Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2023 May 24;3(5):e0001156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001156

Identity and COVID-19 in Canada: Gender, ethnicity, and minority status

Roland Pongou 1, Bright Opoku Ahinkorah 2, Marie Christelle Mabeu 3, Arunika Agarwal 4, Stéphanie Maltais 5,6, Aissata Boubacar Moumouni 1, Sanni Yaya 5,7,*
Editor: Daniel Kim8
PMCID: PMC10208517  PMID: 37224115

Abstract

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, growing evidence from the United States, the United Kingdom, and China has demonstrated the unequal social and economic burden of this health crisis. Yet, in Canada, studies assessing the socioeconomic and demographic determinants of COVID-19, and how these determinants vary by gender and ethnic minority status, remain scarce. As new strains of COVID-19 emerge, it is important to understand the disparities to be able to initiate policies and interventions that target and prioritise the most at-risk sub-populations.

Aim

The objective of this study is to assess the socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with COVID-19-related symptoms in Canada, and how these determinants vary by identity factors including gender and visible minority status.

Methods

We implemented an online survey and collected a nationally representative sample of 2,829 individual responses. The original data collected via the SurveyMonkey platform were analysed using a cross-sectional study. The outcome variables were COVID-19-related symptoms among respondents and their household members. The exposure variables were socioeconomic and demographic factors including gender and ethnicity as well as age, province, minority status, level of education, total annual income in 2019, and number of household members. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to test the associations. The results were presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) at p < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval.

Results

We found that the odds of having COVID-19-related symptoms were higher among respondents who belong to mixed race [aOR = 2.77; CI = 1.18–6.48] and among those who lived in provinces other than Ontario and Quebec [aOR = 1.88; CI = 1.08–3.28]. There were no significant differences in COVID-19 symptoms between males and females, however, we did find a significant association between the province, ethnicity, and reported COVID-19 symptoms for female respondents but not for males. The likelihood of having COVID-19-related symptoms was also lower among respondents whose total income was $100,000 or more in 2019 [aOR = 0.18; CI = 0.07–0.45], and among those aged 45–64 [aOR = 0.63; CI = 0.41–0.98] and 65–84 [aOR = 0.42; CI = 0.28–0.64]. These latter associations were stronger among non-visible minorities. Among visible minorities, being black or of the mixed race and living in Alberta were associated with higher odds of COVID-19-related symptoms.

Conclusion

We conclude that ethnicity, age, total income in 2019, and province were significantly associated with experiencing COVID-19 symptoms in Canada. The significance of these determinants varied by gender and minority status. Considering our findings, it will be prudent to have COVID-19 mitigation strategies including screening, testing, and other prevention policies targeted toward the vulnerable populations. These strategies should also be designed to be specific to each gender category and ethnic group, and to account for minority status.

Introduction

The first case of the novel Coronavirus, also known as SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, was reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province in China in December 2019 [1]. In a few days, on January 13, 2020, Thailand, reported the first case of COVID-19 [2]. Subsequently, the disease spread to multiple countries, and by January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern [3]. Thereafter, the spread of the disease led to the WHO declaring it a global pandemic [4]. Canada was not spared of this pandemic, and since its start, the country has recorded more than 3.5 million cases and more than 37,000 deaths [5].

COVID-19 spreads through human contact or respiratory droplets [2]. According to the WHO, the most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and tiredness [3, 7]. Other less common symptoms include aches and pains, headaches, a rash on skin, or discolouration of fingers or toes, loss of smell and taste, sore throat, conjunctivitis, and diarrhoea [6, 7]. These symptoms are expected to be developed within 1–14 days after infection; however, the average incubation time is 5–6 days after infection [6]. In severe cases, it could cause pneumonia, respiratory failure, septic shock, or multiple organ dysfunction or failure [6]. The WHO also identifies difficulty breathing or shortness of breath, chest pain or pressure, and loss of speech or movement as some of the serious symptoms of COVID-19 that require immediate medical attention [7].

In countries such as the United States (U.S), a number of studies demonstrate that racial/ethnic minorities and individuals from segregated areas and low‐income backgrounds are more likely to become infected and die from COVID‐19 [812]. Moreover, other important socio-demographic and biological characteristics including age, gender, and presence of underlying chronic non-communicable problems (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) increase people’s risk of COVID-19 infection and death [13, 14].

