The concept of a so-called urban advantage in health ignores the possibility of heterogeneity in health outcomes across cities. Using a harmonized dataset from the SALURBAL project, we describe variability and predictors of life expectancy and proportionate mortality in 363 cities across nine Latin American countries. Life expectancy differed substantially across cities within the same country. Cause-specific mortality also varied across cities, with some causes of death (unintentional and violent injuries and deaths) showing large variation within countries, whereas other causes of death (communicable, maternal, neonatal and nutritional, cancer, cardiovascular disease and other noncommunicable diseases) varied substantially between countries. In multivariable mixed models, higher levels of education, water access and sanitation and less overcrowding were associated with longer life expectancy, a relatively lower proportion of communicable, maternal, neonatal and nutritional deaths and a higher proportion of deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and other noncommunicable diseases. These results highlight considerable heterogeneity in life expectancy and causes of death across cities of Latin America, revealing modifiable factors that could be amenable to urban policies aimed toward improving urban health in Latin America and more generally in other urban environments.

Background Countries confronting the COVID-19 pandemic are implementing different social distancing strategies. We evaluated the impact of small-area lockdowns in Chile, aimed to reduce viral transmission while minimizing the population disrupted. The effectiveness of this intervention on the outbreak control is unknown. Methods A natural experiment assessing the impact of small-area lockdowns between February 15th and April 25th, 2020. We used mobility data and official governmental reports to compare regions with small-area lockdowns versus regions without. The primary outcome was the mean difference in the effective reproductive number (Re) of COVID-19. Secondary outcomes were changes in mobility indicators. We used quasi-experimental methods for the analysis and examined the impact of other concurrent public health interventions to disentangle their effects. Results Small-area lockdown produced a sizable reduction in human mobility, equivalent to an 11.4% reduction (95%CI -14.4% to -8.38%) in public transport and similar effects in other mobility indicators. Ten days after implementation, the small-area lockdown produced a reduction of the effective reproductive number (Re) of 0.86 (95%CI -1.70 to -0.02). School and university closures, implemented earlier, led to a 40% reduction in urban mobility. Closure of educational institutions resulted in an even greater Re reduction compared with small-area lockdowns. Conclusions Small-area lockdowns produced a reduction in mobility and viral transmission, but the effects were smaller than the early closures of schools and universities. Small-area lockdowns may have a relevant supporting role in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and could be useful for countries considering scaling-down stricter social distancing interventions.

No abstract