BACKGROUND: Since 2020, China has piloted an innovative payment method known as the Diagnosis-Intervention Packet (DIP). This study aimed to assess the impact of the DIP on inpatient volume and bed allocation and their regional distribution. This study investigated whether the DIP affects the efficiency of regional health resource utilization and contributes to disparities in health equity among regions.
METHODS: We collected data from a central province in China from 2019 to 2022. The treatment group included 508 hospitals in the pilot area (Region A, where the DIP was implemented in 2021), whereas the control group consisted of 3,728 hospitals from non-pilot areas within the same province. We employed the difference-in-differences method to analyze inpatient volume and bed resources. Additionally, we conducted a stratified analysis to examine whether the effects of DIP implementation varied across urban and rural areas or hospitals of different levels.
RESULTS: Compared with the non-pilot regions, Region A experienced a statistically significant reduction in inpatient volume of 14.3% (95% CI 0.061-0.224) and a notable decrease of 9.1% in actual available bed days (95% CI 0.041-0.141) after DIP implementation. The study revealed no evidence of patient consultations shifting from inpatient to outpatient services due to the reduction in hospital admissions in Region A after DIP implementation. Stratified analysis revealed that inpatient volume decreased by 12.4% (95% CI 0.006-0.243) in the urban areas and 14.7% in the rural areas of Region A (95% CI 0.051-0.243). At the hospital level, primary hospitals experienced the greatest impact, with a 19.0% (95% CI 0.093-0.287) decline in inpatient volume. Furthermore, primary and tertiary hospitals experienced significant reductions of 11.0% (95% CI 0.052-0.169) and 8.2% (95% CI 0.002-0.161), respectively, in actual available bed days.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite efforts to curb excessive medical service expansion in the region following DIP implementation, large hospitals continue to attract a large number of patients from primary hospitals. This weakening of primary hospitals and the subsequent influx of patients to urban areas may further limit rural patients\' access to medical services. The implementation of the DIP may raise concerns about its impact on health care equality and accessibility, particularly for underserved rural populations.

UNASSIGNED: Sepsis, characterised by significant morbidity and mortality, is intricately linked to socioeconomic disparities and pre-admission clinical histories. This study aspires to elucidate the association between non-COVID-19 related sepsis and health inequality risk factors amidst the pandemic in England, with a secondary focus on their association with 30-day sepsis mortality.
UNASSIGNED: With the approval of NHS England, we harnessed the OpenSAFELY platform to execute a cohort study and a 1:6 matched case-control study. A sepsis diagnosis was identified from the incident hospital admissions record using ICD-10 codes. This encompassed 248,767 cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis from a cohort of 22.0 million individuals spanning January 1, 2019, to June 31, 2022. Socioeconomic deprivation was gauged using the Index of Multiple Deprivation score, reflecting indicators like income, employment, and education. Hospitalisation-related sepsis diagnoses were categorised as community-acquired or hospital-acquired. Cases were matched to controls who had no recorded diagnosis of sepsis, based on age (stepwise), sex, and calendar month. The eligibility criteria for controls were established primarily on the absence of a recorded sepsis diagnosis. Associations between potential predictors and odds of developing non-COVID-19 sepsis underwent assessment through conditional logistic regression models, with multivariable regression determining odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day mortality.
UNASSIGNED: The study included 224,361 (10.2%) cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis and 1,346,166 matched controls. The most socioeconomic deprived quintile was associated with higher odds of developing non-COVID-19 sepsis than the least deprived quintile (crude OR 1.80 [95% CI 1.77-1.83]). Other risk factors (after adjusting comorbidities) such as learning disability (adjusted OR 3.53 [3.35-3.73]), chronic liver disease (adjusted OR 3.08 [2.97-3.19]), chronic kidney disease (stage 4: adjusted OR 2.62 [2.55-2.70], stage 5: adjusted OR 6.23 [5.81-6.69]), cancer, neurological disease, immunosuppressive conditions were also associated with developing non-COVID-19 sepsis. The incidence rate of non-COVID-19 sepsis decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and rebounded to pre-pandemic levels (April 2021) after national lockdowns had been lifted. The 30-day mortality risk in cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis was higher for the most deprived quintile across all periods.
UNASSIGNED: Socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity and learning disabilities were associated with an increased odds of developing non-COVID-19 related sepsis and 30-day mortality in England. This study highlights the need to improve the prevention of sepsis, including more precise targeting of antimicrobials to higher-risk patients.
UNASSIGNED: The UK Health Security Agency, Health Data Research UK, and National Institute for Health Research.

