Association of urban inequality and income segregation with COVID-19 mortality in Brazil

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
4
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2022
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
Autores
SOUSA FILHO, J. Firmino de
SILVA, Uriel M.
LIMA, Larissa L.
PAIVA, Aureliano S. S.
SANTOS, Gervasio F. H.
ANDRADE, Roberto F. S.
SILVEIRA, Ismael H.
FRICHE, Amelia A. de Lima
BARRETO, Mauricio L.
Citação
PLOS ONE, v.17, n.11, article ID e0277441, 12p, 2022
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Socioeconomic factors have exacerbated the impact of COVID-19 worldwide. Brazil, already marked by significant economic inequalities, is one of the most affected countries, with one of the highest mortality rates. Understanding how inequality and income segregation contribute to excess mortality by COVID-19 in Brazilian cities is essential for designing public health policies to mitigate the impact of the disease. This paper aims to fill in this gap by analyzing the effect of income inequality and income segregation on COVID-19 mortality in large urban centers in Brazil. We compiled weekly COVID-19 mortality rates from March 2020 to February 2021 in a longitudinal ecological design, aggregating data at the city level for 152 Brazilian cities. Mortality rates from COVID-19 were compared across weeks, cities and states using mixed linear models. We estimated the associations between COVID-19 mortality rates with income inequality and income segregation using mixed negative binomial models including city and week-level random intercepts. We measured income inequality using the Gini index and income segregation using the dissimilarity index using data from the 2010 Brazilian demographic census. We found that 88.2% of COVID-19 mortality rates variability was between weeks, 8.5% between cities, and 3.3% between states. Higher-income inequality and higher-income segregation values were associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates before and after accounting for all adjustment factors. In our main adjusted model, rate ratios (RR) per 1 SD increases in income inequality and income segregation were associated with 17% (95% CI 9% to 26%) and 11% (95% CI 4% to 19%) higher mortality. Income inequality and income segregation are long-standing hallmarks of large Brazilian cities. Risk factors related to the socioeconomic context affected the course of the pandemic in the country and contributed to high mortality rates. Pre-existing social vulnerabilities were critical factors in the aggravation of COVID-19, as supported by the observed associations in this study.
Palavras-chave
Referências
  1. Acemoglu D., 2021, INT MONET FUND, P6
  2. Baqui P, 2020, LANCET GLOB HEALTH, V8, P1018, DOI 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30285-0
  3. Barber S, 2018, SOC SCI MED, V199, P67, DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.05.047
  4. Bilal U, 2021, NAT MED, V27, P463, DOI 10.1038/s41591-020-01214-4
  5. Campello T., 2014, BRASIL SEM MISERIA 1
  6. Cardoso, 2020, CORNELL U PREPR PAP
  7. Caribbean EC for LA and the, 2020, COVID 19 SOC CRIS LA
  8. Chandola T, 2012, PUBLIC HEALTH, V126, P259, DOI 10.1016/j.puhe.2011.12.008
  9. Clark A, 2020, LANCET GLOB HEALTH, V8, P1003, DOI 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30264-3
  10. Cota W., 2020, SCIELO PREPR, V444, P1, DOI [DOI 10.1590/SCIELOPREPRINTS.362, 10.1590/scielopreprints.362]
  11. dos Santos MI, 2021, SSM-POPUL HLTH, V14, DOI 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100819
  12. Friesen J, 2020, JMIR PUBLIC HLTH SUR, V6, P176, DOI 10.2196/19578
  13. Garcia-Lopez MA, 2018, REG SCI URBAN ECON, V71, P62, DOI 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2018.05.003
  14. Haughton J, 2009, HDB POVERTY INEQUALI
  15. IBGE, 2010, PROD INT BRUT MUN
  16. IBGE, 2010, I BRAS GEOGR ESTAT S
  17. Jones DS, 2020, NEW ENGL J MED, V382, P1681, DOI 10.1056/NEJMp2004361
  18. Kephart JL, 2021, LANCET DIGIT HEALTH, V3, pE716, DOI 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00174-6
  19. Magnusson A., 2021, PACKAGE GLMMTMB R PA
  20. Ortigoza AF, 2021, J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H, V75, P264, DOI 10.1136/jech-2020-215137
  21. Guedes MBOG, 2021, PLOS ONE, V16, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0257347
  22. Quistberg DA, 2019, J URBAN HEALTH, V96, P311, DOI 10.1007/s11524-018-00326-0
  23. Reardon SF, 2011, AM J SOCIOL, V116, P1092, DOI 10.1086/657114
  24. Requia WJ, 2020, SCI TOTAL ENVIRON, V730, DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139144
  25. Ribeiro HV, 2020, PLOS ONE, V15, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0239699
  26. Roberts BR, 2009, URBAN SEGREGATION AND GOVERNANCE IN THE AMERICAS, P1, DOI 10.1057/9780230620841
  27. Rocha R, 2021, LANCET GLOB HEALTH, V9, pE782, DOI 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00081-4
  28. Roux AVD, 2019, GLOB CHALL, V3, DOI 10.1002/gch2.201800013
  29. Souza PHGF, 2018, RES SOC STRAT MOBIL, V57, P35, DOI 10.1016/j.rssm.2018.07.003
  30. Tampe T., 2019, CITIES HEAL, P1
  31. Tavares FF, 2021, WORLD DEV, V139, DOI 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105307
  32. Tirachini A, 2020, J PUBLIC TRANSPORT, V22, P1, DOI [10.5038/2375-0901.22.1.1, 10.5038/2375-091.22.1.1]
  33. United Nations, 2021, EARTH SYST GOV
  34. Watson T, 2009, REV INCOME WEALTH, V55, P820, DOI 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00346.x
  35. Wilkinson Richard, 2019, INNER LEVEL MORE EQU