups harmed by COVID based on age. • They had lower recognition of racial groups harmed, lowest for Native Americans. • Perceptions of groups harmed varies by information exposure and politics. • Perceiving group disparities was associated with more support for pandemic policy. • The racial dynamics surrounding the politics of COVID-19 requires more attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Socioeconomic inequalities in childhood Body Mass Index (BMI) are becoming increasingly more pronounced across the world. Although countries differ in the direction and strength of these inequalities, cross-national comparative research on this topic is rare. This paper draws on harmonized longitudinal cohort data from four wealthy countries—Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US)—to 1) map cross-country differences in the magnitude of socioeconomic inequalities in childhood BMI, and 2) to examine cross-country differences in the role of three energy-balance-related behaviors—physical activity, screen time, and breakfast consumption—in explaining these inequalities. Children were aged 5–7 at our first timepoint and were followed up at age 8–11. We used data from the German National Educational Panel Study, the Dutch Generation R study, the UK Millennium Cohort Study and the US Early Childhood Longitudinal-Kindergarten Study. All countries revealed significant inequalities in childhood BMI. The US stood out in having the largest inequalities. Overall, inequalities between children with low versus medium educated parents were smaller than those between children with high versus medium educated parents. The role of energy-balance-related behaviors in explaining inequalities in BMI was surprisingly consistent. Across countries, physical activity did not, while screen time and breakfast consumption did play a role. The only exception was that breakfast consumption did not play a role in the US. Cross-country differences emerged in the relative contribution of each behavior in explaining inequalities in BMI: Breakfast consumption was most important in the UK, screen time explained most in Germany and the US, and breakfast consumption and screen time were equally important in the Netherlands. Our findings suggest that what constitutes the most effective policy intervention differs across countries and that these should target both children from medium as well as low educated families. • All countries showed substantial socioeconomic inequalities in childhood BMI. • In all countries, inequalities in BMI steepen over course of primary school. • Protective factors among the most advantaged seem to mainly drive inequalities. • Across most countries, underlying mechanisms for inequalities in BMI are similar. • The relative contribution of each mechanism to BMI inequalities differs per country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Puerto Ricans experience disproportionately high levels of emotional distress and co-occurring adverse health outcomes. Our study sought to elicit Puerto Rican men's perceptions of health disparities while centering dialogue on stressors, coping mechanisms, and general well-being. This paper focuses on one pronounced finding in our study, that of internalized racism and the effect it has on both individual well-being and intra-group cohesion. A significant gap within racial health disparity work is the role of internalized racism and its connection to psychological distress, ruptures in social unity, and resulting ill-health of racial and ethnic populations. Based on this, we probed this particular finding to further understand internalized racism within this Puerto Rican population. Using a hybrid thematic analysis approach, this study presents qualitative findings from in-depth interviews with Latino (92.5% Puerto Rican) men living in Springfield, Massachusetts and conducted between October 2019 and January 2020. Our findings reveal a duality throughout: The acceptance and propagation of negative Latinx stereotypes and consequent intragroup division exists alongside expressions of community pride and desire for Latinx unity. This duality is analyzed by using W.E.B. Du Bois's theory of double consciousness. Double consciousness not only explains the self-disparagement toward oneself and one's own racial and ethnic group, but also elucidates a liberatory pathway toward political consciousness and well-being. The concept of "second sight" within double consciousness is particularly germane, speaking to one's awakening to the learned self-subjugation imposed by White supremacy. Internalized racism contributes to the persistent propagation of disparate health burdens in minoritized communities. Remediation can and should include community-led frameworks for the development of efficacious multilevel health interventions. The Young Lords community health activism provides such a model. These findings provide viable evidence-based examples of how the academy can synergize with community-led efforts to achieve collective agency. • Internalized racism is a key contributor to emotional distress and intragroup cohesion. • Men repeated disparaging Latinx stereotypes alongside a desire for unity. • Research and community-led efforts can synergize toward collective agency and equity. • Critical praxis counters individual "self-help" public health initiatives. • Internalized racism can be tackled by engaging in community struggle and collectivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the first longitudinal study of sex disparities in COVID-19 cases and mortalities across U.S. states, derived from the unique 13-month dataset of the U.S. Gender/Sex COVID-19 Data Tracker. To analyze sex disparities, weekly case and mortality rates by sex and mortality rate ratios were computed for each U.S. state, and a multilevel crossed-effects conditional logistic binomial regression model was fitted to estimate the variation of the sex disparity in mortality over time and across states. Results demonstrate considerable variation in the sex disparity in COVID-19 cases and mortalities over time and between states. These data suggest that the sex disparity, when present, is modest, and likely varies in relation to context-sensitive variables, which may include health behaviors, preexisting health status, occupation, race/ethnicity, and other markers of social experience. • First report of findings from unique longitudinal dataset of sex-disaggregated COVID-19 data in U.S. states. • Sex disparities in COVID-19 are highly heterogeneous in magnitude and direction and vary across states and over time. • Gender-related and other social and contextual factors likely shape COVID-19 sex disparities. • Single-factor approaches are ill-positioned to explain patterns in sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]