A socially just recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action on the social determinants of urban health inequalities

The Role of Greenery in Stress Reduction among City Residents during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cities, as places of social interactions and human relationships, face new challenges, problems, and threats, which are sources of stress for residents. An additional cause of stress in recent years has been the COVID-19 pandemic; it was urban dwellers who were most exposed to the virus and most affected by it. Chronic stress has led to the serious erosion of physical health and psychophysical well-being among urban dwellers, and so there is a need to seek new solutions in terms of building the resilience of cities and their residents to stress. This study aims to verify the hypothesis that greenery reduced the level of stress among urban dwellers during the pandemic. The verification of this hypothesis was achieved based on a literature analysis and the results of geo-questionnaire studies conducted involving 651 residents of Poznan-among the largest of Polish cities, where the share of green areas in the spatial structure is more than 30%. According to the analysis, the interviewees experienced above-average stress levels that went up during the pandemic, and the source was not so much the virus but the restrictions imposed. Green areas and outdoor activities helped in reducing this stress (being surrounded by and looking at greenery, garden work, or plant cultivation). Residents perceive a post-pandemic city as one that is more green, in which priority is given to unmanaged green areas. It has also been pointed out that a response to the reported need for urban re-construction towards stress resilience may be a biophilic city.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the social sphere and lessons for crisis management: a literature review

The COVID-19 pandemic is the most difficult challenge that has affected humanity in recent decades. It has disrupted many features of development with domino effects in the social sphere. This study reviews the literature on the social effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and identifies the affected social areas that have undergone dramatic changes during the pandemic. We use inductive content analysis and thematic analysis to review the literature. The results show that there are seven major areas that have been negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: health, social vulnerability, education, social capital, social relationships, social mobility, and social welfare. The literature has reported dramatic psychological and emotional effects, exacerbation of segregation and poverty, disruption in educational systems and formation of an information gap, as well as a declining trends of social capital among communities. We highlight some lessons that can be learned from the pandemic to enhance social resilience in future. Among others, to effectively respond to the pandemic and other potential future adverse events, governments should adopt fair policies, identify the required changes in the socially affected contexts and take necessary responsive actions, and adopt collaboratively designed approaches to increase social resilience.

Assessing Urban Policies in a COVID-19 World

The aim of this study was to identify how the literature analyzes (identifies, evaluates, forecasts, etc.) the relationship between health issues and urban policy in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Four main levels were identified in these cases: (1) direct demands for changes in health care, (2) social issues, (3) spatial organization and (4) redefining the tasks of public authority in the face of identified challenges. The basic working method used in the study assumed a critical analysis of the literature on the subject. The time scope of the search covered articles from January 2020 to the end of August 2021 (thus covering the period of three pandemic waves). Combinations of keywords in the titles were used to search for articles. The health perspective pointed to the need for urban policies to develop a balance between health and economic costs and for coordination between different professionals/areas. A prerequisite for such a balance in cities is the carrying out of social and spatial analyses. These should illustrate the diversity of the social situations in individual cities (and more broadly in urban areas, including, sometimes, large suburbs) and the diversity's relationship (both in terms of causes and consequences) to the severity of pandemics and other health threats.

Inequalities in recovery or methodological artefact? A comparison of models across physical and mental health functioning

Considerable attention has been paid to inequalities in health. More recently, focus has also turned to inequalities in ‘recovery’; with research, for example, suggesting that lower grade of employment is strongly associated with slower recovery from both poor physical and poor mental health. However, this research has tended to operationalise recovery as ‘return to baseline’, and we know less about patterns and predictors when recovery is situated as a ‘process’. This paper seeks to address this gap. Drawing on data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, we operationalise recovery as both an ‘outcome’ and as a ‘process’ and compare patterns and predictors across the two models. Our analysis demonstrates that the determinants of recovery from poor health, measured by the SF-12, are robust, regardless of whether recovery is operationalised as an outcome or as a process. For example, being employed and having a higher degree were found to increase the odds of recovery both from poor physical and mental health functioning, when recovery was operationalised as an outcome. These variables were also important in distinguishing health functioning trajectories following a poor health episode. At one and the same time, our analysis does suggest that understandings of inequalities in recovery will depend in part on how we define it. When recovery is operationalised as a simple transition from poor health state to good, it loses sight of the fact that there may be inequalities (i) within a ‘poor health’ state, (ii) in how individuals are able to step into the path of recovery, and (iii) in whether health states are maintained over time. We therefore need to remain alert to the additional nuance in understanding which comes from situating recovery as a process; as well as possible methodological artefacts in population research which come from how recovery is operationalised.

•

There is no consensus on what recovery is and how it should be operationalised.

•

Understanding of inequalities in recovery across health conditions remains scarce.

•

We operationalised recovery both as an outcome and as a process.

•

We found robust inequalities in recovery across the two approaches.

•

Considering recovery as a process revealed more nuanced patterns in inequalities.

Preparing social workers to address health inequities emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic by building capacity for health policy: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought tremendous changes in healthcare delivery and exacerbated a wide range of inequities. Social workers across a broad range of healthcare settings bring an expertise in social, behavioural and mental healthcare needed to help address these health inequities. In addition, social workers integrate policy-directed interventions and solutions in clinical practice, which is a needed perspective for recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains unclear, however, what the most pressing policy issues are that have emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, many social workers in health settings tend to underuse policy in their direct practice. The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) systematically scope the literature on social work, COVID-19 pandemic and policy; and (2) describe the competencies required by social workers and the social work profession to address the policy issues emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scoping review follows Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework. Identification of literature published between 1 December 2019 and the search date, 31 March 2021, will take place in two stages: (1) title and abstract review, and (2) full-text review. In partnership with a health science librarian, the research team listed keywords related to social work and policy to search databases including Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Social Services Abstract and Social Work Abstracts. Two graduate-level research assistants will conduct screening and full-text review. Data will then be extracted, charted, analysed and summarised to report on our results and implications on practice, policy and future research.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Results will help develop a policy practice competence framework to inform how social workers can influence policy. We will share our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. This study does not require Research Ethics Board approval as it uses publicly available sources of data.

Preventive behaviours and family inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in China

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an international public health threat, and people's participation in disease-related preventive behaviours is the key to controlling infectious diseases. This study aimed to assess the differences in adopting preventive behaviours among populations to explore potential individual and household factors and inequalities within families.

METHODS

This online survey was conducted in April 2020. The directional stratified convenient sampling method was used to select 4704 participants from eight provinces in eastern, central, and western China. The questionnaire included demographic information, household variables, and five target prevention behaviours. The chi-squared test, binary multilevel model, and Mantel-Haenszel hierarchical analysis were used for data analysis in the study.

RESULTS

Approximately 71.2% of the participants had appropriate outdoor prevention, and 32.9% of the participants had indoor protection in place. Sharing behaviours (P < 0.001) and education level (P < 0.001) were positively associated with adopting preventive measures. The inhibiting effect of household crowding and stimulating effect of high household income on preventive behaviours were determined in this study. Household size was negatively associated with living area (β = -0.057, P < 0.05) and living style (β = -0.077, P < 0.05). Household income was positively associated with age (β = 0.023, P < 0.05), and relationship with friends (β = 0.053, P < 0.05). Vulnerable groups, such as older adults or women, are more likely to have inadequate preventive behaviours. Older adults (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.09-2.15), women (OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.64), and those with more than 2 suspected symptoms (OR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.07-3.19) were more likely to be affected by the inhibiting effect of household crowding, while the stimulating effect of high household income was limited in these groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Inequalities in COVID-19 prevention behaviours exist between families and inadequate adoption of prevention by vulnerable groups are noteworthy. This study expands the research perspective by emphasizing the role of household factors in preventive behaviours and by focusing on family inequalities. The government should use traditional media as a platform to enhance residents' public health knowledge. Targeted additional wage subsidies, investments in affordable housing, financial support for multigenerational households, and temporary relocation policies may deserve more attention. Communities could play a critical role in COVID-19 prevention.