Dataset Information

Impact of COVID-19 on the Health of the General and More Vulnerable Population and Its Determinants: Health Care and Social Survey-ESSOC, Study Protocol.

ABSTRACT: This manuscript describes the rationale and protocol of a real-world data (RWD) study entitled Health Care and Social Survey (ESSOC, Encuesta Sanitaria y Social). The study's objective is to determine the magnitude, characteristics, and evolution of the COVID-19 impact on overall health as well as the socioeconomic, psychosocial, behavioural, occupational, environmental, and clinical determinants of both the general and more vulnerable population. The study integrates observational data collected through a survey using a probabilistic, overlapping panel design, and data from clinical, epidemiological, demographic, and environmental registries. The data will be analysed using advanced statistical, sampling, and machine learning techniques. The study is based on several measurements obtained from three random samples of the Andalusian (Spain) population: general population aged 16 years and over, residents in disadvantaged areas, and people over the age of 55. Given the current characteristics of this pandemic and its future repercussions, this project will generate relevant information on a regular basis, commencing from the beginning of the State of Alarm. It will also establish institutional alliances of great social value, explore and apply powerful and novel methodologies, and produce large, integrated, high-quality and open-access databases. The information described here will be vital for health systems in order to design tailor-made interventions aimed at improving the health care, health, and quality of life of the populations most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Sanchez-Cantalejo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8345631 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of COVID-19 on the Health of the General and More Vulnerable Population and Its Determinants: Health Care and Social Survey-ESSOC, Study Protocol.

Sánchez-Cantalejo Carmen C Rueda María Del Mar MDM Saez Marc M Enrique Iria I Ferri Ramón R Fuente Miguel de La M Villegas Román R Castro Luis L Barceló Maria Antònia MA Daponte-Codina Antonio A Lorusso Nicola N Cabrera-León Andrés A

International journal of environmental research and public health 20210731 15

This manuscript describes the rationale and protocol of a real-world data (RWD) study entitled Health Care and Social Survey (ESSOC, Encuesta Sanitaria y Social). The study's objective is to determine the magnitude, characteristics, and evolution of the COVID-19 impact on overall health as well as the socioeconomic, psychosocial, behavioural, occupational, environmental, and clinical determinants of both the general and more vulnerable population. The study integrates observational data collecte ...[more]

PMID: 34360413

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveCancer survival rates have improved over the past few decades, yet socioeconomic disparities persist. Social determinants of health (SDOH) have consistently been shown to correlate with health outcomes. The objective of this study was to characterise oncologists' perceptions of the impact of SDOH on their patients, and their opinions on how these effects could be remediated.DesignCross-sectional survey of physicians.SettingWeb-based survey completed prior to live meetings held between February and April 2020.ParticipantsOncologists/haematologists from across the USA.ExposureClinical practice in a community-based or hospital-based setting.Main outcome and measurePhysician responses regarding how SDOH affected their patients, which factors represented the most significant barriers to optimal health outcomes and how the impact of SDOH could be mitigated through assistance programmes.ResultsOf the 165 physicians who completed the survey, 93% agreed that SDOH had a significant impact on their patients' health outcomes. Financial security/lack of insurance and access to transportation were identified most often as the greatest barriers for their patients (83% and 58%, respectively). Eighty-one per cent of physicians indicated that they and their staff had limited time to spend assisting patients with social needs, and 76% reported that assistance programmes were not readily accessible. Government organisations, hospitals, non-profit organisations and commercial payers were selected by 50% or more of oncologists surveyed as who should be responsible for delivering assistance programmes to patients with social needs; 42% indicated that pharmaceutical manufacturers should also be responsible.ConclusionOur survey found that most oncologists were aware of the impact of SDOH on their patients but were constrained in their time to assist patients with social needs. The physicians in our study identified a need for more accessible assistance programmes and greater involvement from all stakeholders in addressing SDOH to improve health outcomes.

