Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem:
http://conacyt.repositorioinstitucional.mx/jspui/handle/1000/8704| A vulnerability index for COVID-19: spatial analysis to inform equitable response in Kenya | |
| Peter M Macharia Noel Kanini Joseph Emelda Okiro | |
| Acceso Abierto | |
| Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas | |
| https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.27.20113803 | |
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.27.20113803v1 | |
| Background Response to the COVID-19 pandemic calls for precision public health reflecting our improved understanding of who is the most vulnerable and their geographical location. We created three vulnerability indices to identify areas and people who require greater support while elucidating health inequities to inform emergency response in Kenya. Methods Geospatial indicators were assembled to create three vulnerability indices; social (SVI), epidemiological (EVI) and a composite of the two (SEVI) resolved at 295 sub-counties in Kenya. SVI included nineteen indicators that affect the spread of disease; socio-economic inequities, access to services and population dynamics while EVI comprised five indicators describing comorbidities associated with COVID-19 severe disease progression. The indicators were scaled to a common measurement scale, spatially overlaid via arithmetic mean and equally weighted. The indices were classified into seven classes, 1-2 denoted low-vulnerability and 6-7 high-vulnerability. The population within vulnerabilities classes was quantified. Results The spatial variation of each index was heterogeneous across Kenya. Forty-nine north-western and partly eastern sub-counties (6.9 m people) were highly vulnerable while 58 sub-counties (9.7 m people) in western and central Kenya were the least vulnerable for SVI. For EVI, 48 sub-counties (7.2 m people) in central and the adjacent areas and 81 sub-counties (13.2 m people) in northern Kenya were the most and least vulnerable respectively. Overall (SEVI), 46 sub-counties (7.0 m people) around central and south-eastern were more vulnerable while 81 sub-counties (14.4 m people) that were least vulnerable. Conclusion The vulnerability indices created are tools relevant to the county, national government and stakeholders for prioritization and improved planning especially in highly vulnerable sub-counties where cases have not been confirmed. The heterogeneous nature of the vulnerability highlights the need to address social determinants of health disparities, strengthen the health system and establish programmes to cushion against the negative effects of the pandemic. | |
| bioRxiv | |
| 28-05-2020 | |
| Preimpreso | |
| Inglés | |
| Público en general | |
| VIRUS RESPIRATORIOS | |
| Aparece en las colecciones: | Materiales de Consulta y Comunicados Técnicos |
Cargar archivos:
| Fichero | Tamaño | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vulnerability index for COVID-19_spatial analysis to inform equitable response in Kenya.pdf | 735.13 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizar/Abrir |