Continuing inequalities in COVID-19 mortality in England and Wales, and the changing importance of regional, over local, deprivation

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.28.22270022: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has several limitations. We only measure the impact of geography in a strictly hierarchical sense, where knowing the higher-level context of each lower-level unit. Our model cannot consider spatial contiguity or proximity or spatial networks. Similarly, if we have mis-specified structural levels at which spatial inequalities in COVID mortality are experienced, we might expect higher-level MRRs to underestimate true inequalities. We also cannot infer about the importance of spatial context relative to within-MSOA, between-individual differences as individual-level data are not accessible [27]. There is good reason to suspect an association between deprivation and COVID-19 outcomes, for instance, labour markets in more deprived areas lend themselves less readily to working from home [28]. Here, we find strong evidence that material deprivation is associated with COVID-19 mortality, and that this association strengthened markedly between August and October 2020, supporting previous work demonstrating this with infections [2]. However, here we go further and decompose deprivation into deprivation relative to neighbouring areas, centred on the broader regional average, and find that regional deprivation is actually more informative for MSOA mortality than the relative deprivation of the MSOA itself. Moreover, we find results consistent with Morrissey et al. [2] that this relationship subsequently reverses, though reversal is delayed for mortality compared with cases. Due...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.