Concerning Canada, studies assessing the socio-economic determinants of COVID outcomes, and how they vary by identity factors such as gender and ethnic minority status, remain scarce. This is likely due to limited individual-level data on socio-economic characteristics and their relationship with COVID outcomes, which has prevented a systematic assessment of the socioeconomic and demographic determinants of COVID-19 outcomes in this country. Nevertheless, a few studies exist. For instance, Lapointe-Shaw et al. conducted a syndromic analysis of COVID-19 symptoms in Canada, which found that the prevalence of reporting a combination of fever with cough or shortness of breath is higher among visible minorities [15]. Relatedly, St-Denis’ study revealed that being a female, older age, and having lower income were associated with a greater risk of exposure [16]; however, their scope was limited to socio-demographic determinants of occupational risk of exposure to COVID-19. Another study found that being a female and having lower education exacerbated infection risk inequities [17]. Similarly, Wu et al.’s study of the level and predictors of COVID-19 symptoms among the Canadian population revealed that 8% of Canadians reported that they and/or one or more household members experienced COVID-19 symptoms and that the risk of COVID-19 symptoms was higher among younger adults and visible minorities [18]. Our study further builds upon the findings of Wu et al. [18], with the difference in the time periods of the two studies, as well as looking more closely at gender and ethnic disparities in the prevalence of COVID-19 symptoms. We analyse how the socioeconomic and demographic determinants of COVID-19 symptoms differ by gender and visible minority status in Canada.

Identity factors including race and gender both have been found to be significant determinants of COVID-19 outcomes, especially in the U.S. A higher prevalence of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases and low socio-economic status are some of the factors that are found to be associated with a higher prevalence of COVID-19 in the Afro-American population in the U.S. [1921]. Similarly, COVID-19 infection and related mortality have gender differences as well. Earlier studies have found higher infection among males than females [22, 23], however, there are other studies which have reported females to be more susceptible than males [24, 25]. There are several genetic, hormonal, and epigenetic factors that influence the difference in infection rates between sexes [26]. More clinical and population-level data from large-scale studies in other countries are needed to make informed conclusions about the gender and ethnicity differences in COVID-19 symptoms, infections, and mortality.

By analysing the socioeconomic and demographic determinants of COVID-19 symptoms and examining how these determinants vary by gender identity and visible minority status in Canada, findings from our study would add to the current state of knowledge of the epidemiology of this virus. COVID-19 policies have significantly varied over time and across regions within Canada; because these policies are likely to affect individuals and population subgroups differently [27, 28], the determinants of COVID-19 symptoms can be expected to vary across gender and ethnic groups. Our study is necessary because it is likely to illuminate the demographic nuances peculiar to the Canadian population during pandemics. Also, as new strains of the COVID-19 emerge, it is important to understand the demographic disparities to be able to implement policies and interventions that target and prioritise the most at-risk sub-populations.

Materials and methods

Study design and data collection

Using a cross-sectional study design, we collected data via an online SurveyMonkey platform with portals on the University of Ottawa website available in French and English (https://socialsciences.uottawa.ca/research/covid19-survey). The survey was based on the COVID-19 Symptoms & Social Distancing Web Survey designed by Canning et al. [29]. The study involves three waves of data collection. However, for this paper, we have used data from the first wave that was collected between July and October 2020. The survey questionnaire collected demographic information, recent work experiences, loss of income, experiencing symptoms of COVID-19, mental health conditions, and social distancing behaviour. For data collection, we shared the survey on various social networks and encouraged the snowball method. We also shared the University of Ottawa’s Web links via sponsored posts on Facebook in English and French via the University’s institutional account. Respondents were sampled online using convenience sampling and snowballing. The questionnaire was available in both English and French. The median time respondents spent completing the survey was around 8 minutes for the French survey and around 7 minutes for the English survey. We collected 3,225 individual responses in English and 1,650 in French for a total of 4,875 across Canada. However, for this paper, only respondents who had complete information on reported COVID-19 symptoms and that of members of their households were considered. Hence, a sample size of 2,829 individual respondents was considered for this study.

