81
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      County-Level COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage and Social Vulnerability — United States, December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program began in December 2020, and ensuring equitable COVID-19 vaccine access remains a national priority.* COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minority groups and those who are economically and socially disadvantaged ( 1 , 2 ). Thus, achieving not just vaccine equality (i.e., similar allocation of vaccine supply proportional to its population across jurisdictions) but equity (i.e., preferential access and administra­tion to those who have been most affected by COVID-19 disease) is an important goal. The CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) uses 15 indicators grouped into four themes that comprise an overall SVI measure, resulting in 20 metrics, each of which has national and state-specific county rankings. The 20 metric-specific rankings were each divided into lowest to highest tertiles to categorize counties as low, moderate, or high social vulnerability counties. These tertiles were combined with vaccine administration data for 49,264,338 U.S. residents in 49 states and the District of Columbia (DC) who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose during December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021. Nationally, for the overall SVI measure, vaccination coverage was higher (15.8%) in low social vulnerability counties than in high social vulnerability counties (13.9%), with the largest coverage disparity in the socioeconomic status theme (2.5 percentage points higher coverage in low than in high vulnerability counties). Wide state variations in equity across SVI metrics were found. Whereas in the majority of states, vaccination coverage was higher in low vulnerability counties, some states had equitable coverage at the county level. CDC, state, and local jurisdictions should continue to monitor vaccination coverage by SVI metrics to focus public health interventions to achieve equitable coverage with COVID-19 vaccine. COVID-19 vaccine administration data are reported to CDC by multiple entities via immunization information systems (IIS), the Vaccine Administration Management System, or direct data submission. † Vaccination coverage was defined as the number of residents who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine during December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021, and whose data were reported to CDC by March 6, 2021. § Total county population denominators used to create vaccination coverage estimates were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 Population Estimates Program. ¶ Social vulnerability data were obtained from the CDC SVI 2018 database,** which includes metrics to identify communities that might need additional support during emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic (Supplementary Figure 1, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/104111). County-level social vulnerability rankings for 15 SVI indicators, four SVI themes, and the overall SVI (20 total SVI metrics) were used. †† Each of the SVI metrics was categorized into national §§ and state-specific ¶¶ tertiles*** (low, moderate, and high social vulnerability) based on their national (among all U.S. counties) or state (among each state’s counties) rank. Vaccination coverage (percentage of residents who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within SVI tertiles were calculated for each of the 20 SVI metrics for the national analyses, with jurisdictional exclusions based on missing data for state of residence, missing data for county of residence (Hawaii, which did not systematically report these data), or no available SVI metrics (eight territories and freely associated states). ††† A vaccination rate ratio (RR) and 95% CI for each SVI metric was calculated using Wald’s unconditional maximum likelihood estimation to assess the relative differences in vaccination coverage, comparing low and moderate vulnerability counties with high vulnerability counties. The rate difference was also calculated to assess the difference between SVI tertiles. Because of the large sample sizes, rather than using statistical significance to determine meaningful differences between tertiles, a difference of ≥0.5 percentage points was used. State-level analyses for the overall SVI and four SVI themes were conducted among states with more than three counties. In addition, vaccination coverage for SVI metrics (national analyses) and SVI metrics within states (state-level analyses) were normalized so that the sum across tertiles was one. §§§ (When vaccination coverage is equally distributed among tertiles within an SVI metric, the proportion of persons vaccinated in each SVI tertile is 0.33.) This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy. ¶¶¶ During December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021, a total of 51,873,700 residents of 49 U.S. states and DC received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. County of residence was available for 95.0% (49,264,338) of these records for analysis. National first-dose vaccination coverage was 15.1%. For overall SVI, vaccination coverage was 1.9 percentage points higher in low vulnerability counties than in high vulnerability counties (15.8% versus 13.9%, respectively) (Table). The same pattern was found for the SVI themes of socioeconomic status, household composition and disability status, and racial/ethnic minority status and language, with the largest vaccination coverage disparity in the socioeconomic status theme (difference of 2.5 percentage points). Vaccination coverage was ≥0.5 percentage points lower in low vulnerability counties than in high vulnerability counties for the following indicators: 1) population aged ≥65 years (2.3 percentage points lower), 2) multiunit housing (1.3 percentage points lower), and 3) households with no vehicle (0.7 percentage points