Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34039588›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2021

Exploring equity in health and poverty impacts of control measures for SARS-CoV-2 in six countries.

Sedona Sweeney, Theo Prudencio Juhani Capeding, Rosalind Eggo, Maryam Huda, Mark Jit, Don Mudzengi, Nichola R Naylor, Simon Procter, Matthew Quaife, Lela Serebryakova and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Closing the Gap in Race-based Inequities for Seasonal Influenza Hospitalizations: A Modeling Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

14 authors.

Sedona SweeneyDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK sedona.sweeney@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4233-9080
Theo Prudencio Juhani Capeding *University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, The Philippines.
Rosalind Eggo *Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0362-6717
Maryam Huda *The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Mark Jit *Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Don Mudzengi *The Aurum Institute for Health Research, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Nichola R Naylor *Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Simon Procter *Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Matthew Quaife *Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Lela Serebryakova *National Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Sergio Torres-Rueda *Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6335-6392
Veronica Vargas *Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago, Chile.
CHiL COVID Working Group
Anna VassallDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 221303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicy makers need to be rapidly informed about the potential equity consequences of different COVID-19 strategies, alongside their broader health and economic impacts. While there are complex models to inform both potential health and macro-economic impact, there are few tools available to rapidly assess potential equity impacts of interventions.

methodsWe created an economic model to simulate the impact of lockdown measures in Pakistan, Georgia, Chile, UK, the Philippines and South Africa. We consider impact of lockdown in terms of ability to socially distance, and income loss during lockdown, and tested the impact of assumptions on social protection coverage in a scenario analysis.

resultsIn all examined countries, socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles 1-3 were disproportionately more likely to experience income loss (70% of people) and inability to socially distance (68% of people) than higher SES quintiles. Improving social protection increased the percentage of the workforce able to socially distance from 48% (33%-60%) to 66% (44%-71%). We estimate the cost of this social protection would be equivalent to an average of 0.6% gross domestic product (0.1% Pakistan-1.1% Chile).

conclusionsWe illustrate the potential for using publicly available data to rapidly assess the equity implications of social protection and non-pharmaceutical intervention policy. Social protection is likely to mitigate inequitable health and economic impacts of lockdown. Although social protection is usually targeted to the poorest, middle quintiles will likely also need support as they are most likely to suffer income losses and are disproportionately more exposed.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlCOVID-19Health EquityPovertyChileGeorgiaHumansModels, EconomicPakistanPhilippinesSouth AfricaUnited StatesCOVID-19health economics

Identifiers

PMID34039588
PMCPMC8159665

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.