| Literature DB >> 34465641 |
Alfonso Ilardi1, Sergio Chieffi2, Ciro Rosario Ilardi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed at assessing how population density (PD), aging index (AI), use of public transport (URPT), and PM10 concentration (PI) modulated the trajectory of the main COVID-19 pandemic outcomes in Italy, also in the recrudescence phase of the epidemic. STUDYEntities:
Keywords: Air Pollution; COVID-19; Ecological Study; Population Density; Public Transport
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34465641 PMCID: PMC8957675 DOI: 10.34172/jrhs.2021.46
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Res Health Sci ISSN: 2228-7795
Descriptive statistics for each region (Data updated on November 4, 2020)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abruzzo | 120.6 | 197.7 | 55.5 | 24.3 | 12,543 | 568 | 463 | 8,787 | 96 | 4.53 | 1.09 |
| Basilicata | 55.3 | 200.5 | 50.4 | 18.7 | 2,788 | 54 | 104 | 2,266 | 26 | 1.94 | 1.15 |
| Calabria | 126.4 | 169 | 46.3 | 22.9 | 6,092 | 125 | 223 | 4,602 | 27 | 2.05 | 0.59 |
| Campania | 423.2 | 134.7 | 49.9 | 31.1 | 69,613 | 739 | 1,744 | 62,505 | 294 | 1.06 | 0.47 |
| Emilia Romagna | 199.0 | 186.4 | 62.2 | 24.8 | 62,914 | 4,699 | 1,715 | 31,031 | 236 | 7.47 | 0.76 |
| Friuli Venezia Giulia | 152.7 | 223.1 | 58.6 | 21.9 | 12,264 | 414 | 255 | 8,495 | 66 | 3.38 | 0.78 |
| Lazio | 340.4 | 167.7 | 57.7 | 25.3 | 55,273 | 1,309 | 2,534 | 44,082 | 431 | 2.37 | 0.98 |
| Liguria | 284.9 | 260.7 | 53.2 | 20.7 | 32,117 | 1,834 | 1,273 | 21,166 | 263 | 5.71 | 1.24 |
| Lombardia | 423.4 | 169.7 | 60.3 | 29.5 | 224,191 | 17,848 | 5,525 | 124,116 | 983 | 7.96 | 0.79 |
| Marche | 161.5 | 202.3 | 58.4 | 23.9 | 16,261 | 1,032 | 452 | 9,021 | 45 | 6.35 | 0.50 |
| Molise | 67.8 | 225.5 | 50.9 | 18.9 | 2,016 | 41 | 35 | 1,491 | 18 | 2.03 | 1.21 |
| Piemonte | 171.0 | 211.3 | 56 | 26.3 | 81,409 | 4,481 | 3,758 | 48,528 | 335 | 5.50 | 0.69 |
| Puglia | 205.1 | 175.4 | 49.8 | 23.2 | 22,085 | 763 | 861 | 16,645 | 207 | 3.45 | 1.24 |
| Sardegna | 67.7 | 221.6 | 49.9 | 22.4 | 10,640 | 241 | 389 | 8,447 | 107 | 2.27 | 1.27 |
| Sicilia | 192.3 | 159 | 47 | 21.7 | 26,080 | 569 | 1,253 | 21,763 | 283 | 2.18 | 1.30 |
| Toscana | 161.9 | 209.8 | 59.6 | 22.7 | 52,815 | 1,461 | 1,516 | 40,957 | 304 | 2.77 | 0.74 |
| Trentino-Alto Adige | 79.0 | 142 | 62.8 | 18.1 | 19,969 | 773 | 564 | 11,938 | 76 | 3.87 | 0.64 |
| Umbria | 104.0 | 210.5 | 55.2 | 22.2 | 12,056 | 154 | 356 | 10,263 | 74 | 1.28 | 0.72 |
| Valle d’Aosta | 38.5 | 188.2 | 61.6 | 21.4 | 3,720 | 181 | 163 | 2,479 | 35 | 4.87 | 1.41 |
| Veneto | 267.5 | 178.2 | 61.7 | 27.6 | 65,531 | 2,478 | 1,225 | 42,602 | 358 | 3.78 | 0.84 |
PD: population density; AI: aging index; URPT: utilization rate of public transport; PI: pollution index
