Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35610645›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2022

COVID-19 double jeopardy: the overwhelming impact of the social determinants of health.

Elizabeth Badalov, Liz Blackler, Amy E Scharf, Konstantina Matsoukas, Sanjay Chawla, Louis P Voigt, Arthur Kuflik

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for equity in health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025
    Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Enduring Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Access, Nutrition, and Well-Being in Rural Appalachia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    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

7 authors.

Elizabeth BadalovCity University of New York (CUNY) Hunter College, New York, NY, USA.
Liz BlacklerEthics Committee Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Amy E ScharfEthics Committee Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Konstantina MatsoukasEthics Committee Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Sanjay ChawlaEthics Committee Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Louis P VoigtEthics Committee Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. voigtl@mskcc.org.
Arthur KuflikColumbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has strained healthcare systems by creating a tragic imbalance between needs and resources. Governments and healthcare organizations have adapted to this pronounced scarcity by applying allocation guidelines to facilitate life-or-death decision-making, reduce bias, and save as many lives as possible. However, we argue that in societies beset by longstanding inequities, these approaches fall short as mortality patterns for historically discriminated against communities have been disturbingly higher than in the general population.

methodsWe review attack and fatality rates; survey allocation protocols designed to deal with the extreme scarcity characteristic of the earliest phases of the pandemic; and highlight the larger ethical perspectives (Utilitarianism, non-Utilitarian Rawlsian justice) that might justify such allocation practices.

resultsThe COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically amplified the dire effects of disparities with respect to the social determinants of health. Patients in historically marginalized groups not only have significantly poorer health prospects but also lower prospects of accessing high quality medical care and benefitting from it even when available. Thus, mortality among minority groups has ranged from 1.9 to 2.4 times greater than the rest of the population. Standard allocation schemas, that prioritize those most likely to benefit, perpetuate and may even exacerbate preexisting systemic injustices.

conclusionsTo be better prepared for the inevitable next pandemic, we must urgently begin the monumental project of addressing and reforming the structural inequities in US society that account for the strikingly disparate mortality rates we have witnessed over the course of the current pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansMinority GroupsPandemicsSocial Determinants of HealthSocial JusticeAllocation guidelinesCOVID-19InequitiesPandemicSocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID35610645
PMCPMC9129892

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.