lower) (Figure 1). Indicators associated with similar coverage in low and high vulnerability counties were 1) percentage of persons with a disability and 2) percentage of persons who speak English “less than well.” Vaccination coverage was higher in low vulnerability counties than in high vulnerability counties for the remaining 10 indicators. Among socioeconomic status indicators, the largest disparity was the percentage of adults without a high school diploma (difference of 2.8 percentage points between high and low vulnerability counties). The majority of vaccination coverage differences between tertiles were <2 percentage points. TABLE Association between county-level COVID-19 vaccination coverage and social vulnerability index (SVI) metrics among persons who received at least one vaccine dose (N = 49,264,338) — United States, December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021* SVI metric† Vaccination coverage estimate§ (95% CI) Rate ratio for relative differences in vaccination coverage (95% CI)** Rate differences in vaccination coverage†† Low social vulnerability¶ Moderate social vulnerability¶ High social vulnerability¶ Low versus high estimate Moderate versus high estimate Low–high Moderate–high Overall SVI 15.8 (15.83−15.84) 15.6 (15.57−15.59) 13.9 (13.89−13.90) 1.1 (1.14−1.14) 1.1 (1.12−1.12) 1.94 1.69 Socioeconomic status Total 15.9 (15.91−15.92) 15.0 (14.97−14.98) 13.5 (13.45−13.46) 1.2 (1.18−1.18) 1.1 (1.11−1.11) 2.46 1.52 Poverty 15.9 (15.85−15.86) 14.8 (14.79−14.80) 14.2 (14.21−14.23) 1.1 (1.11−1.12) 1.0 (1.04−1.04) 1.64 0.58 Unemployment 15.4 (15.38−15.40) 15.3 (15.30−15.31) 14.5 (14.54−14.55) 1.1 (1.06−1.06) 1.1 (1.05−1.05) 0.85 0.76 Per capita income 15.6 (15.57−15.58) 14.4 (14.35−14.37) 13.5 (13.45−13.48) 1.2 (1.16−1.16) 1.1 (1.07−1.07) 2.11 0.90 No high school diploma 16.0 (16.01−16.02) 15.3 (15.26−15.27) 13.2 (13.22−13.23) 1.2 (1.21−1.21) 1.2 (1.15−1.16) 2.79 2.04 Household composition and disability status Total 15.6 (15.62−15.63) 14.4 (14.41−14.42) 14.2 (14.20−14.22) 1.1 (1.10−1.10) 1.0 (1.01−1.02) 1.42 0.21 Age ≥65 yrs 14.6 (14.58−14.59) 15.9 (15.89−15.91) 16.9 (16.90−16.92) 0.9 (0.86−0.86) 0.9 (0.94−0.94) −2.32 −1.01 Age ≤17 yrs 16.6 (16.57−16.58) 15.5 (15.51−15.53) 13.6 (13.56−13.57) 1.2 (1.22−1.22) 1.1 (1.14−1.14) 3.01 1.95 Disability 15.1 (15.13−15.14) 15.0 (14.95−14.97) 14.9 (14.88−14.90) 1.0 (1.02−1.02) 1.0 (1.00−1.01) 0.24 0.07 Single parent 16.7 (16.68−16.70) 15.6 (15.55−15.56) 14.0 (13.99−14.00) 1.2 (1.19−1.19) 1.1 (1.11−1.11) 2.70 1.56 Racial/Ethnic minority status and language Total 15.5 (15.45−15.48) 15.6 (15.56−15.58) 14.9 (14.90−14.91) 1.0 (1.04−1.04) 1.0 (1.04−1.05) 0.57 0.67 Racial/Ethnic minority 15.5 (15.51−15.54) 15.7 (15.66−15.67) 14.8 (14.75−14.76) 1.1 (1.05−1.05) 1.1 (1.06−1.06) 0.77 0.91 Limited English 15.3 (15.30−15.33) 15.5 (15.47−15.49) 14.9 (14.93−14.93) 1.0 (1.02−1.03) 1.0 (1.04−1.04) 0.38 0.55 Housing type and transportation Total 14.8 (14.81−14.82) 15.3 (15.25−15.26) 15.0 (15.03−15.05) 1.0 (0.98−0.99) 1.0 (1.01−1.01) −0.23 0.21 Multiunit housing 14.0 (13.96−13.99) 14.5 (14.49−14.51) 15.2 (15.24−15.24) 0.9 (0.92−0.92) 1.0 (0.95−0.95) −1.26 −0.74 Mobile homes 15.2 (15.22−15.23) 15.1 (15.05−15.07) 14.0 (13.98−14.00) 1.1 (1.09−1.09) 1.1 (1.08−1.08) 1.24 1.07 Crowding 16.1 (16.08−16.10) 15.1 (15.09−15.11) 14.7 (14.65−14.66) 1.1 (1.10−1.10) 1.0 (1.03−1.03) 1.43 0.45 No vehicle 14.5 (14.49−14.51) 15.4 (15.35−15.36) 15.2 (15.15−15.16) 1.0 (0.96−0.96) 1.0 (1.01−1.01) −0.66 0.20 Group quarters 15.9 (15.85−15.86) 14.8 (14.79−14.80) 14.2 (14.21−14.23) 1.1 (1.11−1.12) 1.0 (1.04−1.04) 1.64 0.58 Abbreviation: CI = confidence interval. * Vaccines administered to residents of 49 U.S. states (excluding Hawaii) and the District of Columbia during December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021, and reported to CDC by March 6, 2021. † SVI ranks counties according to 15 social factors (indicators): 1) percentage of persons with incomes below poverty threshold, 2) percentage of civilian population (aged ≥16 years) that is unemployed, 3) per capita income, 4) percentage of persons aged ≥25 years with no high school diploma, 5) percentage of persons aged ≥65 years, 6) percentage of persons aged ≤17 years, 7) percentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability, 8) percentage of single-parent households with children aged <18 years, 9) percentage of persons who are racial/ethnic minorities (all persons except non-Hispanic White), 10) percentage of persons aged ≥5 years who speak English “less than well,” 11) percentage of housing in structures with ≥10 units (multiunit housing), 12) percentage of housing structures that are mobile homes, 13) percentage households with more persons than rooms (crowding), 14) percentage of households with no vehicle available, and 15) percentage of persons in group quarters. Estimates are created using 2014–2018 (5-year) data from the American Community Survey. The 15 indicators are categorized into four themes: 1) socioeconomic status (indicators 1–4), 2) household composition and disability (indicators 5–8), 3) racial/ethnic minority status and language (indicators 9 and 10), and 4) housing type and transportation (indicators 11–15). Overall SVI includes all 15 indicators as a composite measure. Additional details are available (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/documentation/SVI_documentation_2018.html). § Total county population denominators used to create vaccination coverage estimates were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 Population Estimates Program (https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html). Vaccination coverage was calculated as the total number of vaccine doses administered divided by the total population size for included counties in each SVI tertile. ¶ Counties were assigned to tertiles (low, moderate, and high social vulnerability) for each of the 20 SVI ranking metrics. ** Rate ratios compare the relative difference in vaccination coverage between SVI tertiles; high social vulnerability is the reference