Unequal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 on life expectancy across urban areas in Chile: a cross-sectional demographic study

  1. Gonzalo Mena
  2. José Manuel Aburto

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

To quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on life expectancy in Chile categorised by rural and urban areas, and to correlate life expectancy changes with socioeconomic factors at the municipal level.

Design

Retrospective cross-sectional demographic analysis using aggregated national all-cause death data stratified by year, sex and municipality during the period 2010–2020.

Setting and population

Chilean population by age, sex and municipality from 2002 to 2020.

Main outcome measures

Stratified mortality rates using a Bayesian methodology. These were based on vital and demographic statistics from the national institute of statistics and department of vital statistics of ministry of health. With this, we assessed the unequal impact of the pandemic in 2020 on life expectancy across Chilean municipalities for males and females and analysed previous mortality trends since 2010.

Results

Life expectancy declined for both males and females in 2020 compared with 2019. Urban areas were the most affected, with males losing 1.89 years and females 1.33 years. The strength of the decline in life expectancy correlated positively with indicators of social deprivation and poverty. Also, inequality in life expectancy between municipalities increased, largely due to excess mortality among the working-age population in socially disadvantaged municipalities.

Conclusions

Not only do people in poorer areas live shorter lives, they also have been substantially more affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to increased population health inequalities. Quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on life expectancy provides a more comprehensive picture of the toll.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059201
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.08.21267475: (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: 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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.08.21267475 on medRxiv