ArticleBMJ open2022
Inequalities in the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic: an ecological study of inequalities in mortality in the first wave and the effects of the first national lockdown in England.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Moderated Mediation Analysis of Timely EMS Activation and Bystander CPR in the Association Between Regional Deprivation and Outcomes Following Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Regional variation of COVID-19 admissions, acute kidney injury and mortality in England - a national observational study using administrative data.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Observational
- Social determinants of spatial inequalities in COVID-19 outcomes across England: A multiscale geographically weighted regression analysis.SSM - population health · 2024Article
- COVID-19 and deprivation amplification: An ecological study of geographical inequalities in mortality in England.Health & place · 2022Article
- Explaining the deprivation gap in COVID-19 mortality rates: A decomposition analysis of geographical inequalities in England.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine how ecological inequalities in COVID-19 mortality rates evolved in England, and whether the first national lockdown impacted them. This analysis aimed to provide evidence for important lessons to inform public health planning to reduce inequalities in any future pandemics.
designLongitudinal ecological study.
setting307 lower-tier local authorities in England. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Age-standardised COVID-19 mortality rates by local authority, regressed on Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and relevant epidemic dynamics.
resultsLocal authorities that started recording COVID-19 deaths earlier were more deprived, and more deprived authorities saw faster increases in their death rates. By 6 April 2020 (week 15, the earliest time that the 23 March lockdown could have begun affecting death rates) the cumulative death rate in local authorities in the two most deprived deciles of IMD was 54% higher than the rate in the two least deprived deciles. By 4 July 2020 (week 27), this gap had narrowed to 29%. Thus, inequalities in mortality rates by decile of deprivation persisted throughout the first wave, but reduced during the lockdown.
conclusionsThis study found significant differences in the dynamics of COVID-19 mortality at the local authority level, resulting in inequalities in cumulative mortality rates during the first wave of the pandemic. The first lockdown in England was fairly strict-and the study found that it particularly benefited those living in more deprived local authorities. Care should be taken to implement lockdowns early enough, in the right places-and at a sufficiently strict level-to maximally benefit all communities, and reduce inequalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.