Outcome variables

Two outcome variables were considered for the analysis. The first outcome variable was COVID-19 symptoms among respondents. To derive this outcome variable, we used questions in which respondents were asked if they had experienced any of the following symptoms in the past 2 weeks: fever, dry cough, shortness of breath, decreased sense of smell/taste, and other flu-like symptoms. The responses were “yes”, “no” and “don’t know”. Respondents who mentioned that they had experienced at least one of these symptoms were regarded as those experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, and the remaining were categorized as experiencing no COVID-19 symptoms. The second outcome variable was COVID-19 symptoms among either respondent or a household member. This variable was derived from two questions: 1. Has anyone else in your household besides yourself experienced any of the following symptoms in the past 2 weeks? 2. Have you experienced any of the following symptoms in the past 2 weeks? The responses were “yes”, “no” and “don’t know”. The symptoms were those listed above. COVID-19 symptoms among respondents or household members were obtained from affirmative responses provided by respondents of their experience or the experience of a household member of at least one of the symptoms and otherwise were categorized as no COVID-19 symptoms among respondents or household members.

Exposure variables

Eight variables were considered as exposures in this study. These were gender (female and male), age (18–44, 45–64, 65–84, and 85 years and above), province (Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and other), race (white, black, mixed race, other-aboriginal/indigenous, Asian, Latin American, Arab, and other race), belongs to a visible minority group (no and yes), highest level of education, total personal income in 2019, and number of household members. The highest level of education was coded as high school or less, college, and postgraduate. Total income in 2019 was coded as less than $20,000, $20,000 to less than $50,000, $50,000 to less than $100,000, and $100,000 or more. The number of household members was divided into three categories—1, 2–3, and 4 or more. The choice of these variables was based on their associations with reported COVID-19 symptoms in previous studies [18, 29].

Statistical analysis

Stata version 14 was used to clean the data, recode variables, and analyse the data. Both descriptive (frequencies and percentages) and inferential (chi-square test of independence and multivariate logistic regression) analyses were carried out. Frequencies and percentages were first used to describe the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and present the proportions of reported COVID-19 symptoms among the respondents and their household members. Next, the chi-square test of independence was used to show the difference in reported COVID-19 symptoms among the respondents and their household members across the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. Statistical significance was obtained at a 95% confidence interval. Finally, multivariable logistic regression was employed to examine the socio-demographic characteristics associated with reported COVID-19 symptoms among the respondents only and with symptoms reported by respondents or a household member. We estimated four different models. Model 1 had gender and age of respondents as exposure variables. In Model 2, province, race, and visible minority group were added to the variables in Model 1 as controls. In Model 3, the highest level of education and total income in 2019 were added to the variables in Model 2 as controls. In the final model (Model 4), all the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were included. To assess whether the socioeconomic and demographic determinants of the likelihood of self-reporting COVID-19 symptoms differ by gender and visible minority status, we implemented our most conservative multivariable regression analysis (Model 4) separately by gender and visible minority status. The results were presented as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) at 95% confidence interval. Model fitness was checked using Pseudo R-squared goodness of fit test, with the highest value indicating the best fit model. Since the survey sample was not representative of the general population, both descriptive statistics and regression results used weights that were generated using the distributions of gender, age, and province from the Demographic Estimations program at StatCan to have national representativeness and correct imbalances between the survey sample and the population. We computed a sampling weight for each sex-age-province group. Specifically, for each sex-age-province group, the weight is equivalent to the ratio of the share (probability of selection) of this group in the 2016 census and the share of the same group in the survey sample. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines to report our results.

Ethical considerations

Ethics approval was obtained from the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity of the University of Ottawa (S-06-20-5911). The survey was open only to residents of Canada over the age of 18. Respondents had to give signed written consent forms after reading the introduction script. The sensitive questions could be skipped by the participants. The analytical dataset did not include any personal identifiers.

Results

Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of respondents

This section of the results provides information on the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of respondents. Of the 2,829 respondents in this study, 51.05% were females, and 45.15% were aged 18–44 (Table 1). About 38.83% of the respondents were from the Ontario Province, and the majority of the respondents (85.49%) classified themselves as whites. More than one in ten respondents belonged to a minority group. With respect to educational level, most of the respondents had a college education (64.97%), followed by those with postgraduate education (21.20%). About 35% alluded to receiving a total income of between $50,000 to less than $100,000 in 2019. Concerning the number of household members, the majority (58%) of the respondents indicated that they belonged to a 2–3-member household, followed by those in four or more members’ households (22.73%).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics on socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.