category. †† Rate differences compare the difference in vaccination coverage between SVI tertiles; high social vulnerability is the reference category. Vaccination coverage differences of ≥0.5 percentage points were considered meaningful differences between SVI tertiles. FIGURE 1 Distribution of county-level* COVID-19 vaccination coverage among persons who received at least one vaccine dose (N = 49,264,338), † by social vulnerability index (SVI) metric § and tertile — United States, December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021 * Counties were assigned to tertiles (low, moderate, and high) for overall SVI. Data are presented as a 100% stacked bar chart (normalized across states), with the length of each bar segment representing the proportion of total vaccination coverage for each SVI tertile. When proportions of vaccination coverage are equal among SVI tertiles, each proportion represents 0.33, represented by the vertical lines. When proportions of vaccination coverage estimates are not equally distributed among SVI tertiles, then proportions do not align with threshold lines representing 0.33. † Vaccines administered to residents of 49 U.S. states (excluding Hawaii) and the District of Columbia during December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021, and reported to CDC by March 6, 2021. § SVI ranks counties according to 15 social factors (indicators): 1) percentage of persons with incomes below poverty threshold, 2) percentage of civilian population (aged ≥16 years) that is unemployed, 3) per capita income, 4) percentage of persons aged ≥25 years with no high school diploma, 5) percentage of persons aged ≥65 years, 6) percentage of persons aged ≤17 years, 7) percentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability, 8) percentage of single-parent households with children aged <18 years, 9) percentage of persons who are racial/ethnic minorities (i.e., all persons except those who are non-Hispanic White), 10) percentage of persons aged ≥5 years who speak English “less than well,” 11) percentage of housing in structures with ≥10 units (multiunit housing), 12) percentage of housing structures that are mobile homes, 13) percentage households with more persons than rooms (crowding), 14) percentage of households with no vehicle available, and 15) percentage of persons in group quarters. Estimates are created using 2014–2018 (5-year) data from the American Community Survey. The 15 indicators are categorized into four themes: 1) socioeconomic status (indicators 1–4), 2) household composition and disability (indicators 5–8), 3) racial/ethnic minority status and language (indicators 9 and 10), and 4) housing type and transportation (indicators 11–15). Overall SVI includes all 15 indicators as a composite measure. This figure is a bar chart showing the distribution of COVID-19 vaccination coverage among persons who received at least one dose during December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021, for U.S. counties with low, moderate, and high social vulnerability according to 15 social vulnerability index indicators. In the state-level analyses, across overall SVI and all four themes, higher vaccination coverage in high vulnerability counties compared with low vulnerability counties (i.e., equity) was found in two states (Arizona and Montana) (Figure 2) (Supplementary Table, Supplementary Figure 2, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/104111). Three other states had higher vaccination coverage in high vulnerability counties than in low vulnerability counties for the overall SVI and three of four themes (Alaska, all except the socioeconomic status theme, and Minnesota and West Virginia, all except the racial/ethnic minority status and language theme). Vaccination disparities were observed in 31 states (overall SVI measure); in 11 of these states, the disparity was found in all four SVI themes. FIGURE 2 Distribution of county-level* COVID-19 vaccination coverage among persons who received at least one vaccine dose (N = 49,019,117), † by state and overall social vulnerability index (SVI) tertile — United States, December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021 * Counties were assigned to tertiles (low, moderate, and high) for overall SVI. Data are presented as a 100% stacked bar chart (normalized across states), with the length of each bar segment representing the proportion of total vaccination coverage for each SVI tertile. When proportions of vaccination coverage are equal among SVI tertiles, each proportion represents 0.33, represented by the vertical lines. When proportions of vaccination coverage estimates are not equally distributed among SVI tertiles, then proportions do not align with threshold lines representing 0.33. † Vaccines administered to residents of 48 U.S. states (excluding Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii) during December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021, and reported to CDC by March 6, 2021. This figure is a bar chart showing the distribution of COVID-19 vaccination coverage among persons who received at least one dose, by state, during December 14, 2020–March 1, 2021, for U.S. counties with low, moderate, and high social vulnerability according to the social vulnerability index. Discussion Ensuring equitable COVID-19 vaccine access is a priority for the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program.