Faculty Bibliography

COVID-19 mortality has disproportionately affected specific occupations and industries. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) protects the health and safety of workers by setting and enforcing standards for working conditions. Workers may file OSHA complaints about unsafe conditions. Complaints may indicate poor workplace safety during the pandemic. We evaluated COVID-19-related complaints filed with California (Cal)/OSHA between January 1, 2020 and December 14, 2020 across seven industries. To assess whether workers in occupations with high COVID-19-related mortality were also most likely to file Cal/OSHA complaints, we compared industry-specific per-capita COVID-19 confirmed deaths from the California Department of Public Health with COVID-19-related complaints. Although 7820 COVID-19-related complaints were deemed valid by Cal/OSHA, only 627 onsite inspections occurred, and 32 citations were issued. Agricultural workers had the highest per-capita COVID-19 death rates (402 per 100,000 workers) but were least represented among workplace complaints (44 per 100,000 workers). Health Care workers had the highest complaint rates (81 per 100,000 workers) but the second lowest COVID-19 death rate (81 per 100,000 workers). Industries with the highest inspection rates also had high COVID-19 mortality. Our findings suggest complaints are not proportional to COVID-19 risk. Instead, higher complaint rates may reflect worker groups with greater empowerment, resources, or capacity to advocate for better protections. This capacity to advocate for safe workplaces may account for relatively low mortality rates in potentially high-risk occupations. Future research should examine factors determining worker complaints and complaint systems to promote participation of those with the greatest need of protection.

Extensive empirical health research leverages variation in the timing and location of policy changes as quasi-experiments. Multiple social policies may be adopted simultaneously in the same locations, creating co-occurrence which must be addressed analytically for valid inferences. The pervasiveness and consequences of co-occurring policies have received limited attention. We analyzed a systematic sample of 13 social policy databases covering diverse domains including poverty, paid family leave, and tobacco. We quantified policy co-occurrence in each database as the fraction of variation in each policy measure across different jurisdictions and times that could be explained by co-variation with other policies (R2). We used simulations to estimate the ratio of the variance of effect estimates under the observed policy co-occurrence to variance if policies were independent. Policy co-occurrence ranged from very high for state-level cannabis policies to low for country-level sexual minority rights policies. For 65% of policies, greater than 90% of the place-time variation was explained by other policies. Policy co-occurrence increased the variance of effect estimates by a median of 57-fold. Co-occurring policies are common and pose a major methodological challenge to rigorously evaluating health effects of individual social policies. When uncontrolled, co-occurring policies confound one another, and when controlled, resulting positivity violations may substantially inflate the variance of estimated effects. Tools to enhance validity and precision for evaluating co-occurring policies are needed.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Population-based surveys are possible sources from which to draw representative control data for case-control studies. However, these surveys involve complex sampling that could lead to biased estimates of measures of association if not properly accounted for in analyses. Approaches to incorporating complex-sampled controls in density-sampled case-control designs have not been examined. METHODS:We used a simulation study to evaluate the performance of different approaches to estimating incidence density ratios (IDR) from case-control studies with controls drawn from complex survey data using risk-set sampling. In simulated population data, we applied four survey sampling approaches, with varying survey sizes, and assessed the performance of four analysis methods for incorporating survey-based controls. RESULTS:Estimates of the IDR were unbiased for methods that conducted risk-set sampling with probability of selection proportional to survey weights. Estimates of the IDR were biased when sampling weights were not incorporated, or only included in regression modeling. The unbiased analysis methods performed comparably and produced estimates with variance comparable to biased methods. Variance increased and confidence interval coverage decreased as survey size decreased. CONCLUSIONS:Unbiased estimates are obtainable in risk-set sampled case-control studies using controls drawn from complex survey data when weights are properly incorporated.

Social policies have great potential to improve population health and reduce health disparities. Thus, increasing empirical research seeks to quantify the health effects of social policies by exploiting variation in the timing of policy changes across places. Multiple social policies are often adopted simultaneously or in close succession in the same locations, creating co-occurrence which must be handled analytically for valid inferences. Although this is a substantial methodological challenge for studies aiming to isolate social policy effects, limited prior work has systematically considered analytic solutions within a causal framework or assessed whether these solutions are being adopted. We designated seven analytic solutions to policy co-occurrence, including efforts to disentangle individual policy effects and efforts to estimate the combined effects of co-occurring policies. We leveraged an existing systematic review of social policies and health to evaluate how often policy co-occurrence is identified as a threat to validity and how often each analytic solution is applied in practice. Of the 55 studies, only 17 (31%) reported checking for any co-occurring policies, although 36 (67%) used at least one approach that helps address policy co-occurrence. The most common approaches were: adjusting for measures of co-occurring policies; defining the outcome on subpopulations likely to be affected by the policy of interest (but not other co-occurring policies); and selecting a less-correlated measure of policy exposure. As health research increasingly focuses on policy changes, we must systematically assess policy co-occurrence and apply analytic solutions to strengthen future studies on the health effects of social policies.