Variables Unweighted Frequency Weighted Frequency Weighted Percentage
Gender
Female 2225 1444 51.05
Male 604 1384 48.95
Age group
18–44 1145 1277 45.15
45–64 865 941 33.25
65–84 807 555 19.61
85 years and above 12 56 1.99
Province
Alberta 1280 319 11.29
British Columbia 935 392 13.85
Ontario 959 1098 38.83
Quebec 145 640 22.61
Other 210 379 13.41
Race
White 2529 2418 85.49
Black 79 90 3.18
Mixed race 73 133 4.70
Other 148 187 6.62
Minority group
No 91.02 2478 87.58
Yes 254 351 12.42
Highest level of education
High school or less 355 391 13.83
College 1787 1838 64.97
Postgraduate 687 600 21.20
Total income in 2019
Less than $20,000 630 666 23.55
$20,000 to less than $50,000 1015 878 31.03
$50,000 to less than $100,000 969 1002 35.42
$100,000 or more 215 283 10.00
Number of household members
1 574 547 19.33
2–3 1657 1639 57.94
4 or more 598 643 22.73
Total sample size 2829 100.00

NB: Race: Other includes Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest territories, Nova scotia, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Yukon

Prevalence of reported COVID-19 symptoms

This section provides information on the prevalence of reported COVID-19 symptoms during the period in which the data were collected. Of the 2,829 respondents included in the analysis, 13.38% had experienced at least one COVID-19 symptom. Dry cough was the most common symptom experienced by the respondents (7.65%) (see Fig 1). Approximately 16.82% of the respondents reported that they or at least a member of their household had COVID-19 symptoms. Relatedly, dry cough was the most common symptom experienced by respondents or by members of their households (7.62%) (see Fig 2).

Fig 1. Prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms among respondents.

Fig 1

Fig 2. Prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms among respondents and a least a household member.

Fig 2

Distribution of COVID-19 symptoms across the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of respondents

Table 2 shows the distribution of COVID-19 symptoms across the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respondents. The findings showed a statistically significant association between age, ethnicity, province of residence, and total income in 2019 and reporting of COVID-19 symptoms among respondents. With respect to the reporting of COVID-19 symptoms among respondents or a household member, the findings showed statistically significant associations with age, ethnicity, province, highest level of education, total income in 2019, and number of household members.

Table 2. Distribution of COVID-19 symptoms across socio-demographic factors of respondents.

Variables COVID-19 symptoms among respondents only in the past 2 weeks p-value COVID-19 symptoms among respondent or their household members in the past 2 weeks p-value
Yes (%) Yes (%)
Gender 0.986 0.164
Female 11.97 16.70
Male 14.85 16.96
Age <0.001 <0.001
18–44 18.09 23.06
45–64 10.33 12.81
65–84 9.07 9.79
85 years and above 0 11.69
Province 0.074 0.003
Alberta 16.32 20.27
British Columbia 7.62 10.34
Ontario 12.23 15.28
Quebec 12.46 16.34
Other 21.75 25.91
Race 0.046 0.036
White 13.03 16.32
Black 15.68 18.92
Mixed race 25.11 30.93
Other 8.50 12.29
Minority group 0.309 0.610
No 13.56 17.04
Yes 12.14 15.33
Highest level of education 0.156 0.020
High school or less 14.82 16.03
College 12.04 15.57
Postgraduate 16.55 21.19
Total income in 2019 0.001 0.006
Less than $20,000 15.01 17.67
$20,000 to less than $50,000 16.47 19.68
$50,000 to less than $100,000 12.32 16.63
$100,000 or more 3.71 6.66
Number of household members 0.304 <0.001
1 12.45 13.35
2–3 14.38 17.43
4 or more 11.62 18.23

*P-values obtained from chi-square test

Socioeconomic and demographic determinants of COVID-19 symptoms among respondents

