Back

COVID-19 Pandemic-related differences in the prevalence of genetic conditions and healthcare utilization and access for children with genetic conditions the United States.

Thakral, A.; Moorthy, D.; Tandon, T.; Viswanathan, K.; Kupferman, F.

2025-04-16 public and global health
10.1101/2025.04.14.25325831 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purposeto assess the pandemic-related differences in the prevalence of diagnosed genetic conditions (GC) in children (0-17 years) and their healthcare access and utilization in the US MethodologyUsing the National Survey of Childrens Health (NSCH) data, we compared pre-pandemic (2016-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) prevalence estimates for diagnosed GC, healthcare utilization (HCU), and unmet health needs (UHN). The prevalence ratios (PR) of HCU and UHN during versus pre-pandemic for different groups were compared using interaction models, adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and race-ethnicity. ResultsPre-pandemic, GC prevalence was 3.55% rising to 4.51% during the pandemic [PR = 1.27 (1.18, 1.37), p < 0.001]. Pre-pandemic, children with GC had higher HCU [PR = 1.148 (1.129, 1.167), p < 0.001] and UHN [PR = 2.701 (2.225, 3.278), p < 0.001] as compared to children without GC. For children with GC, there was a decrease in HCU [PR = 0.954 (0.931, 0.978), p < 0.001], however, UHN was similar [PR = 1.112 (0.882, 1.402), p = 0.37] during versus pre-pandemic. ConclusionThe prevalence of diagnosed GC increased and disparities in UHN for children with GC persisted during the pandemic. What is known about this topic?While children with genetic conditions have greater utilization of healthcare services, they also have greater unmet health needs as compared to those without. On top of this disparity, the pandemic disrupted health services. What this paper adds?The prevalence of diagnosed genetic conditions increased during the pandemic, and while healthcare utilization decreased, unmet health needs remained the same for children with genetic conditions.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.