Latino people in the US are experiencing higher excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic than any other racial/ethnic group, but it is unclear which sociodemographic subgroups within this diverse population are most affected. Such information is necessary to target policies that prevent further excess mortality and reduce inequities. Using death certificate data for January 1, 2016 through February 29, 2020 and time-series models, we estimated the expected weekly deaths among Latino people in California from March 1 through October 3, 2020. We quantified excess mortality as observed minus expected deaths and risk ratios (RR) as the ratio of observed to expected deaths. We considered subgroups categorized by age, sex, nativity, country of birth, educational attainment, occupation, and combinations of these factors. Our results indicate that during the first seven months of the pandemic, Latino deaths in California exceeded expected deaths by 10,316, a 31% increase. Excess death rates were greatest for individuals born in Mexico (RR 1.44; 95% PI, 1.41, 1.48) or a Central American country (RR 1.49; 95% PI, 1.37, 1.64), with less than a high school degree (RR 1.41; 95% PI, 1.35, 1.46), or in food-and-agriculture (RR 1.60; 95% PI, 1.48, 1.74) or manufacturing occupations (RR 1.59; 95% PI, 1.50, 1.69). Immigrant disadvantages in excess death were magnified among working-age Latinos in essential occupations. In sum, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted mortality among Latino immigrants, especially those in unprotected essential jobs. Interventions to reduce these inequities should include targeted vaccination, workplace safety enforcement, and expanded access to medical care and economic support.

[Figure: see text].

Background/UNASSIGNED:Latino people in the US are experiencing higher excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic than any other racial/ethnic group, but it is unclear which subgroups within this diverse population are most affected. Such information is necessary to target policies that prevent further excess mortality and reduce inequities. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Using death certificate data for January 1, 2016 through February 29, 2020 and time-series models, we estimated the expected weekly deaths among Latino people in California from March 1 through October 3, 2020. We quantified excess mortality as observed minus expected deaths and risk ratios (RR) as the ratio of observed to expected deaths. We considered subgroups defined by age, sex, place of birth, education, occupation, and combinations of these factors. Findings/UNASSIGNED:During the first seven months of the pandemic, Latino deaths in California exceeded expected deaths by 10,316, a 31% increase. Excess death rates were greatest for individuals born in Mexico (RR 1.44; 95% PI, 1.41, 1.48) or Central America (RR 1.49; 95% PI, 1.37, 1.64), with less than a high school degree (RR 1.41; 95% PI, 1.35, 1.46), or in food-and-agriculture (RR 1.60; 95% PI, 1.48, 1.74) or manufacturing occupations (RR 1.59; 95% PI, 1.50, 1.69). Immigrant disadvantages in excess death were magnified among working-age Latinos in essential occupations. Interpretation/UNASSIGNED:The pandemic has disproportionately impacted mortality among Latino immigrants and Latinos in unprotected essential jobs; Interventions to reduce these disparities should include early vaccination, workplace safety enforcement, and expanded access to medical care. Funding/UNASSIGNED:National Institute on Aging; UCSF. RESEARCH IN CONTEXT/UNASSIGNED:

BACKGROUND:The large-scale social distancing efforts to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission have dramatically changed human behaviors associated with traumatic injuries. Trauma centers have reported decreases in trauma volume, paralleled by changes in injury mechanisms. We aimed to quantify changes in trauma epidemiology at an urban Level I trauma center in a county that instituted one of the earliest shelter-in-place orders to inform trauma care during future pandemic responses. METHODS:A single-center interrupted time-series analysis was performed to identify associations of shelter-in-place with trauma volume, injury mechanisms, and patient demographics in San Francisco, California. To control for short-term trends in trauma epidemiology, weekly level data were analyzed 6 months before shelter-in-place. To control for long-term trends, monthly level data were analyzed 5 years before shelter-in-place. RESULTS:Trauma volume decreased by 50% in the week following shelter-in-place (p < 0.01), followed by a linear increase each successive week (p < 0.01). Despite this, trauma volume for each month (March-June 2020) remained lower compared with corresponding months for all previous 5 years (2015-2019). Pediatric trauma volume showed similar trends with initial decreases (p = 0.02) followed by steady increases (p = 0.05). Reductions in trauma volumes were due entirely to changes in nonviolent injury mechanisms, while violence-related injury mechanisms remained unchanged (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION:Although the shelter-in-place order was associated with an overall decline in trauma volume, violence-related injuries persisted. Delineating and addressing underlying factors driving persistent violence-related injuries during shelter-in-place orders should be a focus of public health efforts in preparation for future pandemic responses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Epidemiological study, level III.