This section reports the results of the binary logistic regressions; it highlights the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of respondents who were more likely to report COVID-19 symptoms. Table 3 presents the results of the association between socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and COVID-19 symptoms among respondents in the past 2 weeks. The analysis revealed that respondents aged 45–64 [aOR = 0.63; CI = 0.41–0.98] and 65–84 [aOR = 0.42; CI = 0.28–0.64] had lower odds of reporting COVID-19 symptoms compared to those aged 18–44. Respondents who lived in “other” provinces (than Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario) [aOR = 1.88; CI = 1.08–3.28] were more likely to report COVID-19 symptoms compared to those who lived in Quebec. In the same vein, respondents who belonged to mixed race [aOR = 2.77; CI = 1.18–6.48] were more likely to report COVID-19 symptoms compared to whites. The likelihood of reporting COVID-19 symptoms was lower among respondents whose total income was $100,000 or more in 2019 compared to those whose total income was less than $20,000 in 2019 [aOR = 0.18; CI = 0.07–0.45].

Table 3. Binary logistic regression results on the socio-demographic factors associated with COVID-19 symptoms.

Variables Respondents only having COVID-19 symptoms in the past 2 weeks
aOR [95%CI]; Model 1 aOR [95%CI]; Model 2 aOR [95%CI]; Model 3 aOR [95%CI]; Model 4
Gender
Female Reference Reference Reference Reference
Male 1.22[0.85–1.76] 1.22[0.85–1.75] 1.35[0.93–1.94] 1.30[0.91–1.86]
Age
18–44 Reference Reference Reference Reference
45–64 0.52**[0.34–0.80] 0.51**[0.33–0.79] 0.65[0.42–1.01] 0.63*[0.41–0.98]
65–84 0.45***[0.31–0.67] 0.45***[0.30–0.67] 0.45***[0.30–0.68] 0.42***[0.28–0.64]
85 years and above - - - -
Province
Quebec Reference Reference Reference
British Columbia 0.57[0.31–1.04] 0.62[0.33–1.14] 0.61[0.33–1.14]
Ontario 0.97[0.68–1.40] 1.07[0.73–1.55] 1.08[0.74–1.57]
Alberta 1.28[0.63–2.58] 1.69[0.83–3.44] 1.67[0.83–3.40]
Other 1.92*[1.09–3.35] 1.88*[1.07–3.29] 1.88*[1.08–3.28]
Race
White Reference Reference Reference
Black 1.42[0.41–4.94] 1.68[0.50–5.68] 1.82[0.55–6.03]
Mixed race 2.18[0.85–5.61] 2.63*[1.14–6.10] 2.77*[1.18–6.48]
Other 0.67[0.22–2.09] 0.71[0.25–2.07] 0.75[0.27–2.13]
Minority group
No Reference Reference Reference
Yes 0.63[0.27–1.51] 0.51[0.23–1.15] 0.52[0.23–1.16]
Highest level of education
High school or less Reference Reference
College 1.00[0.56–1.79] 0.96[0.54–1.71]
Postgraduate 1.53[0.78–3.01] 1.45[0.73–2.86]
Total income in 2019
Less than $20,000 Reference Reference
$20,000 to less than $50,000 1.16[0.71–1.89] 1.13[0.69–1.85]
$50,000 to less than $100,000 0.75[0.45–1.26] 0.75[0.45–1.25]
$100,000 or more 0.12***[0.07–0.43] 0.18***[0.07–0.45]
Number of household members
1 Reference
2–3 1.03[0.66–1.60]
4 or more 0.74[0.43–1.27]
Pseudo R-squared 0.020 0.045 0.069 0.071

Exponentiated coefficients; 95% confidence intervals in brackets

aOR adjusted odds ratios

CI Confidence Interval

* p < 0.05

** p < 0.01

*** p < 0.001

Socioeconomic and demographic determinants of COVID-19 symptoms among respondents and household members

This section reports the results of the binary logistic regressions that analyse the socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with COVID-19 symptoms among respondents or household members in the past 2 weeks. The results are presented in Table 4. Compared to respondents aged 18–44, those aged 45–64 [aOR = 0.57; CI = 0.38–0.85] and 65–84 [aOR = 0.35; CI = 0.24–0.53] were less likely to report that they or at least a member of their households experienced COVID-19 symptoms. In addition, respondents with an income of at least $100,000 were less likely to report that they or at least a member of their households experienced COVID-19 symptoms compared to those with income less than $20,000 [aOR = 30; CI = 0.13–0.67].

Table 4. Binary logistic regression results on the socio-demographic factors associated with COVID-19 symptoms.