**** In the first 2.5 months of the program, vaccination coverage was lower in high vulnerability counties nationwide, demonstrating that additional efforts are needed to achieve equity in vaccination coverage for those who have been most affected by COVID-19 ( 3 ). Improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage in communities with high proportions of racial/ethnic minority groups and persons who are economically and socially marginalized is critical because these populations have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality ( 4 – 6 ). Monitoring community-level metrics is essential to informing tailored, local vaccine delivery efforts, which might reduce inequities. Public health officials can investigate whether disparities are occurring because of access problems (e.g., vaccine supply, vaccination clinic availability, and lack of prioritization of vulnerable groups) or other challenges, such as vaccine hesitancy. Vaccination promotion, outreach, and administration might focus on high vulnerability populations within counties (e.g., providing resources to federally qualified health centers when socioeconomic disparities are identified). †††† Vaccination coverage was consistently lower in high vulnerability counties than in low vulnerability counties for the socioeconomic status indicators (i.e., poverty, unemployment, low income, and no high school diploma); the coverage disparity was largest for the education indicator. However, equal vaccination coverage in counties with low and high social vulnerability was observed for the indicators relating to the percentages of persons who speak English less than well and with persons with a disability, which is encouraging in light of the disproportionate incidence of COVID-19 in these populations. §§§§ Higher coverage in counties with large proportions of older adults was consistent with the prioritization of this age group early in the vaccination program; however, the higher coverage in counties with lower percentages of households with a vehicle available was unexpected and warrants further investigation. Despite these positive findings, equity in access to COVID-19 vaccination has not been achieved nationwide. COVID-19 vaccination equity varied among states. In most states, coverage was higher in low vulnerability counties than in high vulnerability counties. Despite this, states such as Arizona and Montana achieved higher vaccination coverage in high vulnerability counties across SVI metrics. Practices in states with high equity included 1) prioritizing persons in racial/ethnic minority groups during the early stages of the vaccine program implementation, 2) actively monitoring and addressing barriers to vaccination in vulnerable communities, 3) directing vaccines to vulnerable communities, 4) offering free transportation to vaccination sites, and 5) collaborating with community partners, tribal health organizations, and the Indian Health Service. ¶¶¶¶ More investigation is needed to understand these differences to identify best practices to achieve COVID-19 vaccination equity. These findings demonstrate that estimates for overall SVI obscured variations among SVI themes and that SVI themes masked variations among indicators within a theme group. In addition, the national coverage estimates by SVI metrics did not capture the wide variation among states. These results highlight the importance of examining individual SVI indicators in addition to the composite SVI measure and themes to monitor equitable vaccine administration. State and local jurisdictions should also consider analyzing SVI metrics at the level of the census tract (when these data are available). The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, because specific populations were prioritized for vaccination in each state, the differences observed might be due, in part, to prioritization based on age, occupational exposures, and underlying health conditions. Second, these associations are ecological and reported for population-based metrics rather than individual-level vulnerability data. With only age, sex, and limited race/ethnicity data available at the national level, use of these population-based metrics is an important method to evaluate socioeconomic and demographic disparities. Third, although the geographic unit of analysis was the county, the vulnerabilities and vaccination coverage rates might vary within counties; state and local jurisdictions might prioritize vaccination efforts for high vulnerability communities in smaller geographic units (e.g., census tracts). Fourth, SVI metrics do not include all population characteristics that could be used to identify disparities and focus vaccination efforts, such as lack of Internet access ( 7 ). Finally, coverage was calculated based on total population, and vaccines authorized for use during the study period were only recommended for persons aged ≥16 or ≥18 years.***** The results of this study indicate that COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower in high vulnerability counties than in low vulnerability counties, a finding largely driven by socioeconomic disparities. As vaccine supply increases and administration expands to additional priority groups, CDC, state, and local jurisdictions should continue to monitor vaccination levels by SVI metrics to aid in the development of community efforts to improve vaccination access, outreach, and administration among populations most affected by COVID-19. Summary What is already known about this topic? COVID-19 has disproportionally affected racial/ethnic minority groups and persons who are economically and socially disadvantaged. Ensuring equitable COVID-19 vaccine coverage is a national priority. What is added by this report? In the first 2.5 months of the U.S. vaccination program, high social vulnerability counties had lower COVID-19 vaccination coverage than did low social vulnerability counties. Although vaccination coverage estimates by county-level social vulnerability varied widely among states, disparities in vaccination coverage were observed in the majority of states. What are the implications for public health practice? Continued monitoring of vaccination coverage by social vulnerability metrics is critical for developing tailored, local vaccine administration and outreach efforts to reduce COVID-19 vaccination inequities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Related to COVID-19

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Social Vulnerability and Racial Inequality in COVID-19 Deaths in Chicago