The ongoing outbreak of COVID-19 challenges the health systems and epidemiological responses of all countries worldwide. Although preventive measures have been globally considered, the spatial heterogeneity of its effectiveness is evident, underscoring global health inequalities. Using Bayesian-based Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations, we identify the spatial association of socioeconomic factors and the risk for dying from COVID-19 in Colombia. We confirm that from March 16 to October 04, 2020, the COVID-19 case-fatality rate and the multidimensional poverty index have a heterogeneous spatial distribution. Spatial analysis reveals that the risk of dying from COVID-19 increases in regions with a higher proportion of poor people with dwelling (RR 1.74 95%CI = 1.54-9.75), educational (RR 1.69 95%CI = 1.36-5.94), childhood/youth (RR 1.35 95%CI = 1.08-4.03), and health (RR 1.16 95%CI = 1.06-2.04) deprivations. These findings evidence the vulnerability of most disadvantaged members of society to dying in a pandemic and assist the spatial planning of preventive strategies focused on vulnerable communities.

BACKGROUND: In Spain, health systems are transferred to the Autonomous Communities (AC), constituting 19 health systems with differentiated management and resources. During the first epidemic wave of COVID-19, differences were observed in reporting systems and in case-fatality rates (FR) between the AC. The objective of this study was to analyze the FR according to AC. during the 2 nd epidemic wave (from July 20 to December 25, 2020), and its relationship with the prevalence of infection.
METHODS: A descriptive observational study was carried out, extracting the information available on the number of deaths from COVID-19 registered in the Ministry of Health, the Health Councils and the Public Health Departments of the AC, and according to the excess mortality reported by the System Monitoring of Daily Mortality (MoMo). The prevalence of infection was estimated from the differences between the second and fourth rounds of the ENE-COVID study and their 95% confidence intervals. The global FR (deaths per thousand infected) were calculated according to sex, age groups (< 65 and ≥ 65 years) and AC. The age-Standardized Fatality Rates (SFR) of the AC were calculated using the FR of Spain for each age group. These estimates were made with officially declared deaths (FRo) and excess deaths estimated by MoMo (FRMo). The correlations between the prevalences of infection and the FRo and FRMo were estimated, weighting by population.
RESULTS: For the whole of Spain, the FRo during the second epidemic wave was 7.6%, oscillating between 3.8% in the Balearic Islands and 16.4% in Asturias, and the TLMo was 10.1%, oscillating between 4.8% from Madrid and 21.7% in Asturias. Significant differences were observed between the FRo and the FRMo in the Canary Islands, Castilla la Mancha, Extremadura, the Valencian Community, Andalusia and the Autonomous Cities of Ceuta and Melilla. The FRo was significantly higher in men (8.2%) than in women (7.1%). The FRo and FRMo were significantly higher in the age group ≥ 65 years (55.4% and 72.2% respectively) than in the group <65 years (0.5% and 1.4% respectively). The Basque Country, Aragon, Andalusia and Castilla la Mancha presented SFR significantly higher than the global FR of Spain. The correlations between the prevalence of infection and the FRo were inverse.
CONCLUSIONS: The case-fatality from COVID-19 during the second epidemic wave in Spain improved compared to the first wave. The case-fatality rates were higher in men and the elderly people, and varied significantly between AC. It is necessary to delve into the analysis of the causes of these differences.

