A growing line of research underscores that sociodemographic factors may contribute to disparities in the impact of COVID-19. Further, stages of disease theory suggests that disparities may grow as the pandemic unfolds and more advantaged areas are better able to apply growing knowledge and mitigation strategies. In this paper, we focus on the role of county-level household overcrowding on disparities in COVID-19 mortality in U.S. counties. We examine this relationship across three theoretically important periods of the pandemic from April–October 2020, that mark both separate stages of community knowledge and national mortality levels. We find evidence that the percentage of overcrowded households is a stronger predictor of COVID-19 mortality during later periods of the pandemic. Moreover, despite a relationship between overcrowding and poverty at the county-level, overcrowding plays an independent role in predicting COVID-19 mortality. Our findings underscore that areas disadvantaged by overcrowding may be more vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and that this vulnerability may lead to changing disparities over time.

No abstract

Recent deaths of despair literature hypothesizes that financial losses are a key mechanism through which education is associated with higher risk for drug use, alcohol abuse, and suicidal ideation. However, few studies have empirically assessed the significance of this harmful pathway or compared it to other hypothesized explanations. Drawing on data from over 8000 respondents in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, this paper finds that lower education-levels are associated with heightened risk of drug use, painkiller use, frequent binge drinking, and suicidal ideation; in turn, decompositions reveal that financial losses mediate about 20 percent of the association between education with drug use and suicidal ideation. The results support a core assumption of the deaths of despair hypothesis—that financial losses among those with low education-levels drive the increase in harmful despair-associated behaviors, which often precede disease and mortality. Future research should extend this work by linking individual-level socioeconomic and health patterns with broader economic changes to better understand how individuals’ educational attainment interacts with macro-level structural factors to shape their vulnerability to despair-associated disease and death.

The Hispanic Paradox in birth outcomes is well documented for the US as a whole, but little work has considered geographic variation underlying the national pattern. This inquiry is important given the rapid growth of the Hispanic population and its geographic dispersion. Using birth records data from 2014 through 2016, we document state variation in birthweight differentials between US-born white women and the three Hispanic populations with the largest numbers of births: US-born Mexican women, foreign-born Mexican women, and foreign-born Central and South American women. Our analyses reveal substantial geographic variation in Hispanic immigrant-white low birthweight disparities. For example, Hispanic immigrants in Southeastern states and in some states from other regions have reduced risk of low birthweight relative to whites, consistent with a “Hispanic Paradox.” A significant portion of Hispanic immigrants’ birthweight advantage in these states is explained by lower rates of smoking relative to whites. However, Hispanic immigrants have higher rates of low birthweight in California and several other Western states. The different state patterns are largely driven by geographic variation in smoking among whites, rather than geographic differences in Hispanic immigrants’ birthweights. In contrast, US-born Mexicans generally have similar or slightly higher odds of low birthweight than whites across the US. Overall, we show that the Hispanic Paradox in birthweight varies quite dramatically by state, driven by geographic variation in low birthweight among whites associated with white smoking disparities across states.

Utilizing data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), the current study examines which maternal age at birth provides offspring with optimal opportunities for higher educational attainment. The results show that maternal age has a curvilinear relationship with offspring’s educational attainment, i.e., the offspring of younger and older mothers are distinctly disadvantaged. Maternal ages 31 through 40 are associated with the highest offspring educational attainment, suggesting that women who give birth in their 30s have more favorable characteristics than younger or older mothers. The analysis demonstrates that—with the exception of early teenage childbearing—the association between maternal age and offspring’s educational attainment likely reflects selection patterns in fertility timing, rather than direct within-family effects of maternal age on offspring’s educational attainment. Thus, the results provide insufficient evidence to conclude that delaying childbearing beyond age 18 directly benefits or harms offspring’s educational attainment.