            Although the current COVID-19 crisis is felt globally, at the local level, COVID-19 has disproportionately affected poor, highly segregated African American communities in Chicago. To understand the emerging pattern of racial inequality in the effects of COVID-19, we examined the relative burden of social vulnerability and health risk factors. We found significant spatial clusters of social vulnerability and risk factors, both of which are significantly associated with the increased COVID-19-related death rate. We also found that a higher percentage of African Americans was associated with increased levels of social vulnerability and risk factors. In addition, the proportion of African American residents has an independent effect on the COVID-19 death rate. We argue that existing inequity is often highlighted in emergency conditions. The disproportionate effects of COVID-19 in African American communities are a reflection of racial inequality and social exclusion that existed before the COVID-19 crisis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Association Between Social Vulnerability and a County’s Risk for Becoming a COVID-19 Hotspot — United States, June 1–July 25, 2020

              Poverty, crowded housing, and other community attributes associated with social vulnerability increase a community’s risk for adverse health outcomes during and following a public health event ( 1 ). CDC uses standard criteria to identify U.S. counties with rapidly increasing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence (hotspot counties) to support health departments in coordinating public health responses ( 2 ). County-level data on COVID-19 cases during June 1–July 25, 2020 and from the 2018 CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) were analyzed to examine associations between social vulnerability and hotspot detection and to describe incidence after hotspot detection. Areas with greater social vulnerabilities, particularly those related to higher representation of racial and ethnic minority residents (risk ratio [RR] = 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4–6.4), density of housing units per structure (RR = 3.1; 95% CI = 2.7–3.6), and crowded housing units (i.e., more persons than rooms) (RR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.8–2.3), were more likely to become hotspots, especially in less urban areas. Among hotspot counties, those with greater social vulnerability had higher COVID-19 incidence during the 14 days after detection (212–234 cases per 100,000 persons for highest SVI quartile versus 35–131 cases per 100,000 persons for other quartiles). Focused public health action at the federal, state, and local levels is needed not only to prevent communities with greater social vulnerability from becoming hotspots but also to decrease persistently high incidence among hotspot counties that are socially vulnerable. Daily county-level COVID-19 case counts were obtained through USAFacts (https://usafacts.org/), which compiles data reported by state and local health departments.* Beginning on March 8, 2020, hotspot counties were identified daily using standard criteria † ( 2 ). County-level social vulnerability data were obtained from the 2018 CDC SVI, which was developed to identify communities with the most needs during and following public health events. Scores for overall SVI, along with four vulnerability subcomponents pertaining to 1) socioeconomic status, 2) household composition and disability, 3) representation of racial and ethnic minority groups and English proficiency, and 4) housing type and transportation, were generated using 15 population-based measures. § Scores for the overall and subcomponent measures were presented as percentile rankings by county, with higher scores indicating greater vulnerability. SVI scores were categorized as quartiles based on their distribution among all U.S. counties. Urbanicity of counties was based on the National Center for Health Statistics 2013 urban-rural classification scheme ¶ ( 3 ). Counties meeting hotspot criteria at least once during March 8–July 25 were described by urbanicity and social vulnerability based on the first date of hotspot detection. All other analyses were limited to hotspots identified during June 1–July 25. Among all 3,142 U.S. counties, RRs with 95% CIs were calculated using bivariate log-binomial models to assess differences in the probability of being identified as a hotspot during June 1–July 25 by SVI quartile, overall and for the four SVI subcomponents; analyses were also stratified by urbanicity.** Based on these results, the probability of hotspot identification was further examined by specific measures of social vulnerability related to the representation of the following groups in each county: racial and ethnic minority residents, English proficiency, housing type, and transportation; counties were categorized as at or above or below the national median values. Among the 747 counties meeting hotspot criteria during June 1–July 25, 689 (92%) were classified as new hotspots. †† Among these 689 counties, the median COVID-19 incidence §§ was calculated over the 14 days after hotspot identification and compared with incidence during the same period among 689 randomly selected non-hotspot counties matched by three urbanicity categories. Among new hotspot counties, incidence was also compared by SVI quartile. ¶¶ All analyses were conducted using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute) and R (version 4.0.2; The R Foundation). P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. The percentage of hotspots in nonmetropolitan areas increased from 11% during March–April to 40% during June–July (Figure 1). The percentage of hotspots in the highest SVI quartile increased from 22% during March–April to 42% during June–July (Figure 1). FIGURE 1 Daily number of counties identified as hotspots, by urbanicity (A)* and by quartiles of overall social vulnerability index score (B), based on first date of hotspot identification (N = 905 counties) † , § — United States, March 8–July 25, 2020 * According to the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for