Urban-rural disparities in COVID-19 hospitalisations and mortality: A population-based study on national surveillance data from Germany and Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent literature has highlighted the overlapping contribution of demographic characteristics and spatial factors to urban-rural disparities in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and outcomes. Yet the interplay between individual characteristics, hospitalisation, and spatial factors for urban-rural disparities in COVID-19 mortality have received limited attention. METHODS: To fill this gap, we use national surveillance data collected by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and we fit a generalized linear model to estimate the association between COVID-19 mortality and the individuals' age, sex, hospitalisation status, population density, share of the population over the age of 60, and pandemic wave across urban, intermediate and rural territories. FINDINGS: We find that in what type of territory individuals live (urban-intermediate-rural) accounts for a significant difference in their probability of dying given SARS-COV-2 infection. Hospitalisation has a large and positive effect on the probability of dying given SARS-CoV-2 infection, but with a gradient across urban, intermediate and rural territories. For those living in rural areas, the risk of dying is lower than in urban areas but only if hospitalisation was not needed; while for those who were hospitalised in rural areas the risk of dying was higher than in urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Together with individuals' demographic characteristics (notably age), hospitalisation has the largest effect on urban-rural disparities in COVID-19 mortality net of other individual and regional characteristics, including population density and the share of the population over 60.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".