Inequities in spatial accessibility to COVID-19 testing in 30 large US cities. (October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mullachery, Pricila H.; Li, Ran; Melly, Steven; Kolker, Jennifer; Barber, Sharrelle; Diez Roux, Ana V.; Bilal, Usama
• Is Part Of: Social science & medicine. Volume 310(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-10
• Subjects: COVID-19 -- Testing -- Urban health -- Health disparities -- Health equity -- GIS; Social medicine -- Periodicals; Medical anthropology -- Periodicals; Public health -- Periodicals; Psychology -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine sociale -- Périodiques; Anthropologie médicale -- Périodiques; Santé publique -- Périodiques; Psychologie -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 362.105
• DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115307
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0277-9536

Abstract

Abstract: Testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection has been a key strategy to mitigate and control the COVID-19 pandemic. Wide spatial and racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes have emerged in US cities. Previous research has highlighted the role of unequal access to testing as a potential driver of these disparities. We described inequities in spatial accessibility to COVID-19 testing locations in 30 large US cities. We used location data from Castlight Health Inc corresponding to October 2021. We created an accessibility metric at the level of the census block group (CBG) based on the number of sites per population in a 15-minute walkshed around the centroid of each CBG. We also calculated spatial accessibility using only testing sites without restrictions, i.e., no requirement for an appointment or a physician order prior to testing. We measured the association between the social vulnerability index (SVI) and spatial accessibility using a multilevel negative binomial model with random city intercepts and random SVI slopes. Among the 27, 195 CBG analyzed, 53% had at least one testing site within a 15-minute walkshed, and 36% had at least one site without restrictions. On average, a 1-decile increase in the SVI was associated with a 3% (95% Confidence Interval: 2% - 4%) lower accessibility. Spatial inequities were similar across various components of the SVI and for sites with no restrictions. Despite this general pattern, several cities had inverted inequity, i.e., better accessibility in more vulnerable areas, which indicates that some cities may be on the right track when it comes to promoting equity in COVID-19 testing. Testing is a key component of the strategy to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and efforts should be made to improve accessibility to testing, particularly as new and more contagious variants become dominant. Highlights: There is wide heterogeneity in spatial accessibility to COVID-19 testing. Areas of high (vs. low) social vulnerability have lower accessibility to testing. Inequity in spatial accessibility varied greatly by city. For some cities, accessibility was better in more vulnerable areas.