Search

Background: Life expectancy in the United States has declined since 2014 but characterization of disparities within and across metropolitan areas of the country is lacking.Methods: Using census tract-level life expectancy from the 2010 to 2015 US Small-area Life Expectancy Estimates Project, we calculate 10 measures of total and income-based disparities in life expectancy at birth, age 25, and age 65 within and across 377 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) of the United States.Results: We found wide heterogeneity in disparities in life expectancy at birth across MSAs and regions: MSAs in the West show the narrowest disparities (absolute disparity: 8.7 years, relative disparity: 1.1), while MSAs in the South (absolute disparity: 9.1 years, relative disparity: 1.1) and Midwest (absolute disparity: 9.8 years, relative disparity: 1.1) have the widest life expectancy disparities. We also observed greater variability in life expectancy across MSAs for lower income census tracts (coefficient of variation [CoV] 3.7 for first vs. tenth decile of income) than for higher income census tracts (CoV 2.3). Finally, we found that a series of MSA-level variables, including larger MSAs and greater proportion college graduates, predicted wider life expectancy disparities for all age groups.Conclusions: Sociodemographic and policy factors likely help explain variation in life expectancy disparities within and across metro areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cadernos de Saude Publica is the property of Escola Nacional de Saude Publica Sergio Arouca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Indoor dining is one of the potential drivers of COVID-19 transmission. We used the heterogeneity among state government preemption of city indoor dining closures to estimate the impact of keeping indoor dining closed on COVID-19 incidence. Methods: We obtained case rates and city or state reopening dates from March to October 2020 in 11 US cities. We categorized cities as treatment cities that were allowed by the state to reopen but kept indoor dining closed or comparison cities that would have kept indoor dining closed but that were preempted by their state and had to reopen indoor dining. We modeled associations using a difference-in-difference approach and an event study specification. We ran negative binomial regression models, with city-day as the unit of analysis, city population as an offset, and controlling for time-varying nonpharmaceutical interventions, as well as city and time fixed effects in sensitivity analysis and the event study specification. Results: Keeping indoor dining closed was associated with a 55% (IRR = 0.45; 95% confidence intervals = 0.21, 0.99) decline in the new COVID-19 case rate over 6 weeks compared with cities that reopened indoor dining, and these results were consistent after testing alternative modeling strategies. Conclusions: Keeping indoor dining closed may be directly or indirectly associated with reductions in COVID-19 spread. Evidence of the relationship between indoor dining and COVID-19 case rates can inform policies to restrict indoor dining as a tailored strategy to reduce COVID-19 incidence. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B902. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]