aaUtilization rate of public transport users in 2019
b Annual average of PM10 daily mean concentration (mg/m3) during 2013-2016
c Ordinary hospitalization and intensive care
d Partial estimate of cases, deaths, and CFR since September 1, 2020
Correlation matrix
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Population density | - | –0.36 | 0.05 | 0.70* | 0.87* | 0.75* | 0.84* | 0.87* | 0.81* | 0.27 | –0.21 |
| Aging index | –0.36 | - | –0.01 | –0.34 | –0.35 | –0.17 | –0.35 | –0.40 | –0.31 | 0.09 | 0.21 |
| Utilization rate of public transport | 0.05 | –0.01 | - | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.53 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.62* | –0.21 |
| Pollution index | 0.70* | –0.34 | 0.11 | - | 0.73* | 0.58* | 0.68* | 0.72* | 0.67* | 0.24 | –0.39 |
Adjusted alpha (α/7)=0.007
*P ≤ 0.007
Predictors of the main COVID-19 pandemic outcomes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total cases |
F (1,18)=22.215, | 0.55 | |||
| Population density | 326.93 | 4.713 | 0.001 | ||
| Aging index | –0.01 | –0.06 | 0.950 | ||
| Utilization rate of public transport | 0.28 | 1.910 | 0.073 | ||
| Pollution index | 0.31 | 1.219 | 0.240 | ||
| Total hospitalized patients |
F (1,18)=19.086, | 0.51 | |||
| Population density | 8.65 | 4.369 | 0.001 | ||
| Aging index | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.836 | ||
| Utilization rate of public transport | 0.21 | 1.324 | 0.203 | ||
| Pollution index | 0.27 | 0.99 | 0.338 | ||
| Total deaths |
F (1,18)=8.518, | 0.32 | |||
| Population density | 19.65 | 2.919 | 0.009 | ||
| Aging index | 0.06 | 0.30 | 0.765 | ||
| Utilization rate of public transport | 0.31 | 1.667 | 0.114 | ||
| Pollution index | 0.22 | 0.675 | 0.509 | ||
| Total case fatality rate |
F (1,18)=9.581, | 0.35 | |||
| Population density | 0.19 | 0.997 | 0.333 | ||
| Aging index | 0.16 | 0.815 | 0.427 | ||
| Utilization rate of public transport | 0.22 | 3.095 | 0.006 | ||
| Pollution index | 0.17 | 0.874 | 0.394 | ||
| Partial cases |
F (1,18)=38.700, | 0.68 | |||
| Population density | 211.36 | 6.221 | 0.001 | ||
| Aging index | –0.06 | –0.395 | 0.698 | ||
| Utilization rate of public transport | 0.21 | 1.669 | 0.113 | ||
| Pollution index | 0.32 | 1.514 | 0.148 | ||
| Partial deaths |
F (1,18)=32.089, | 0.64 | |||
| Population density | 1.57 | 5.665 | 0.001 | ||
| Aging index | 0.02 | 0.148 | 0.884 | ||
| Utilization rate of public transport | 0.19 | 1.417 | 0.175 | ||
| Pollution index | 0.09 | 0.380 | 0.709 | ||
| Partial case fatality rate |
F (1,18)=4.425, | 0.20 | |||
| Population density | 0.13 | 0.353 | 0.728 | ||
| Aging index | 0.18 | 0.790 | 0.442 | ||
| Utilization rate of public transport | –0.22 | –1.028 | 0.318 | ||
| Pollution index | –0.04 | –2.104 | 0.050 |
Adjusted alpha (α/4)=0.01