Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death in 17 million adults in England: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

COVID-19 has resulted in new global geographies of death ranging from cellular to global scales. These geographies are uneven, reflecting existing inequalities and failures of governance. In additi...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2043820620934947

Bereavement, grief, and consolation: Emotional-affective geographies of loss during COVID-19

Background: COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on ethnic minority populations, both in the UK and internationally. To date, much of the evidence has been derived from studies within single healthcare settings, mainly those hospitalised with COVID-19. Working on behalf of NHS England, the aim of this study was to identify ethnic differences in the risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation and mortality using a large general population cohort in England.

Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study using linked primary care records of 17.5 million adults between 1 February 2020 and 3 August 2020. Exposure was self-reported ethnicity collapsed into the 5 and 16 ethnicity categories of the English Census. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify ethnic differences in the risk of being tested and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and COVID-19 mortality, adjusted for socio-demographic factors, clinical co-morbidities, geographic region, care home residency, and household size.
 
Results: A total of 17,510,002 adults were included in the study; 63% white (n=11,030,673), 6% south Asian (n=1,034,337), 2% black (n=344,889), 2% other (n=324,730), 1% mixed (n=172,551), and 26% unknown (n=4,602,822). After adjusting for measured explanatory factors, south Asian, black, and mixed groups were marginally more likely to be tested (south Asian HR 1.08, 95%CI 1.07-1.09; black HR 1.08; 95%CI 1.06-1.09, mixed HR 1.03, 95%CI 1.01-1.05), and substantially more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared with white adults (south Asian HR 2.02. 95% CI 1.97-2.07; black HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.61-1.76; mixed HR 1.46, 95%CI 1.36-1.56). The risk of being admitted to ICU for COVID-19 was substantially increased in all ethnic minority groups compared with white adults (south Asian HR 2.22, 95%CI 1.96-2.52; black HR 3.07, 95%CI 2.61-3.61; mixed HR 2.86, 95%CI 2.19-3.75, other HR 2.86, 95%CI 2.31-3.63). Risk of COVID-19 mortality was increased by 25-56% in ethnic minority groups compared with white adults (south Asian HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.17-1.38; black HR 1.55, 95%CI 1.38-1.75; mixed HR 1.40, 95%CI 1.12-1.76; other HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.05-1.49). We observed heterogeneity of associations after disaggregation into detailed ethnic groupings; Indian and African groups were at higher risk of all outcomes; Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Caribbean groups were less or equally likely to be tested for SARS-CoV-2, but at higher risk of all other outcomes, Chinese groups were less likely to be tested for and test positive for SARS-CoV-2, more likely to be admitted to ICU, and equally likely to die from COVID-19. 

Conclusions: We found evidence of substantial ethnic inequalities in the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, ICU admission, and mortality, which persisted after accounting for explanatory factors, including household size. It is likely that some of this excess risk is related to factors not captured in clinical records such as occupation, experiences of structural discrimination, or inequitable access to health and social services. Prioritizing linkage between health, social care, and employment data and engaging with ethnic minority communities to better understand their lived experiences is essential for generating evidence to prevent further widening of inequalities in a timely and actionable manner.

https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.22.20198754v1.full.pdf

Ethnic differences in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, and mortality: an OpenSAFELY analysis of 17 million adults in England

Urgent actions and policies needed to address COVID-19 among UK ethnic minorities.

Background Humanitarian crises and emergencies, events often marked by high mortality, have until recently excluded palliative care—a specialty focusing on supporting people with serious or terminal illness or those nearing death. In the COVID-19 pandemic, palliative care has received unprecedented levels of societal attention. Unfortunately, this has not been enough to prevent patients dying alone, relatives not being able to say goodbye and palliative care being used instead of intensive care due to resource limitations. Yet global guidance was available. In 2018, the WHO released a guide on ‘Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises’—the first guidance on the topic by an international body. Aims This paper argues that while a landmark document, the WHO guide took a narrowly clinical bioethics perspective and missed crucial moral dilemmas. We argue for adding a population-level bioethics lens, which draws forth complex moral dilemmas arising from the fact that groups having differential innate and acquired resources in the context of social and historical determinants of health. We discuss dilemmas concerning: limitations of material and human resources; patient prioritisation; euthanasia; and legacy inequalities, discrimination and power imbalances. Implications In parts of the world where opportunity for preparation still exists, and as countries emerge from COVID-19, planners must consider care for the dying. Immediate steps to support better resolutions to ethical dilemmas of the provision of palliative care in humanitarian and emergency contexts will require honest debate; concerted research effort; and international, national and local ethical guidance.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/46/8/514.full.pdf

Dying individuals and suffering populations: applying a population-level bioethics lens to palliative care in humanitarian contexts: before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dealing with death and bereavement in the context of the Covid-19 Pandemic will present significant challenges for at least the next three months. The current situation does not allow for families andbcommunities to be involved in the process of death in ways in which they would normally hope or expect to be. In addition, mortality rates will disproportionately affect vulnerable households. The government has identified the following communities as being at increased risk: single parent households; multi-generational Black and Minority Ethnic groups; men without degrees in lone households and/or in precarious work; small family business owners in their 50s; and elderlyhouseholds. Our study focused on these groups. This report presents a summary of findings and key recommendations by a team of anthropologists from the London School of Economics who conducted a public survey and 58 cross-community interviews between 3 and 9 April 2020. It explores ways to prepare these communities and households for impending deaths with communications and policy support. More information on the research methodology, data protection and ethical procedures is available in Appendix 1. A summary of relevant existing research can be found in Appendix 2. A list of key contacts across communities for consultation is available on request. Research was focused on “what a good death looks like” for people across all faiths and for vulnerable groups. It examined how communities were already adapting how they dealt with processes of dying, burials, funerals and bereavement during the pandemic, and responding to new government regulations. It specifically focused on five transitions in the process of death, and what consultation processes, policies and communications strategies could be mobilised to support communities through these phases.

'A good death' during the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK: a report on key findings and recommendations

This report presents key findings from a 6-month ethnographic study on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on disadvantaged households and communities across the UK conducted by anthropologists from the London School of Economics, and associates. This research involved in-depth interviews and multiple surveys with people across communities in the UK, with particular focus on a number of case studies of intersecting disadvantage. Crucially, our research has found that Government policy can improve adherence to restrictions and reduce the negative impacts of the pandemic on disadvantaged communities by placing central importance on communities, social networks and households to the economy and social life. This would be the most effective way to increase public trust and adherence to Covid-19 measures, because it would recognise the suffering that communities have experienced and would build policy on the basis of what is most important to people - the thriving of their families and communities.

Teo Zidaru-Barbulescu

Papers

'A good death' during the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK: a report on key findings and recommendations

A right to care: the social foundations of recovery from Covid-19

Changing care networks in the United Kingdom