counties, counties can be grouped into one of six categories based on population size, including large central metropolitan, large fringe metropolitan, medium metropolitan, small metropolitan, micropolitan, and noncore areas. For this analysis, results were presented in three categories: large central metropolitan and large fringe metropolitan (large metropolitan), medium and small metropolitan, and micropolitan and noncore areas (nonmetropolitan). † Overall social vulnerability scores were percentile rankings ranging from 0–1, with higher values indicating greater social vulnerability. Scores were categorized into quartiles based on distribution among all U.S. counties. § Each county only appears once and is represented based on the first date of hotspot identification during March 8–July 25, 2020. The figure is a histogram showing the daily number of counties identified as hotspots, by urbanicity (A) and by quartiles of overall social vulnerability index score (B), based on first date of hotspot identification (N = 905 counties), in the United States, during March 8–July 25, 2020. During June 1–July 25, 747 (24%) U.S. counties (representing 60% of the U.S. population) were identified as hotspots (Table). Counties with higher social vulnerability, particularly vulnerabilities related to the representation of racial and ethnic minority residents, English proficiency, housing type, and transportation, had a higher probability of being identified as a hotspot. For example, the risk for becoming a hotspot was 37.3 (95% CI = 20.1–69.3) times as high among areas in the highest quartile of vulnerability related to representation of racial and ethnic minority residents and English proficiency and 3.4 (95% CI = 2.7–4.2) times as high among areas in the highest quartile of vulnerability related to housing type and transportation, compared with areas in the lowest quartile for these vulnerabilities. These vulnerability subcomponents were more strongly associated with hotspot identification in less urban areas. Counties with median percentage or higher of racial and ethnic minority residents (RR = 5.3; 95% CI = 4.4–6.4), housing structures with ≥10 units (RR = 3.1 [2.7–3.6]), and crowded housing units (i.e., more persons than rooms) (RR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.8–2.3) were more likely to become hotspots. TABLE Associations between social vulnerability measures* and hotspot identification, overall and by urbanicity † (N = 3,142 total counties) —United States, June 1–July 25, 2020 Social vulnerability All counties Large metropolitan counties Medium and small metropolitan counties Nonmetropolitan counties Overall Hotspots Overall Hotspots Overall Hotspots Overall Hotspots No. No. (row %) RR (95% CI)¶ No. No. (row %) RR (95% CI)¶ No. No. (row %) RR (95% CI)¶ No. No. (row %) RR (95% CI)¶ Overall (row %) 3,142 747 (24) — 436 227 (52) — 372 190 (51) — 1,976 195 (10) — Overall social vulnerability Q1 (lowest vulnerability) 786 109 (14) Reference 171 68 (40) Reference 152 34 (22) Reference 463 7 (2) Reference Q2 784 176 (22) 1.6 (1.3–2.0) 122 68 (56) 1.4 (1.1–1.8) 205 96 (47) 2.1 (1.5–2.9) 457 12 (3) 1.7 (0.7–4.4) Q3 785 198 (25) 1.8 (1.5–2.2) 99 59 (60) 1.5 (1.2–1.9) 212 98 (46) 2.1 (1.5–2.9) 474 41 (9) 5.7 (2.6–12.6) Q4 (highest vulnerability) 786 263 (33) 2.4 (2.0–2.9) 44 32 (73) 1.8 (1.4–2.4) 161 97 (60) 2.7 (2.0–3.7) 581 134 (23) 15.3 (7.2–32.3) Social vulnerability related to socioeconomic status Q1 (lowest vulnerability) 785 167 (21) Reference 180 95 (53) Reference 176 62 (35) Reference 429 10 (2) Reference Q2 786 197 (25) 1.2 (1.0–1.4) 144 72 (50) 0.9 (0.8–1.2) 218 107 (49) 1.4 (1.1–1.8) 424 18 (4) 1.8 (0.9–3.9) Q3 784 188 (24) 1.1 (0.9–1.4) 81 47 (58) 1.1 (0.9–1.4) 201 97 (48) 1.4 (1.1–1.8) 502 44 (9) 3.8 (1.9–7.4) Q4 (highest vulnerability) 786 194 (25) 1.2 (1.0–1.4) 31 13 (42) 0.8 (0.5–1.2) 135 59 (44) 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 620 122 (20) 8.4 (4.5–15.9) Social vulnerability related to household composition and disability Q1 (lowest vulnerability) 786 240 (31) Reference 228 115 (50) Reference 215 103 (48) Reference 343 22 (6) Reference Q2 786 163 (21) 0.7 (0.6–0.8) 122 70 (57) 1.1 (0.9–1.4) 181 66 (36) 0.8 (0.6–1.0) 483 27 (6) 0.9 (0.5–1.5) Q3 784 181 (23) 0.8 (0.6–0.9) 58 33 (57) 1.1 (0.9–1.5) 190 98 (52) 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 536 50 (9) 1.5 (0.9–2.4) Q4 (highest vulnerability) 786 163 (21) 0.7 (0.6–0.8) 28 9 (32) 0.6 (0.4–1.1) 144 58 (40) 0.8 (0.7–1.1) 614 96 (16) 2.4 (1.6–3.8) Social vulnerability related to racial and ethnic minority residents and English proficiency Q1 (lowest vulnerability) 788 10 (1) Reference 55 5 (9) Reference 111 3 (3) Reference 622 2 (0) Reference Q2 783 86 (11) 8.7 (4.5–16.5) 91 22 (24) 2.7 (1.1–6.6) 179 37 (21) 7.6 (2.4–24.2) 513 27 (5) 16.4 (3.9–68.5) Q3 785 279 (36) 28.0 (15.0–52.2) 104 63 (61) 6.7 (2.8–15.6) 242 142 (59) 21.7 (7.1–66.6) 439 74 (17) 52.4 (12.9–212.4) Q4 (highest vulnerability) 786 372 (47) 37.3 (20.1–69.3) 186 137 (74) 8.1 (3.5–18.8) 198 143 (72) 26.7 (8.7–81.9) 402 92 (23) 71.2 (17.6–287.3) Social vulnerability related to housing type and transportation Q1 (lowest vulnerability) 786 87 (11) Reference 159 70 (44) Reference 139 14 (10) Reference 488 3 (1) Reference Q2 786 149 (19) 1.7 (1.3–2.2) 112 57 (51) 1.2 (0.9–1.5) 158 60 (38) 3.8 (2.2–6.4) 516 32 (6) 10.1 (3.1–32.7) Q3 785 218 (28) 2.5 (2.0–3.2) 87 52 (60) 1.4 (1.1–1.7) 219 117 (53) 5.3 (3.2–8.9) 479 49 (10) 16.6 (5.2–53.0) Q4 (highest vulnerability) 785 293 (37) 3.4 (2.7–4.2) 78 48 (62) 1.4 (1.1–1.8) 214 134 (63) 6.2 (3.7–10.3) 493 111 (23) 36.6 (11.7–114.5) Individual components of social vulnerability related to racial and ethnic minority residents and English proficiency§ Percentage of racial and ethnic minority residents (median = 16.1%) Less than median 1,569 118 (8) Reference 149 37 (25) Reference 301 54 (18) Reference 1,119 27 (2) Reference At or above median 1,567 629 (40) 5.3 (4.4–6.4) 287 190 (66) 2.7 (2.0–3.6) 429 271 (63) 3.5 (2.7–4.5) 857 168 (20) 8.1 (5.5–12.1) Percentage who speak English