BACKGROUND: The unequal physiological and socioeconomic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic across the world are revealing the multidimensional components of health and vulnerability. As governments have pushed physical and social distancing as protective strategies, this study explores the extent to which this approach is relevant for Syrian refugees living in Lebanon and Turkey.
METHODS: This qualitative study draws on 11 interviews with refugee experts and development practitioners (3) and Syrian refugee families (4 from Turkey, 4 from Lebanon) during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a review of recent literature. In addition, it draws on 71 semi-structured interviews with staff at NGOs supporting refugees (48 from Turkey, 23 from Lebanon) collected in 2018. Qualitative data analysis software ATLAS.ti 8 was used to perform content-based thematic analysis using both deductive and inductive coding.
RESULTS: The study finds that distancing-physically and socially-can be ineffective as a disease protection strategy in Syrian refugee communities. This is influenced by six major interconnected dimensions of refugee vulnerability-political, material, spatial, physiological, psychological and sociocultural-which collectively form an interdisciplinary framework to guide more relevant COVID-19 interventions in refugee communities. The inability to distance is not necessarily rooted in lack of knowledge. Rather, when the inside conditions of living are crowded and unhygienic, but also include cultural expectations of familial care, and the outside conditions of survival-necessitated work are perpetuated through precarious political protections, distancing becomes impractical in application, despite the sense of internalized responsibility to keep one another safe.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that more relevant COVID-19 interventions and protection measures must consider the non-physiological manifestations of disease across multiple dimensions of vulnerability to mitigate decreased distancing abilities in settings of refugee life.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a matched case-control study of informal workers to determine the association between occupational classification and selected types of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs).
METHODS: We extracted data of patients aged ≥18 years from the Thai National Health Security Office database (NHSO) during 2011-2014. Cases were patients who had a primary diagnosis of: diabetes mellitus (E10-E14), hypertension (I10-I15), ischemic heart disease (I20-I25) or stroke (I60-69), or thyroid gland disorder (E00-E07). Controls were patients who had a primary diagnosis of intestinal or parasitic infections (A00-A09 and B25-B99), and were randomly matched 1:1 with cases of the same age and residential area. The four-digit occupation codes recorded in the NHSO were grouped and recoded based on the submajor groups of International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08) as follows: agricultural workers, unskilled workers, service, and sales workers. Analysis was performed using multivariable conditional logistic regression.
RESULTS: Occupation and sex inequalities were present among all the selected NCDs. Higher risk for the four selected NCDs was found among unskilled workers. Stronger risk for cardiovascular disease was present among males, while females had a higher risk for metabolic disorders.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to understand what are the key factors that increase the risk for NCDs among informal sector workers. Health promotion campaigns are needed to raise awareness among economically and social disadvantaged informal workers about the risk for NCDs. This will require collaboration between public health and the workforce, and allocation of government budgets to address the needs of these workers.

With the growing call for private sector actors to address global challenges, it is necessary to first assess whether regions with the greatest needs are accessing corporate philanthropy. In this paper, we ask whether corporate philanthropy is reaching those with the greatest health-care needs. Drawing on economic geography and corporate homophily, we argue that corporate philanthropy tends to exacerbate health inequality as grants are destined for counties with fewer health problems. We test and find support for this hypothesis using data on health grants made by US corporate foundations and county-level health data. Our results that corporate health grants are less likely to go to counties which have a lower proportion of medical service providers and insured citizens suggest that corporate foundations are unwittingly complicit in worsening the resource gap between small, poor, rural counties and large, wealthy, urban counties. From an ethical perspective, we provide some guidance as to how this may be corrected.

BACKGROUND: The National Development Plan (NDP) strives that South Africa, by 2030, in pursuit of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) achieve a significant shift in the equity of health services provision. This paper provides a diagnosis of the extent of socio-economic inequalities in health and healthcare using an integrated conceptual framework.
METHODS: The 2012 South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (SANHANES-1), a nationally representative study, collected data on a variety of questions related to health and healthcare. A range of concentration indices were calculated for health and healthcare outcomes that fit the various dimensions on the pathway of access. A decomposition analysis was employed to determine how downstream need and access barriers contribute to upstream inequality in healthcare utilisation.
RESULTS: In terms of healthcare need, good and ill health are concentrated among the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged, respectively. The relatively wealthy perceived a greater desire for care than the relatively poor. However, postponement of care seeking and unmet need is concentrated among the socio-economically disadvantaged, as are difficulties with the affordability of healthcare. The socio-economic divide in the utilisation of public and private healthcare services remains stark. Those who are economically disadvantaged are less satisfied with healthcare services. Affordability and ability to pay are the main drivers of inequalities in healthcare utilisation.
CONCLUSIONS: In the South African health system, the socio-economically disadvantaged are discriminated against across the continuum of access. NHI offers a means to enhance ability to pay and to address affordability, while disparities between actual and perceived need warrants investment in health literacy outreach programmes.

