Background: As in other countries, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected Norway’s immigrant population disproportionately, with significantly higher infection rates and hospitalisations. The reasons for this are uncertain. Methods: Through the national emergency preparedness register, BeredtC19, we have studied laboratory-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 and related hospitalisations in the entire Norwegian population, by birth-country background for the period 15 June 2020 to 31 March 2021, excluding the first wave due to limited test capacity and restrictive test criteria. Straightforward linkage of individual-level data allowed adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic factors (occupation, household crowding, education and household income), and underlying medical risk for severe COVID-19 in regression models. Results: The sample comprised 5.49 million persons, of which 0.91 million were born outside of Norway, there were 82,532 confirmed cases and 3088 hospitalisations. Confirmed infections in this period (per 100,000): foreign-born 3140, Norwegian-born with foreign-born parents 4799 and Norwegian-born with Norwegian-born parent(s) 1011. Hospitalisations (per 100,000): foreign-born 147, Norwegian-born with foreign-born parents 47 and Norwegian-born with Norwegian-born parent(s) 37. The addition of socioeconomic and medical factors to the base model (age, sex, municipality of residence) attenuated excess infection rates by 12.0% and hospitalisations by 3.8% among foreign-born, and 10.9% and 46.2%, respectively, among Norwegian-born with foreign parents, compared to Norwegian-born with Norwegian-born parent(s). Conclusions: There were large differences in infection rates and hospitalisations by country background, and these do not appear to be fully explained by socioeconomic and medical factors. Our results may have implications for health policy, including the targeting of mitigation strategies.

Background: As in other countries, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected Norway's immigrant population disproportionately with significantly higher infection rates and hospitalizations. The reasons for this are uncertain. Methods: Through the national emergency preparedness register, BeredtC19, we have studied laboratory-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 and related hospitalizations in the entire Norwegian population, by birth-country background for the period 15 June 2020 - 31 March 2021, excluding the first-wave due to limited test capacity and restrictive test criteria. Straightforward linkage of individual-level data allowed adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic factors (occupation, household crowding, education, and household income), and underlying medical risk for severe COVID-19 in regression models. Results: The sample comprised 5.49 million persons, of which 0.91 million born outside of Norway, 82 532 confirmed cases, and 3088 hospitalizations. Confirmed infections in this period (per 100 000): foreign-born 3140, Norwegian-born with foreign-born parents 4799, Norwegian-born with Norwegian-born parent(s) 1011. Hospitalizations (per 100 000): foreign-born 147, Norwegian-born with foreign-born parents 47, Norwegian-born with Norwegian-born parent(s) 37. The addition of socioeconomic and medical factors to the base-model (age, sex, municipality of residence) attenuated excess infection rates by 12.0% and hospitalizations by 3.8% among foreign-born, and 10.9% and 46.2% respectively among Norwegian-born with foreign parents, compared to Norwegian-born with Norwegian-born parent(s). Conclusion: There were large differences in infection rates and hospitalizations by country background, and these do not appear to be fully explained by socioeconomic and medical factors. Our results may have implications for health policy, including the targeting of mitigation strategies.

Background: Studies have suggested that some minority groups tend to have lower vaccination rates than the overall population. This study aims to examine COVID-19 vaccination rates among health care workers (HCWs) in Norway, according to immigrant background. Methods: We used individual-level, nation-wide registry data from Norway to identify all HCWs employed full-time at 1 December 2020. We examined the relationship between country of birth and COVID-19 vaccination from December 2020 to August 2021, both crude and adjusted for e.g. age, sex, municipality of residence, and detailed occupation codes in logistic regression models. Results: Among all HCWs in Norway, immigrants had a 9 percentage point lower vaccination rate (85%) than HCWs without an immigrant background (94%) at 31 August 2021. The overall vaccination rate varied by country of birth, with immigrants born in Russia (71%), Serbia (72%), Lithuania (72%), Romania (75%), Poland (76%), Eritrea (77%), and Somalia (78%) having the lowest crude vaccination rates. When we adjusted for demographics and detailed occupational codes, immigrant groups that more often worked as health care assistants, such as immigrants from Eritrea and Somalia, increased their vaccination rates. Conclusion: Substantial differences in vaccination rates among immigrant groups employed in the health care sector in Norway indicate that measures to improve vaccine uptake should focus specific immigrant groups rather than all immigrants together. Lower vaccination rates in some immigrant groups appears to be largely driven by the occupational composition, suggesting that some of the differences in vaccine rates can be attributed to variation in vaccine access.

Several studies suggest that the extractive industry has negative consequences for gender equality despite the often positive growth impact of natural resources. We re-examine this claim at the sub-state level in sub-Saharan Africa and argue that we need to differentiate between ownership arrangements in the extractive industry. To test our argument on the gender dimension of the resource curse, this article employs unique data on the control rights of minerals within sub-Saharan countries as well as data from Afrobarometer and Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS). Our quantitative analyses explore how international vs. domestic ownership of copper, diamond and gold mines affects the labor market integration of females and intimate partner violence. The regression results suggest in line with our theoretical expectations that gender-specific structural labor market shifts within extractive industries are contingent on mineral control rights. Our models show that within mining areas, only domestic ownership reduces male unemployment. While domestic mining seems to reinforce the traditional male breadwinner model, internationally owned mineral extraction induces structural labor market changes: women

ImportanceObservational studies have reported an association between the use of eye protection and reduced risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses, but, as with most infection control measures, no randomized clinical trials have been conducted.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of wearing glasses in public as protection against being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA randomized clinical trial was conducted in Norway from February 2 to April 24, 2022; all adult members of the public who did not regularly wear glasses, had no symptoms of COVID-19, and did not have COVID-19 in the last 6 weeks were eligible.InterventionWearing glasses (eg, sunglasses) when close to others in public spaces for 2 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a positive COVID-19 test result reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases. Secondary outcomes included a positive COVID-19 test result and respiratory infection based on self-report. All analyses adhered to the intention-to-treat principle.ResultsA total of 3717 adults (2439 women [65.6%]; mean [SD] age, 46.9 [15.1] years) were randomized. All were identified and followed up in the registries, and 3231 (86.9%) responded to the end of study questionnaire. The proportions with a reported positive COVID-19 test result in the national registry were 3.7% (68 of 1852) in the intervention group and 3.5% (65 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, −1.0% to 1.4%; relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75-1.50). The proportions with a positive COVID-19 test result based on self-report were 9.6% (177 of 1852) in the intervention group and 11.5% (214 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, –1.9%; 95% CI, −3.9% to 0.1%; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.00). The risk of respiratory infections based on self-reported symptoms was lower in the intervention group (30.8% [571 of 1852]) than in the control group (34.1% [636 of 1865]; absolute risk difference, –3.3%; 95% CI, −6.3% to −0.3%; relative risk, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, wearing glasses in the community was not protective regarding the primary outcome of a reported positive COVID-19 test. However, results were limited by a small sample size and other issues. Glasses may be worth considering as one component in infection control, pending further studies.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05217797