less than well (median = 0.7%) Less than median 1,458 130 (9) Reference 129 23 (18) Reference 273 47 (17) Reference 1,056 60 (6) Reference At or above median 1,684 617 (37) 4.1 (3.4–4.9) 307 204 (66) 3.7 (2.6–5.4) 457 278 (61) 3.5 (2.7–4.6) 920 135 (15) 2.6 (1.9–3.5) Individual components of social vulnerability related to housing type and transportation§ Percentage of housing structures with ≥10 units (median = 2.9%) Less than median 1,554 179 (12) Reference 111 29 (26) Reference 234 39 (17) Reference 1,209 111 (9) Reference At or above median 1,588 568 (36) 3.1 (2.7–3.6) 325 198 (61) 2.3 (1.7–3.2) 496 286 (58) 3.5 (2.6–4.7) 767 84 (11) 1.2 (0.9–1.6) Percentage of housing units that are mobile home units (median = 10.9%) Less than median 1,559 440 (28) Reference 328 186 (57) Reference 424 210 (50) Reference 807 44 (5) Reference At or above median 1,583 307 (19) 0.7 (0.6–0.8) 108 41 (38) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) 306 115 (38) 0.8 (0.6–0.9) 1,169 151 (13) 2.4 (1.7–3.3) Percentage of households with more persons than rooms (median = 1.9%) Less than median 1,513 235 (16) Reference 213 88 (41) Reference 350 112 (32) Reference 950 35 (4) Reference At or above median 1,629 512 (31) 2.0 (1.8–2.3) 223 139 (62) 1.5 (1.2–1.8) 380 213 (56) 1.8 (1.5–2.1) 1,026 160 (16) 4.2 (3.0–6.0) Percentage of households without vehicle access (median = 5.7%) Less than median 1,571 333 (21) Reference 271 138 (51) Reference 346 130 (38) Reference 954 65 (7) Reference At or above median 1,571 414 (26) 1.2 (1.1–1.4) 165 89 (54) 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 384 195 (51) 1.4 (1.1–1.6) 1,022 130 (13) 1.9 (1.4–2.5) Percentage of persons living in institutionalized group quarters (median = 2%) Less than median 1,569 348 (22) Reference 273 149 (55) Reference 334 122 (37) Reference 962 77 (8) Reference At or above median 1,573 399 (25) 1.1 (1.0–1.3) 163 78 (48) 0.9 (0.7–1.1) 396 203 (51) 1.4 (1.2–1.7) 1,014 118 (12) 1.5 (1.1–1.9) Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; RR = risk ratio. * Scores for all social vulnerability measures represented percentile rankings by county, ranging from 0–1, with higher scores indicating greater vulnerability. Scores were categorized into quartiles based on distribution among all U.S. counties. † Because of limited sample size, the National Center for Health Statistics urban/rural categories were collapsed into large metropolitan (which includes large central metropolitan and large fringe areas), medium and small metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan (micropolitan and noncore) areas. § Cutoffs for individual components of social vulnerability related to housing type and transportation were based on median values. ¶ P-values for Fisher’s exact tests yielded statistically significant findings (p<0.05) for all 95% CIs excluding the null value. At the time of identification, incidence among new hotspot counties was 97 cases per 100,000 persons; in contrast, incidence in non-hotspot counties was 27 cases per 100,000 persons (p<0.001). Fourteen days later, hotspot county incidence was 140 cases per 100,000, and incidence in non-hotspot counties was 40 cases per 100,000 persons (p<0.001) (Figure 2). During the 14 days after hotspot detection, the absolute change in incidence in hotspot counties was higher than that in non-hotspot counties (p<0.001). Among hotspot counties, incidence was higher for counties with higher social vulnerability and particularly high in the highest quartile of social vulnerability on the day identified as a hotspot (212 cases versus 35–56 per 100,000 for other quartiles; p<0.001) and 14 days after being identified as a hotspot (234 cases versus 82–131 per 100,000; p<0.001) (Figure 2). FIGURE 2 COVID-19 incidence* during the 14 days after identification as a hotspot, compared with counties not identified as hotspots † (A) (N = 1,378 counties), and COVID-19 incidence, by quartile of social vulnerability index among hotspot counties § (B) (N = 689 counties) — United States, June 1–July 25, 2020 * Cases per 100,000 persons; calculated based on 7-day moving window (total number of cases over the last 7 days per 100,000 population) during the 14 days after hotspot identification to smooth expected variation in daily case counts. † To compare incidence in hotspot and non-hotspot counties, a random sample of non-hotspot counties (1:1 ratio) was matched to hotspot counties by urbanicity and assigned the same date of reference. § Overall social vulnerability scores were percentile rankings ranging from 0–1, with higher values indicating more social vulnerability. Scores were categorized into quartiles based on distribution among all U.S. counties. The figure is a line chart showing COVID-19 incidence during the 14 days after identification as a hotspot, compared with counties not identified as hotspots (A) (N = 1,378 counties), and COVID-19 incidence, by quartile of social vulnerability index among hotspot counties (B) (N = 689 counties), in the United States, during June 1–July 25, 2020. Discussion In this analysis, counties with more social vulnerabilities, particularly those with a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority residents, high-density housing structures, and crowded housing units, were at higher risk for becoming a COVID-19 hotspot, especially in less urban areas. Among hotspot counties, areas with more social vulnerability had significantly higher incidence than did other counties. These findings have implications for efforts to prevent counties with social vulnerability from becoming COVID-19 hotspots, including prioritizing vaccination access,*** and for implementing public health action in counties that become hotspots. Consistent with previous findings ( 4 – 6 ), these results show that COVID-19 disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minority groups, who might also experience more socioeconomic challenges. ††† Communities with higher social vulnerability have a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority residents, who might