A systems of exposure approach
MICOM Site Visit
University of Michigan
2024-05-22
Jon Zelner
Dept. of Epidemiology
Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health
University of Michigan School of Public Health
✉️ jzelner@umich.edu
🌐 epibayes.io
Capitalize on having everyone together to pin down some ways that the health equity core can jumpstart an effective, accessible and sustainable analytic infrastructure that ensures equitable prevention and treatment in Michigan and beyond.
What if a new pandemic started today? 🐄
Do we have any expectation that the structural factors that led to enormous inequity in infection and death from SARS-CoV-2 are less potent now than 4+ years ago?
Are we prepared to prevent the worst inequities in infection, severe disease and death that characterized SARS-CoV-2 in Michigan?
Do we have a solid sense of what a pathogen with a different age-specific risk profile, i.e. a pandemic influenza variant more strongly impacting young children, will mean for inequity in infection and death?
My argument for a ‘systems of exposure’ approach to modeling infection inequity in Michigan.
Applying this framework to SARS-CoV-2 data from Michigan.
Thinking ahead about what role the Health Equity Core should play in supporting the overall project.
Their effects persist even when intermediary mechansisms are addressed.
Simultaneously impact many intervening mechanisms and disease outcomes.
Innovations that are distributed unevenly increase inequity even if they reduce overall burden.
Riley (6) describes these systems in general terms relating to environmental exposure, social stress, differential treatment and so on.
In the context of infectious disease, this is about who gets exposed, when, and what happens to them when they are ill.
Requires a new approach to both transmission and statistical modeling (7).
Residential and occupational segregation that increased exposure.
Social and economic power to socially distance, work-from-home, etc.
Disparities in geographic access to healthcare.
Unequal treatment in healthcare settings.
We can’t respond our way out of this type of outcome.
Our modeling efforts have to account for the structural preconditions to inequity in emerging infection risk.
But: We also have to be prepared for best- and wort-case scenarios in order to minimize and mitigate these inequities when they arise.
We need models that allow us to think about within- and between- epidemic comparisons.
We have to evaluate our efforts and results against an equitable outcome even if it hasn’t yet been realized.
Our models have to account for pathogen-specific interactions between the key social and biological dimensions of risk, e.g. age-specific risks of infection and death.
Missing or absent data on individual socioeconomic status.
Incomplete administrative data (i.e. difficulty of obtaining detailed information on negative SARS-CoV-2 tests).
Increasing reliance on non-mechanistic metrics of social risks, e.g. social vulnerability index.*
Non-random missingness of key demographic covariates (e.g. race & ethnicity) (8)*.
Flaky population denominators that get worse as you break them down more.*