Exploring equity in health and poverty impacts of control measures for SARS-CoV-2 in six countries

Authors

Sedona Sweeney, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Theo Prudencio Juhani Capeding, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines
Rosalind Eggo, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Maryam Huda, Aga Khan UniversityFollow
Mark Jit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Don Mudzengi, The Aurum Institute for Health Research, Johannesburg, South Africa
Nichola R. Naylor, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Simon Procter, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Matthew Quaife, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Lela Serebryakova, National Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, Georgia

Document Type

Article

Department

Community Health Sciences

Abstract

Background: Policy makers need to be rapidly informed about the potential equity consequences of different COVID-19 strategies, alongside their broader health and economic impacts. While there are complex models to inform both potential health and macro-economic impact, there are few tools available to rapidly assess potential equity impacts of interventions.
Methods: We created an economic model to simulate the impact of lockdown measures in Pakistan, Georgia, Chile, UK, the Philippines and South Africa. We consider impact of lockdown in terms of ability to socially distance, and income loss during lockdown, and tested the impact of assumptions on social protection coverage in a scenario analysis.
Results: In all examined countries, socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles 1-3 were disproportionately more likely to experience income loss (70% of people) and inability to socially distance (68% of people) than higher SES quintiles. Improving social protection increased the percentage of the workforce able to socially distance from 48% (33%-60%) to 66% (44%-71%). We estimate the cost of this social protection would be equivalent to an average of 0.6% gross domestic product (0.1% Pakistan-1.1% Chile).
Conclusions: We illustrate the potential for using publicly available data to rapidly assess the equity implications of social protection and non-pharmaceutical intervention policy. Social protection is likely to mitigate inequitable health and economic impacts of lockdown. Although social protection is usually targeted to the poorest, middle quintiles will likely also need support as they are most likely to suffer income losses and are disproportionately more exposed.

Comments

Pagination are not provided by the author/publisher

Publication (Name of Journal)

BMJ Global Health

Recommended Citation

Sweeney, S., Capeding, T. J., Eggo, R., Huda, M., Jit, M., Mudzengi, D., Naylor, N. R., Procter, S., Quaife, M., Serebryakova, L. (2021). Exploring equity in health and poverty impacts of control measures for SARS-CoV-2 in six countries. BMJ Global Health, 6(5), e005521.
Available at: https://ecommons.aku.edu/pakistan_fhs_mc_chs_chs/884

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.