Variables Respondents or a household member having COVID-19 rsymptoms in the past 2 weeks
AOR [95%CI] Model 1 AOR [95%CI] Model 2 AOR [95%CI] Model 3 AOR [95%CI] Model 4
Gender
Female Reference Reference Reference Reference
Male 0.99 [0.70–1.39] 0.98[0.70–1.37] 1.06[0.75–1.49] 1.07 [0.76–1.49]
Age
18–44 Reference Reference Reference Reference
45–64 0.49***[0.34–0.71] 0.48***[0.32–0.70] 0.57**[0.38–0.84] 0.57**[0.38–0.85]
65–84 0.36***[0.25–0.51] 0.36***[0.25–0.52] 0.35***[0.24–0.51] 0.35***[0.24–0.53]
85 years and above 0.44 [0.05–3.57] 0.36 [0.05–2.52] 0.31[0.05–1.94] 0.33 [0.05–2.14]
Province
Quebec Reference Reference Reference
British Columbia 0.57*[0.33–0.99] 0.63[0.36–1.09] 0.62[0.36–1.08]
Ontario 0.90 [0.65–1.25] 0.97[0.69–1.37] 0.96[0.69–1.36]
Alberta 1.20 [0.64–2.23] 1.47[0.78–2.77] 1.47 [0.79–2.74]
Other 1.75* [1.04–2.94] 1.72*[1.01–2.92] 1.68 [0.99–2.84]
Ethnic groups
White Reference Reference Reference
Black 1.46[0.48–4.43] 1.68 [0.57–4.96] 1.70 [0.58–4.95]
Mixed race 2.26[0.88–5.77] 2.65*[0.1.13–6.26] 2.19 [1.12–6.19]
Other 0.82[0.33–2.06] 0.90[0.37–2.17] 0.90[0.37–2.19]
Minority group
No Reference Reference Reference
Yes 0.60 [0.28–1.30] 0.51[0.24–1.06] 0.50 [0.24–1.05]
Highest level of education
High school or less Reference Reference
College 1.13[0.65–1.94] 1.13[0.65–1.95]
Postgraduate 1.66[0.89–3.10] 1.68[0.89–3.15]
Total income in 2019
Less than $20,000 Reference Reference
$20,000 to less than $50,000 1.23 [0.79–1.92] 1.22[0.78–1.92]
$50,000 to less than $100,000 0.93 [0.59–1.49] 0.93[0.58–1.48]
$100,000 or more 0.31**[0.14–0.69] 0.30* [0.13–0.67]
Number of household members
1 Reference
2–3 1.23 [0.79–1.92]
4 or more 1.21 [0.73–1.99]
Pseudo R-squared 0.026 0.050 0.066 0.067

Exponentiated coefficients; 95% confidence intervals in brackets

aOR adjusted odds ratios; CI Confidence Interval

* p < 0.05

** p < 0.01

*** p < 0.001

The role of gender: Socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with COVID-19 symptoms disaggregated by gender identity

Fig 3 presents the multivariate logistic regression results of the association between socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and self-reported COVID-19 symptoms disaggregated by gender identity. The results revealed that after controlling for other factors men from mixed race were significantly more likely to report experiencing COVID-19 symptoms while this was not the case for women from mixed race. We also observed that residents of British Columbia were significantly less likely to report COVID-19 symptoms, but this is only true for men and not for women. Additionally, while being black is not significantly associated with the likelihood of self-reporting COVID-19 for both men and women, the size of the odd ratio suggests that Black men and Black women have higher odds of reporting COVID-19 symptoms, but the effect is more pronounced for Black women.

Fig 3. Socio-demographic factors associated with self-reported COVID-19 symptoms disaggregated by gender.

Fig 3

Fig 4 presents the results of the association between socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and reporting of COVID-19 symptoms among respondents and at least a household member disaggregated by gender. The results revealed that both older men and women were less likely to report that they or at least a member of their households experienced COVID-19 symptoms compared to younger men and women. While men who lived in British Columbia were significantly less likely to report that they or at least a member of their households experienced COVID-19 symptoms compared to those who lived in Quebec, females who lived in Ontario were significantly less likely to report that they or at least a member of their households experienced COVID-19 symptoms compared to those who lived in Quebec. Highest level of education and number of people in a household was a significant predictor of experience of COVID-19 symptoms among female respondents, but this was not the case for male respondents.

