Search

To evaluate the association of primary infertility with subsequent bilateral oophorectomy and hysterectomy, using a population-based cohort of women with primary infertility and age-matched women in a referent group.The Rochester Epidemiology Project record-linkage system was used to assemble a population-based cohort of women with primary infertility diagnosed between 1980 and 1999 (index date). Women were age-matched (±1 year) 1:1 to women without a history of infertility or hysterectomy at the index date (referent group). Cox proportional hazards models were fit to compare long-term risks of bilateral oophorectomy and hysterectomy, respectively, between women with infertility and women in the referent group.Among both groups of 1,001 women, the mean age at the index date was 29.2±4.4 years. Median duration of follow-up was 23.7 years for both groups. Women with primary infertility were 1.7 times (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.69, 95% CI 1.22-2.33) more likely to undergo bilateral oophorectomy compared with women in the referent group. In a sensitivity analysis that excluded women with a diagnosis of infertility related to endometriosis and their matched referent group participants, this association persisted (aHR 1.50, 95% CI 1.06-2.14). Women with primary infertility did not have a significant increased risk of hysterectomy (aHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79-1.23). However, risk of hysterectomy was increased in those with primary infertility related to endometriosis (aHR 1.94, 95% CI 1.12-3.34). We observed that women with primary infertility were more likely to undergo hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy. Women in the referent group were more likely to undergo hysterectomy with ovarian conservation. Few women in either group had isolated bilateral oophorectomy.Primary infertility, with and without a diagnosis of endometriosis, is associated with an increased risk of bilateral oophorectomy. In women with endometriosis-related infertility, there is an association with future hysterectomy. These findings represent important confounders in the evaluation of long-term health outcomes related to primary infertility.

Implementing equity principles in resource allocation is challenging. In one approach, some US states implemented race-based prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccines in response to vast racial inequities in COVID-19 outcomes, while others used place-based allocation. In a nationally representative survey of n=2067 US residents, fielded in mid-April 2021 (before the entire US population became eligible for vaccines), we explored the public acceptability of race-based prioritisation compared with place-based prioritisation, by offering vaccines to harder hit zip codes before residents of other zip codes. We found that in general, a majority of respondents supported the place-based approach, and a substantial proportion supported the race-based plan. Support was higher among Democrats compared with Republicans. All US residents became eligible for vaccines on 19 April 2021 but as of this writing, equitable uptake of vaccines remains urgent not only for first doses for adults but also for boosters and for children. Our findings also provide a benchmark for future pandemic planning that racial and social justice in vaccine allocation are salient considerations for the public. The findings may furthermore be of interest to policy makers designing vaccine allocation frameworks in countries with comparable health disparities across social, ethnic and racial groups, and more broadly, for those exploring ways of promoting equity in resource allocation outside of a pandemic setting.

Equity was—and is—central in the US policy response to COVID-19, given its disproportionate impact on disadvantaged communities of colour. In an unprecedented turn, the majority of US states used place-based disadvantage indices to promote equity in vaccine allocation (eg, through larger vaccine shares for more disadvantaged areas and people of colour).We conducted a nationally representative survey experiment (n=2003) in April 2021 (before all US residents had become vaccine eligible), that examined respondents’ perceptions of the acceptability of disadvantage indices relative to two ways of prioritising racial and ethnic groups more directly, and assessed the role of framing and expert anchors in shaping perceptions.A majority of respondents supported the use of disadvantage indices, and one-fifth opposed any of the three equity-promoting plans. Differences in support and opposition were identified by respondents’ political party affiliation. Providing a numerical anchor (that indicated expert recommendations and states’ actual practices in reserving a proportion of allocations for prioritised groups) led respondents to prefer a lower distribution of reserved vaccine allocations compared with the randomised condition without this anchor, and the effect of the anchor differed across the frames.Our findings support ongoing uses of disadvantage indices in vaccine allocation, and, by extension, in allocating tests, masks or treatments, especially when supply cannot meet demand. The findings can also inform US allocation frameworks in future pandemic planning, and could provide lessons on how to promote equity in clinical and public health outside of the pandemic setting.Data availability statementData are available on reasonable request.This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