Project description:Social determinants of health (SDOHs) mediate outcomes of critical illness. Increasingly, professional organizations recommend screening for social risks. Yet, how clinicians should identify and then incorporate SDOHs into acute care practice is poorly defined. How do medical ICU clinicians currently operationalize SDOHs within patient care, given that SDOHs are known to mediate outcomes of critical illness? Using ethnographic methods, we observed clinical work rounds in three urban ICUs within a single academic health system to capture use of SDOHs during clinical care. Adults admitted to the medical ICU with respiratory failure were enrolled prospectively sequentially. Observers wrote field notes and narrative excerpts from rounding observations. We also reviewed electronic medical record documentation for up to 90 days after ICU admission. We then qualitatively coded and triangulated data using a constructivist grounded theory approach and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthy People SDOHs framework. Sixty-six patients were enrolled and > 200 h of observation of clinical work rounds were included in the analysis. ICU clinicians infrequently integrated social structures of patients' lives into their discussions. Social structures were invoked most frequently when related to: (1) causes of acute respiratory failure, (2) decisions regarding life-sustaining therapies, and (3) transitions of care. Data about common SDOHs were not collected in any systematic way (eg, food and housing insecurity), and some SDOHs were discussed rarely or never (eg, access to education, discrimination, and incarceration). We found that clinicians do not incorporate many areas of known SDOHs into ICU rounds. Improvements in integration of SDOHs should leverage the multidisciplinary team, identifying who is best suited to collect information on SDOHs during different time points in critical illness. Next steps include clinician-focused, patient-focused, and caregiver-focused assessments of feasibility and acceptability of an ICU-based SDOHs assessment.

Project description:BackgroundDisadvantaged communities suffer higher levels of physical and mental ill health than more advantaged communities. The purpose of the present study was to examine the psychosocial, behavioural and biological determinants of ill health within population groups in Glasgow that differed in socioeconomic status and in their propensity to develop chronic disease especially coronary heart disease and Type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsParticipants were selected at random from areas known to be at the extremes of the socioeconomic continuum in Glasgow. Within the categories of least deprived and most deprived, recruitment was stratified by sex and age to achieve an overall sample containing approximately equal numbers of males and females and an even distribution across the age categories 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64 years. Individuals were invited by letter to attend for assessment of their medical history, risk factor status, cognitive function and psychological profile, morbidity, and carotid intima-media thickness and plaque count as indices of atherosclerosis. Anonymised data on study subjects were collected from the General Practice Administration System for Scotland to analyse characteristics of participants and non-participants.Results700 subjects were recruited. The response (active participants per 100 invitation letters) in the least deprived group was 35.1% and in the most deprived group was 20.3%. Lowest response was seen in young males (least deprived 22.4% and most deprived 14.1%).ConclusionThis cross-sectional study recruited the planned sample of subjects from least deprived and most deprived areas within Glasgow. As evident in other studies response differed between the most and least deprived areas. This study brought together researchers/academics from diverse disciplines to build a more sophisticated understanding of the determinants of health inequalities than can be achieved through unidisciplinary approaches. Future analyses will enable an understanding of the relationships between the different types of measure, and of the pathways that link poverty, biology, behaviour and psychology and lead to health inequalities.

