ArticleBMC public health2023
Understanding social risk factors of county-level disparities in COVID-19 tests per confirmed case in South Carolina using statewide electronic health records data.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging Multiple Administrative Data Sources to Reduce Missing Race and Ethnicity Data: A Descriptive Epidemiology Cross-Sectional Study of COVID-19 Case Relative Rates.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 testing is essential for pandemic control, and insufficient testing in areas with high disease burdens could magnify the risk of poor health outcomes. However, few area-based studies on COVID-19 testing disparities have considered the disease burden (e.g., confirmed cases). The current study aims to investigate socioeconomic drivers of geospatial disparities in COVID-19 testing relative to disease burden across 46 counties in South Carolina (SC) in the early (from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020) and later (from July 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021) phases of the pandemic.
methodsUsing SC statewide COVID-19 testing data, the COVID-19 testing coverage was measured by monthly COVID-19 tests per confirmed case (hereafter CTPC) in each county. We used modified Lorenz curves to describe the unequal geographic distribution of CTPC and generalized linear mixed-effects regression models to assess the association of county-level social risk factors with CTPC in two phases of the pandemic in SC.
resultsAs of September 30, 2021, a total of 641,201 out of 2,941,227 tests were positive in SC. The Lorenz curve showed that county-level disparities in CTPC were less apparent in the later phase of the pandemic. Counties with a larger percentage of Black had lower CTPC during the early phase (β = -0.94, 95%CI: -1.80, -0.08), while such associations reversed in the later phase (β = 0.28, 95%CI: 0.01, 0.55). The association of some other social risk factors diminished as the pandemic evolved, such as food insecurity (β: -1.19 and -0.42; p-value is < 0.05 for both).
conclusionsCounty-level disparities in CTPC and their predictors are dynamic across the pandemic. These results highlight the systematic inequalities in COVID-19 testing resources and accessibility, especially in the early stage of the pandemic. Counties with greater social vulnerability and those with fewer health care resources should be paid extra attention in the early and later phases, respectively. The current study provided empirical evidence for public health agencies to conduct more targeted community-based testing campaigns to enhance access to testing in future public health crises.
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.