Many vaccine rationing guidelines urge planners to recognize, and ideally reduce, inequities. In the United States, allocation frameworks are determined by each of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 64 jurisdictions (50 states, the District of Columbia, five cities and eight territories). In this study, we analyzed vaccine allocation plans published by 8 November 2020, tracking updates through to 30 March 2021. We evaluated whether jurisdictions adopted proposals to reduce inequity using disadvantage indices and related place-based measures. By 30 March 2021, 14 jurisdictions had prioritized specific zip codes in combination with metrics such as COVID-19 incidence, and 37 jurisdictions (including 34 states) had adopted disadvantage indices, compared to 19 jurisdictions in November 2020. Uptake of indices doubled from 7 to 14 among the jurisdictions with the largest shares of disadvantaged communities. Five applications were distinguished: (1) prioritizing disadvantaged groups through increased shares of vaccines or vaccination appointments; (2) defining priority groups or areas; (3) tailoring outreach and communication; (4) planning the location of dispensing sites; and (5) monitoring receipt. To ensure that equity features centrally in allocation plans, policymakers at the federal, state and local levels should universalize the uptake of disadvantage indices and related place-based measures.

Major global and national vaccine allocation guidelines urge planners to allocate vaccines in ways that recognize, and ideally reduce, existing societal inequities within countries. However, allocation plans of the US will be determined individually by each of the CDC’s 64 jurisdictions (states, the District of Columbia, five cities, and territories). We analyzed whether jurisdictions have incorporated novel approaches to reduce inequity, based on plans published by the CDC in early November 2020 (63 summaries [98% of all jurisdictions] and 47 full guidance documents [73% of all, including all 50 states]). Eighteen states adopted a novel proposal to use a disadvantage index to allocate vaccines more equitably, for five types of equity goals: 1) to prioritize disadvantaged groups directly, 2) to define priority groups in phased systems, 3) to plan tailored outreach and communication, 4) to plan the location of dispensing sites and 5) to monitor uptake. Yet just over a third of all states, and only half of the 16 states with the largest shares of disadvantaged populations—where reducing inequity would be most urgent—pursue such goals. While allocation frameworks are still evolving, the plans we analyzed mark important historical and practical benchmarks, and could become firm policy when COVID-19 vaccines are authorized and delivered. Vaccine roll-out poses unprecedented logistical and practical challenges. To minimize the risk that ethics and social justice falls by the wayside in the busy months to come, planners at the federal, state and local levels should carefully consider on what grounds they decline to adopt equity measures that other planners deem important and feasible for defining priority populations, designing allocation quotas, and just as critical, enabling, and monitoring, uptake.

When planners began developing COVID-19 vaccine rationing frameworks in 2020, an additional major challenge arose, as the spread of the virus was exacerbated by major health disparities. In an unprecedented, novel turn, planners added statistical place-based measures of deprivation, known as disadvantage indices, to traditional sequential allocation frameworks. To better understand the construction of these indices and their role in equitable allocation, we reviewed the most commonly used indices with publicly available documentation. We characterized four indices: Area Deprivation Index (ADI), COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI), Healthy Places Index (HPI), and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Seventy-eight total variables from the following nine domains were used to construct these indices: population demographics, poverty, education and employment, minority populations, housing, and transportation, high-risk transmission environments, health, healthcare system, and environmental and neighborhood. Geographic units that the indices were applied to range from the block group to census tract, zip code, and county level. U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey was the primary source of data, but indices varied greatly on variables and geography used, weighting schemes, and reporting units. While all indices have comparable goals, their designs differed considerably. Given the clear potential to promote equity in the pandemic setting and, plausibly, outside of it, further analyses should systematically elicit the tradeoffs associated with using different types of indices.

This scoping review identifies the construction and defined purpose of disadvantage indices deployed during the initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout.