Mediation analysis of the association between objective socioeconomic status (SES) and depressive symptoms as mediated by subjective social status (SSS).

<p>Standardized coefficients, adjusted for age, age², residential region, immigrant status, chronic conditions, global activity limitations (plus sex and sex*age in the total sample). Coefficients for direct associations in parentheses. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.</p

Correlations between indicators of objective and subjective socioeconomic status, for the total sample and by sex (correlation coefficients).

<p>Correlations between indicators of objective and subjective socioeconomic status, for the total sample and by sex (correlation coefficients).</p

Prevalence of depressive symptoms according to age group and indicators of objective and subjective socioeconomic status, for the total sample and by sex.

<p>Prevalence of depressive symptoms according to age group and indicators of objective and subjective socioeconomic status, for the total sample and by sex.</p

Adjusted odds ratios of depressive symptoms according to individual dimensions of objective socioeconomic status and subjective social status, for the total sample and by sex.

<p>Adjusted odds ratios of depressive symptoms according to individual dimensions of objective socioeconomic status and subjective social status, for the total sample and by sex.</p

Characteristics of the study population (n = 4,952; n_men = 2,183; n_women = 2,769).

<p>Characteristics of the study population (n = 4,952; n_men = 2,183; n_women = 2,769).</p

Sociodemographic characteristics of the study population (n = 6754).

<p>Sociodemographic characteristics of the study population (n = 6754).</p

Utilization of office-based physicians with different medical specialities by socioeconomic status in men and women.

<p>Utilization of office-based physicians with different medical specialities by socioeconomic status in men and women.</p

Utilization of office-based general practitioners by socioeconomic status in men and women.

<p>Utilization of office-based general practitioners by socioeconomic status in men and women.</p

DataSheet1_Social Inequalities in Long-Term Health Effects After COVID-19—A Scoping Review.docx

Objectives: We aimed to map and synthesize evidence about social inequalities in long-term health effects after COVID-19 (LTHE), often referred to as “long COVID” or “post-COVID-19 conditions.”Methods: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed articles by searching the databases Embase and Scopus. According to predefined inclusion criteria, titles/abstracts and full texts were screened for eligibility. Additionally, reference lists of all included studies were hand-searched for eligible studies. This study followed the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews.Results: Nineteen articles were included. LTHE were analysed according to ethnicity, education, income, employment and deprivation indices. The studies varied significantly in their definitions of LTHE. Eighty-two analyses showed no statistically significant associations. At least 12 studies had a high risk of type II errors. Only studies associating deprivation indices and long COVID tended to show a higher prevalence of LTHE in deprived areas.Conclusion: Although some studies indicated social inequalities in LTHE, evidence was generally weak and inconclusive. Further studies with larger sample sizes specifically designed to detect social inequalities regarding LTHE are needed to inform future healthcare planning and public health policies.</p

Socioeconomic Status and Use of Outpatient Medical Care: The Case of Germany

<div><p>Background</p><p>Socially disadvantaged people have an increased need for medical care due to a higher burden of health problems and chronic diseases. In Germany, outpatient care is chiefly provided by office-based general practitioners and specialists in private practice. People are free to choose the physician they prefer. In this study, national data were used to examine differences in the use of outpatient medical care by socioeconomic status (SES).</p><p>Methods</p><p>The analyses were based on data from 6,754 participants in the Robert Koch Institute’s German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1) aged between 18 and 69 years. The number of outpatient physician visits during the past twelve months was assessed for several medical specializations. SES was determined based on education, occupation, and income. Associations between SES and physician visits were analysed using logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression for count data.</p><p>Results</p><p>After adjusting for sociodemographic factors and health indicators, outpatients with low SES had more contacts with general practitioners than outpatients with high SES (men: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08–1.46; women: IRR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.07–1.34). The use of specialists was lower in people with low SES than in those with high SES when sociodemographic factors and health indicators were adjusted for (men: odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.51–0.91; women: OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.41–0.77). This applied particularly to specialists in internal medicine, dermatology, and gynaecology. The associations remained after additional adjustment for the type of health insurance and the regional density of office-based physicians.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The findings suggest that socially disadvantaged people are seen by general practitioners more often than the socially better-off, who are more likely to visit a medical specialist. These differences may be due to differences in patient preferences, physician factors, physician-patient interaction, and potential barriers to accessing specialist care.</p></div