Background: Patients with complex circumstances pertaining to geography, socioeconomic status, or functional health often face inequities in accessing care. Electronic consultation (eConsult) is a secure online application that allows primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists to communicate regarding a patient\'s care. eConsult has demonstrated an ability to improve access to specialist care, and may be of particular use in cases of inequitable access. Methods: We examined how eConsult is used to improve equity of access for patients in complex circumstances by conducting a multiple case study of eConsults from seven patient groups: addiction, frail elderly, homeless, long-term care, rural, special needs, and transgender. Cases from these groups were selected from all eConsult cases completed between January 1 and December 31, 2017 using a data collection strategy tailored to each group. An access framework by Levesque et al. was applied to the data to examine five dimensions of access, arranged in chronological order, that reflect the process of a patient seeking care: approachability, acceptability; availability, affordability, and appropriateness. Two reviewers analyzed the cases using an iterative approach, regularly presenting findings to the research team for discussion and interpretation. Results: Eight hundred and twenty-five cases emerged across the seven target groups. The selected cases highlighted a number of key factors, including the value of the patient-PCP relationship, the importance of considering patient perspectives when providing care, and efforts to accommodate patients facing particular challenges to accessing care. Examples emerged among all five dimensions of the Levesque et al. access framework, with the final dimension, appropriateness, emerging across all cases. Conclusions: By leveraging the eConsult platform, PCPs can help improve equitable access to specialist care. More research is needed to understand why patients with complex circumstances face a longer wait time compared to the general population, and the impact that eConsults can have in improving health outcomes and wait times for this population.

Intersectional MAIHDA involves applying multilevel models in order to estimate intercategorical inequalities. The approach has been validated thus far using both simulations and empirical applications, and has numerous methodological and theoretical advantages over single-level approaches, including parsimony and reliability for analyzing high-dimensional interactions. In this issue of SSM, Lizotte, Mahendran, Churchill and Bauer (hereafter \"LMCB\") assert that there has been insufficient clarity on the interpretation of fixed effects regression coefficients in intersectional MAIHDA, and that stratum-level residuals in intersectional MAIHDA are not interpretable as interaction effects. We disagree with their second assertion; however, the authors are right to call for greater clarity. For this purpose, in this response we have three main objectives. (1) In their commentary, LMCB incorrectly describe model predictions based on MAIHDA fixed effects as estimates of \"grand means\" (or the mean of means), when they are actually \"precision-weighted grand means.\" We clarify the differences between average predicted values obtained by different models, and argue that predictions obtained by MAIHDA are more suitable to serve as reference points for residual/interaction effects. This further enables us to clarify the interpretation of residual/interaction effects in MAIHDA and conventional models. Using simple simulations, we demonstrate conditions under which the precision-weighted grand mean resembles a grand mean, and when it resembles a population mean (or the mean of all individual observations) obtained using single-level regression, explaining the results obtained by LMCB and informing future research. (2) We construct a modification to MAIHDA that constrains the fixed effects so that the resulting model predictions provide estimates of population means, which we use to demonstrate the robustness of results reported by Evans et al. (2018). We find that stratum-specific residuals obtained using the two approaches are highly correlated (Pearson corr = 0.98, p < 0.0001) and no substantive conclusions would have been affected if the preference had been for estimating population means. However, we advise researchers to use the original, unconstrained MAIHDA. (3) Finally, we outline the extent to which single-level and MAIHDA approaches address the fundamental goals of quantitative intersectional analyses and conclude that intersectional MAIHDA remains a promising new approach for the examination of inequalities.