Fig 4. Socio-demographic factors associated with COVID-19 symptoms among respondents and household members by gender.

Fig 4

The role of minority status: Socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with COVID-19 symptoms disaggregated by visible minority status

This section highlights the socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with self-reported COVID-19 symptoms disaggregated by minority status. Fig 5 reports the multivariate logistic regression examining the socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with self-reported COVID-19 symptoms among respondents. The analysis revealed that in both visible minorities and non-visible minorities, respondents who earned $100,000 or more were less likely to report that they experienced COVID-19 symptoms, but this association tended to be higher among non-visible minorities. In addition, within visible minorities, respondents who were black or mixed race or living in Alberta had higher odds of presenting COVID-19 symptoms. By comparison, among the non-visible minorities, male respondents and those living in provinces other than Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia were more likely to report they experienced COVID-19 symptoms, while those who were older were less likely to present COVID-19 symptoms.

Fig 5. Socio-demographic factors associated with COVID-19 symptoms among respondents and household members by visible minority.

Fig 5

Fig 6 presents the socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with self-reported COVID-19 symptoms among respondents and at least a member of their household disaggregated by visible minority status. The analysis revealed that among respondents who were from a visible minority group, those who were older and those who earned $100,000 or more were less likely to report that they or at least a member of their households experienced COVID-19 symptoms. These associations were less strong among non-visible minorities. In addition, among respondents who were of visible minority, those who lived in Alberta and those of the black, mixed, and other race were more likely to report that they or at least a member of their households experienced COVID-19 symptoms.

Fig 6. Socio-demographic factors associated with COVID-19 symptoms among respondents and at least a member of the household disaggregated by visible minority.

Fig 6

Discussions

Our analyses assessed the socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with the reporting of COVID-19 symptoms in Canada, and how these determinants varied by gender and visible minority status. Overall, the prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms was relatively higher at the individual level (12.3%) compared to COVID-19 symptoms self-reported among household members (6.9%). This is higher than the 8% that was reported by Wu et al. [18] and higher than the 1.6% COVID symptoms reported in Lapointe-Shaw et al.’s study [15]. Although Canada has fared relatively well in terms of the number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19 when compared to other developed countries, especially its neighbour, the U.S., the distribution of the cases and deaths within Canada was not homogenous. There were interprovincial differences in self-reported COVID-19 symptoms in our study. Respondents residing in “other” provinces (than Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario) had greater likelihood of reporting COVID-19 symptoms compared to those residing in Quebec. Also, as with other health, social, and economic issues, COVID-19 disproportionately affected the vulnerable populations in Canada [30]. There are a number of studies elucidating the inequities in COVID-19 cases and deaths, and the disproportionate burden born by the marginalized population in countries most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic such as the U.S., the UK, Italy, and France [3134].

The prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms was higher among the younger age groups. The age distribution of COVID-19 symptoms is in line with related studies from the United States and Brazil [35, 36]. As noted in other countries, the severity of the infection was quite low in younger age groups [37, 38]. Compared to respondents aged 18–44, reporting of COVID-19 symptoms was lower among respondents aged 45–84 and lower for at least a member of their households. Our findings corroborate those of Wu et al. who found the reported symptoms of COVID-19 lower among older adults than any other age group [18]. Plausibly, it could be a limitation of our study (probably sampling bias) in which only those older adults who participated in the survey were healthier, living in a residence, and had access to the internet. Consequently, the observed lower odds of reporting COVID-19 symptoms among older adults (i.e., age 65+) is reflective of a significant limitation of our study; that is, the lack of representation of persons in nursing and long-term care homes that are inhabiting majority of the Canadian older people, and where COVID-19 cases and deaths have been the highest [39]. As contended by Graham [40], older adults often report symptoms such as dizziness and confusion which are also symptoms of COVID-19; however, our study did not consider dizziness and confusion as COVID symptoms. Another explanation for lower reporting of COVID-19 symptoms among older adults could be because of their health behaviour, which is usually preventive and cautious [41].