Project description:BackgroundSocial determinants of health (SDH) have been shown to be predictors of health outcomes. Integrating SDH screening tools into primary care may help identify individuals or groups with a greater burden of social vulnerability and promote health equity.ObjectiveThis study aimed (1) to identify the existing screening tools to assess social deprivation in adults in primary care settings; (2) to describe the characteristics of these tools and, where appropriate, their psychometric properties; (3) to describe their validity and reliability in those scales in which validation processes have been conducted; and (4) to identify evidence gaps and provide recommendations for future research.MethodsThis study protocol was structured according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Furthermore, since not all SDH assessment tools are published as scientific papers, we will use a slightly modified form of the scoping review framework to retrieve specific information about specific tools for screening SDH in primary care contexts. The following electronic databases will be searched by 2 reviewers: MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and Scopus. In addition, the following sources will also be searched for gray literature: DART-Europe E-thesis Portal, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar. After the revision of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the titles, abstracts, and full text of the included studies will be separately screened by 2 reviewers. A PRISMA-ScR flowchart will be used to depict the sources of evidence screened, and data charting will be used to gain in-depth knowledge. The findings of the scoping review will be presented in both narrative and tabular formats, summarizing the existing literature on tools used for SDH in primary care settings. A critical analysis will be undertaken to address the variability in tool validation, cultural adaptability, and integration into different health care systems. Finally, key gaps in the existing evidence will be explored, and research priorities will be proposed, emphasizing the need for screening tools that are culturally sensitive, scalable, and easily integrated into primary care workflows. This critically appraised information may be useful for implementing SDH screening tools in primary care settings and may contribute to future research addressing feasibility and validation studies in different primary health care systems.ResultsThe study began in July 2024. Data collection is expected to be completed in April 2025, with publication expected in October 2025.ConclusionsThis scoping review will provide a comprehensive and critical description of the available tools aimed at screening SDH in primary care settings. Incorporating these tools into routine care has been recognized as a key strategy for addressing health inequalities, given the growing evidence base on the influence of SDH on health outcomes.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/68668.

Project description:BackgroundInterest in and funding for digital health interventions have rapidly grown in recent years. Despite the increasing familiarity with mobile health from regulatory bodies, providers, and patients, overarching research on digital health adoption has been primarily limited to morbidity-specific and non-US samples. Consequently, there is a limited understanding of what personal factors hold statistically significant relationships with digital health uptake. Moreover, this limits digital health communities' knowledge of equity along digital health use patterns.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the social determinants of digital health tool adoption in Georgia.MethodsWeb-based survey respondents in Georgia 18 years or older were recruited from mTurk to answer primarily closed-ended questions within the following domains: participant demographics and health consumption background, telehealth, digital health education, prescription management tools, digital mental health services, and doctor finder tools. Participants spent around 15 to 20 minutes on a survey to provide demographic and personal health care consumption data. This data was analyzed with multivariate linear and logistic regressions to identify which of these determinants, if any, held statistically significant relationships with the total number of digital health tool categories adopted and which of these determinants had absolute relationships with specific categories.ResultsA total of 362 respondents completed the survey. Private insurance, residence in an urban area, having a primary care provider, fewer urgent emergency room (ER) visits, more ER visits leading to inpatient stays, and chronic condition presence were significantly associated with the number of digital health tool categories adopted. The separate logistic regressions exhibited substantial variability, with 3.5 statistically significant predictors per model, on average. Age, federal poverty level, number of primary care provider visits in the past 12 months, number of nonurgent ER visits in the past 12 months, number of urgent ER visits in the past 12 months, number of ER visits leading to inpatient stays in the past 12 months, race, gender, ethnicity, insurance, education, residential area, access to the internet, difficulty accessing health care, usual source of care, status of primary care provider, and status of chronic condition all had at least one statistically significant relationship with the use of a specific digital health category.ConclusionsThe results demonstrate that persons who are socioeconomically disadvantaged may not adopt digital health tools at disproportionately higher rates. Instead, digital health tools may be adopted along social determinants of health, providing strong evidence for the digital health divide. The variability of digital health adoption necessitates investing in and building a common framework to increase mobile health access. With a common framework and a paradigm shift in the design, evaluation, and implementation strategies around digital health, disparities can be further mitigated and addressed. This likely will begin with a coordinated effort to determine barriers to adopting digital health solutions.

Dataset Information

Impact of COVID-19 on the Health of the General and More Vulnerable Population and Its Determinants: Health Care and Social Survey-ESSOC, Study Protocol.

Publications

Impact of COVID-19 on the Health of the General and More Vulnerable Population and Its Determinants: Health Care and Social Survey-ESSOC, Study Protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets