Low Covid-19 hospitalisation in Dumfries and Galloway: comparison with other Scottish health boards

  1. Andrew Rideout
  2. Calum Murray
  3. Chris Isles

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Covid-19 virus activity appears to have affected some parts of the United Kingdom more than others. Dumfries and Galloway (D&G) has seen fewer hospitalised cases than predicted. We wondered whether this might be related at least in part to population density.

Methods

We compared Covid-19 hospitalisation rates/100,000 population in D&G with those of the other 10 mainland Scottish health boards. We chose two time points: 19th April which was the peak of the pandemic in Scotland and 15th May, seven and a half weeks after lockdown. We used chi square and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals to test for differences in hospitalisation rates and Pearson’s correlation coefficient to examine the relation between hospitalisation rates and population density. Population density for each health board was provided by National Records of Scotland.

Results

Hospitalisation in D&G was 13.4/100,000 on 19th April, falling to 1.3/100,000 by 15th May. Corresponding hospitalisation rates in Greater Glasgow & Clyde (GGC) were 50.1/100,000 and 38.9/100,000. Compared to GGC, hospitalisation rates in D&G were 3 times lower at peak (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17, 0.42) and 30 times lower by 15th May (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01, 0.14). Hospitalisation rates for the other health boards lay in between values recorded for D&G and GGC and fell in 10 of the 11 boards between these two dates. There was a positive association between hospitalisation rate and population density (r=0.756, p=0.007 on 19th April and r=0.840, p<0.001 for 15th May).

Conclusion

We have confirmed there are large differences in Covid-19 hospitalisation rates across the 11 mainland Scottish health boards, that are in part related to population density. These data support a regional rather than one nation approach to easing Covid-19 restrictions.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.22.20110163: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.22.20110163v1 on medRxiv