Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33845798›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

When lockdown policies amplify social inequalities in COVID-19 infections: evidence from a cross-sectional population-based survey in France.

Nathalie Bajos, Florence Jusot, Ariane Pailhé, Alexis Spire, Claude Martin, Laurence Meyer, Nathalie Lydié, Jeanna-Eve Franck, Marie Zins, Fabrice Carrat and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Sociology of Suicide After COVID-19: Assessment of the Spanish Case.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nathalie BajosInstitut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux Sociaux - Sciences sociales, politique, santé, IRIS (UMR 8156 CNRS - EHESS - U997 INSERM), 5 cours des humanités, 93322, Aubervilliers, France. nathalie.bajos@inserm.fr.ORCID 0000-0001-8073-9056
Florence JusotParis Dauphine University, Paris, France.
Ariane PailhéNational Institute for Demographic Studies, Paris, France.
Alexis SpireFrench National Centre for Scientific Research, Paris, France.
Claude MartinFrench National Centre for Scientific Research, Paris, France.
Laurence MeyerUniversity of Paris Sud, Paris, France.
Nathalie LydiéSanté publique France, Paris, France.
Jeanna-Eve FranckInstitut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux Sociaux - Sciences sociales, politique, santé, IRIS (UMR 8156 CNRS - EHESS - U997 INSERM), 5 cours des humanités, 93322, Aubervilliers, France.
Marie ZinsSorbonne University, Paris, France.
Fabrice CarratSorbonne University, Paris, France.
SAPRIS study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSignificant differences in COVID-19 incidence by gender, class and race/ethnicity are recorded in many countries in the world. Lockdown measures, shown to be effective in reducing the number of new cases, may not have been effective in the same way for all, failing to protect the most vulnerable populations. This survey aims to assess social inequalities in the trends in COVID-19 infections following lockdown.

methodsA cross-sectional survey conducted among the general population in France in April 2020, during COVID-19 lockdown. Ten thousand one hundred one participants aged 18-64, from a national cohort who lived in the three metropolitan French regions most affected by the first wave of COVID-19. The main outcome was occurrence of possible COVID-19 symptoms, defined as the occurrence of sudden onset of cough, fever, dyspnea, ageusia and/or anosmia, that lasted more than 3 days in the 15 days before the survey. We used multinomial regression models to identify social and health factors related to possible COVID-19 before and during the lockdown.

resultsIn all, 1304 (13.0%; 95% CI: 12.0-14.0%) reported cases of possible COVID-19. The effect of lockdown on the occurrence of possible COVID-19 was different across social hierarchies. The most privileged class individuals saw a significant decline in possible COVID-19 infections between the period prior to lockdown and during the lockdown (from 8.8 to 4.3%, P = 0.0001) while the decline was less pronounced among working class individuals (6.9% before lockdown and 5.5% during lockdown, P = 0.03). This differential effect of lockdown remained significant after adjusting for other factors including history of chronic disease. The odds of being infected during lockdown as opposed to the prior period increased by 57% among working class individuals (OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.00-2.48). The same was true for those engaged in in-person professional activities during lockdown (OR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.03-2.29).

conclusionsLockdown was associated with social inequalities in the decline in COVID-19 infections, calling for the adoption of preventive policies to account for living and working conditions. Such adoptions are critical to reduce social inequalities related to COVID-19, as working-class individuals also have the highest COVID-19 related mortality, due to higher prevalence of comorbidities.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health Status DisparitiesPublic PolicyQuarantineAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFranceHumansMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsYoung AdultCOVID-19General populationLockdownRisk factorsSocial inequalities

Identifiers

PMID33845798
PMCPMC8040364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.