BackgroundWorldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic hit weakest populations hardest, with socioeconomic (SE), racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 burden. The study aimed to analyse patterns of SE and ethnic disparities in morbidity, hospitalisation, and vaccination throughout four pandemic waves.MethodsA retrospective-archive study was conducted in Israel from 11 March 2020 to 1 December 2021, with data on confirmed cases, hospitalisations, mortality and vaccinations (three doses), obtained from the Israeli Ministry of Health’s open COVID-19 database, covering 98.8% of the population, by SE and ethnic characteristics of localities.FindingsAt the outbreak of the pandemic, there was a higher caseload in Jewish, compared with Arab localities. In the second and third waves, low SE and Arab minority populations suffered 2–3 times higher morbidity, with a similar but attenuated pattern in the fourth wave. A similar trend was observed in hospitalisation of confirmed patients. COVID-19-associated mortality did not demonstrate a clear SE gradient.A strong social gradient in vaccine uptake was demonstrated throughout the period, with 71% and 74% double vaccinated in the two highest SE clusters, and 43% and 27% in the two lowest clusters by December 2021. Uptake of the third dose was 57%–60% in the highest SE clusters and 31%–25% in the lowest clusters. SE disparities in vaccine uptake were larger among the younger age groups and gradually increased from first to third doses.ConclusionsIsrael was among the first to lead a rapid vaccination drive, as well as to experience a fourth wave fuelled by diminishing immunity and the delta variant. SE and ethnic disparities were evident throughout most of the pandemic months, though less so for mortality. Despite higher COVID-19 burden, vaccine uptake was lower in disadvantaged groups, with greater disparities in the younger population which widened with subsequent doses.
Purpose:The COVID-19 pandemic, now in its third year, has served as a magnifying glass, exposing the inequitable impact of the outbreak. The study aims to analyze the relationships between the socioeconomic and ethnic characteristics of the population and COVID-19 testing, infection, and vaccination throughout the first five pandemic waves.
Objectives
We assessed the appropriateness of chest–abdominal–pelvis (CAP) CT scan use in the Emergency Department (ED), based on expert physicians and the ESR iGuide, a clinical decision support system (CDSS).
Methods
A retrospective cross-study was conducted. We included 100 cases of CAP-CT scans ordered at the ED. Four experts rated the appropriateness of the cases on a 7-point scale, before and after using the decision support tool.
Results
Before using the ESR iGuide the overall mean rating of the experts was 5.2 ± 1.066, and it increased slightly after using the system (5.85 ± 0.911 (p < 0.01)). Using a threshold of 5 (on a 7-level scale), the experts considered only 63% of the tests appropriate before using the ESR iGuide. The number increased to 89% after consultation with the system. The degree of overall agreement among the experts was 0.388 before ESR iGuide consultation and 0.572 after consultation. According to the ESR iGuide, for 85% of the cases, CAP CT was not a recommended option (score 0). Abdominal–Pelvis CT was "usually appropriate" for 65 out of the 85 (76%) cases (score 7–9). 9% of the cases did not require CT as first exam modality.
Conclusions
According to both the experts and the ESR iGuide, inappropriate testing was prevalent, in terms of both frequency of the scans and also inappropriately chosen body regions. These findings raise the need for unified workflows that might be achieved using a CDSS. Further studies are needed to investigate the CDSS contribution to the informed decision-making and increased uniformity among different expert physicians when ordering the appropriate test.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.