Considering social inequalities in health in COVID-19 response: insights from a French case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the impact of social inequalities in health (SIH). Various studies have shown significant inequalities in mortality and morbidity associated with COVID-19 and the influence of social determinants of health. The objective of this qualitative case study was to analyze the consideration of SIH in the design of two key COVID-19 prevention and control interventions in France: testing and contact tracing. Interviews were conducted with 36 key informants involved in the design of the intervention and/or the government response to the pandemic as well as relevant documents (n = 15) were reviewed. We applied data triangulation and a hybrid deductive and inductive analysis to analyze the data. Findings revealed the divergent understandings and perspectives about SIH, as well as the challenges associated with consideration for these at the beginning stages of the pandemic. Despite a shared concern for SIH between the participants, an epidemiological frame of reference dominated the design of the intervention. It resulted in a model in which consideration for SIH appeared as a complement, with a clinical goal of the intervention: breaking the chain of COVID-19 transmission. Although the COVID-19 health crisis highlighted the importance of SIH, it did not appear to be an opportunity to further their consideration in response efforts. This article provides original insights into consideration for SIH in the design of testing and contact-tracing interventions based upon a qualitative investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".