Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34534226›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

COVID-19 mortality with regard to healthcare services availability, health risks, and socio-spatial factors at department level in France: A spatial cross-sectional analysis.

Anastase Tchicaya, Nathalie Lorentz, Kristell Leduc, Gaetan de Lanchy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  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

4 authors.

Anastase TchicayaLuxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research, Living Conditions Department, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0003-1608-6809
Nathalie LorentzLuxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research, Living Conditions Department, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Kristell LeducLuxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research, Living Conditions Department, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Gaetan de LanchyLuxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research, Living Conditions Department, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic began in Wuhan, China in December 2019 and quickly spread to the rest of the world. This study aimed to analyse the associations between the COVID-19 mortality rate in hospitals, the availability of health services, and socio-spatial and health risk factors at department level. METHODS AND

findingsThis spatial cross-sectional study used cumulative mortality data due to the COVID-19 pandemic in hospitals until 30 November 2020 as a main outcome, across 96 departments of mainland France. Data concerning health services, health risk factors, and socio-spatial factors were used as independent variables. Independently, we performed negative binomial, spatial and geographically weighted regression models. Our results revealed substantial geographic disparities. The spatial exploratory analysis showed a global positive spatial autocorrelation in each wave indicating a spatial dependence of the COVID-19 deaths across departments. In first wave about 75% of COVID-19 deaths were concentrated in departments of five regions compared to a total of 13 regions. The COVID-19 mortality rate was associated with the physicians density, and not the number of resuscitation beds. Socio-spatial factors were only associated with the COVID-19 mortality rate in first wave compared to wave 2. For example, the COVID-19 mortality rate increased by 35.69% for departments densely populated. Health risk factors were associated with the COVID-19 mortality rate depending on each wave. This study had inherent limitations to the ecological analysis as ecological bias risks and lack of individual data.

conclusionsOur results suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has spread more rapidly and takes more severe forms in environments where there is already a high level of vulnerability due to social and health factors. This study showed a different dissemination pattern of COVID-19 mortality between the two waves: a spatial non-stationarity followed by a spatial stationarity in the relationships between the COVID-19 mortality rate and its potential drivers.

Indexed as

PandemicsAgedCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFranceHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsSpatial Analysis

Identifiers

PMID34534226
PMCPMC8448369

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.