be more likely to have essential jobs requiring in-person work and live in potentially crowded conditions ( 7 , 8 ). These circumstances could put racial and ethnic minority residents at risk for COVID-19 through close contact with others. Incorporating the needs of populations that are socially vulnerable into community mitigation plans is essential for limiting COVID-19 transmission. Specifically, implementing recommended prevention efforts at facilities requiring in-person work (e.g., meat processing facilities and grocery stores), including temperature or symptom screening, mask mandates, social distancing practices, and paid sick leave policies encouraging ill workers to remain home, might reduce transmission risk among populations that are vulnerable at workplaces ( 9 ). In addition, plain-language and culturally sensitive and relevant public health messaging should be tailored based on community needs, communicated by local leaders, and translated into other languages in areas with many nonnative English speakers ( 9 ). Additional support from federal, state, and local partners is needed for communities with social vulnerabilities and at risk for COVID-19, particularly for persons living in crowded or high-density housing conditions. Initiatives to provide temporary housing, food, and medication for COVID-19 patients living in crowded housing units could be considered to permit separation from household members during infectious periods. §§§ As expected, hotspot counties had significantly higher COVID-19 incidence at the time of detection than did non-hotspot counties. Hotspot counties also had a higher absolute change in incidence during the 14 days after identification, demonstrating real and meaningful increases in incidence in these counties and underscoring the importance of implementing robust public health responses in these counties. Among hotspot counties, areas with the highest social vulnerability had significantly higher incidence, indicating an urgent need to prioritize public health action in these counties to curb COVID-19 transmission. Hotspot data informed deployment of multiagency response teams from CDC, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and the Office of the Associate Secretary for Health, to 33 locations in 21 states during June 29–July 24. These COVID-19 Response Assistance Field Teams (CRAFTs) learned from state and local leaders about local response efforts and assessed how federal assistance could augment local efforts to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Areas with high social vulnerability need continued support in developing and implementing mitigation strategies and strengthening contact tracing programs to quickly identify and isolate COVID-19 cases and limit transmission. The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, associations between social vulnerability and risk for COVID-19 infection using person-level data could not be assessed; it was also not possible to assess confounding by factors such as employment. Second, changes in testing availability and laboratory reporting might have affected COVID-19 incidence estimates and hotspot detection. Finally, the hotspot criteria might have limited the ability to detect hotspots in counties with smaller populations. Building on previous work ( 10 ), these findings underscore the need for federal, state, and local partners to work with community leaders to support areas with high social vulnerability and prevent them from becoming COVID-19 hotspots. These findings also demonstrate the need to reevaluate factors related to high incidence for earlier detection of hotspot counties, particularly in areas with high social vulnerabilities; among hotspot counties, these results demonstrate the need to prioritize immediate public health action in counties with the highest social vulnerability, especially in less urban areas. Summary What is already known about this topic? Communities with higher social vulnerabilities, including poverty and crowded housing units, have more adverse outcomes during and following a public health event. What is added by this report? Counties with greater social vulnerability were more likely to become areas with rapidly increasing COVID-19 incidence (hotspot counties), especially counties with higher percentages of racial and ethnic minority residents and people living in crowded housing conditions, and in less urban areas. Hotspot counties with higher social vulnerability had high and increasing incidence after identification. What are the implications for public health practice? Focused public health action is urgently needed to prevent communities that are socially vulnerable from becoming COVID-19 hotspots and address persistently high COVID-19 incidence among hotspot areas that are socially vulnerable.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
                MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
                WR
                Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
                Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
                0149-2195
                1545-861X
                26 March 2021
                26 March 2021
                : 70
                : 12
                : 431-436
                Affiliations
                CDC COVID-19 Response Team; Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia; General Dynamics Information Technology, Falls Church, Virginia.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Michelle M. Hughes, nqw7@ 123456cdc.gov .
                Article
                mm7012e1
                10.15585/mmwr.mm7012e1
                7993557
                33764963
                1bd95926-5a1e-42e0-bac4-63de60a32945

                All material in the MMWR Series is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission; citation as to source, however, is appreciated.

                History
                Categories
                Full Report

                Comments

                Comment on this article