In contrast to the findings of a syndromic analysis that found no significant difference in reported symptoms of COVID-19 across income groups in Canada [15], we found significant association between income levels of individuals and their reporting of COVID-19 symptoms. Per our study, the risk of reporting symptoms reduced significantly with increasing income. This finding corroborates a similar study by Mena et al. that showed a strong association between socioeconomic status and the risk of COVID-19 symptoms, incidence, and mortality in Chile [42]. People belonging to lower-income groups are usually employed in low-paying essential jobs, where working from home is not an option, and thus are at a higher risk of getting infected [43, 44].

Consistent with previous studies [45, 46], we found larger household size to be significantly associated with higher odds of reporting COVID-19 symptoms among household members. This finding reflects the compounded risk emanating from having more household inhabitants. Large household size makes it difficult to observe social distancing protocols and reduces the possibility of self-isolation when a household member gets sick or is infected [47, 48].

Males and females had an equal prevalence of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. Related studies have found that, while men and women show comparable odds of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms [49, 50], men with COVID-19 are more at risk for poorer outcomes and death [50]. Besides typical male-female differences [51, 52], processes unique to COVID-19 probably play a role in this mortality disparity [53]. Male-female characteristics and unique COVID-19 processes may also explain the discrepancies in the socioeconomic and demographic factors determining COVID-19 symptoms by gender. The province of residence and ethnicity were significantly associated with self-reported COVID-19 symptoms among female respondents but not among male respondents in our study. When the analysis was disaggregated by gender, we found that males who lived in British Columbia were less likely to self-report COVID-19 symptoms compared to those who lived in Quebec. Among females, province was not a significant factor associated with self-reported COVID-19 symptoms. Evidence shows that Ontario and Quebec, which are the two most populous provinces had reported the highest infection and cases of COVID-19 [49]. Hence, stringent preventive measures were instituted in these two provinces compared to the other provinces.

Our results also revealed that among male respondents, those from mixed race were significantly more likely to report experiencing COVID-19 symptoms while this was not the case for women from mixed race. This racial disparity is corroborated by the findings of a systematic review conducted among adults in the UK and the U.S. [53]. Similarly, our findings are consistent with a related study conducted in the U.S. [54]. There are multiple reasons for the observed racial and sex disparities, most of which the present study does not directly account for. For instance, our findings may be explained by masculinity norms that permeate mixed-race populations [54]. Masculinity ideals that are upheld by men of mixed race are negatively correlated with their adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures; hence, significantly increasing their risk of reporting more COVID-19 symptoms. Additionally, Black men and Black women have higher odds of reporting COVID-19 symptoms, but the effect is more pronounced for Black women. This result is consistent with previous studies [5559]. Primarily, the result may be due to structural factors from occupation and access to healthcare [54]. In the U.S., Frye [55] noted that there is an overrepresentation of black women working as nurse assistants and home health aides. Such essential occupations exacerbate black women’s risk of reporting COVID-19 symptoms.

Analyses disaggregated by minority status showed that higher income was associated with lower odds of reporting COVID-19 symptoms both among visible minorities and non-visible minorities, but this association tended to be stronger among non-visible minorities. Among visible minorities, respondents of the black or mixed race were more likely to experience COVID-19 symptoms. These findings complement studies that found that racial and ethnic minority groups have disproportionally higher rates of developing COVID-19 illness [60]. Individuals from historically marginalised racial and ethnic groups have been found to suffer disproportionately from frequent and severe medical disorders that increase their risk of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms [61]. We complement this existing literature by documenting disparities in COVID-19 symptoms among visible minority ethnic groups. We also found that age was significantly associated with COVID-19 self-reported symptoms among non-visible minorities. Older respondents were less likely to present COVID-19 symptoms. This could be explained by the fact that Canadian seniors were more concerned about their health and took more precautions than younger individuals [62]. Our analysis however suggests that this was more likely to be the case among non-visible minorities.

Overall the findings indicate that some sub-populations including individuals from low-income earners, older adults, those of the mixed race, and those who lived in “other” provinces (than Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario) were at high risk of reporting COVID-19 symptoms. The socioeconomic and demographic determinants of COVID-19 symptoms also varied by gender and visible minority status. The analysis implies that it is imperative to strengthen current preventive interventions in vulnerable sub-populations.

Strengths and limitations

Our study substantiates other studies conducted in Canada that established an association between socioeconomic and demographic factors and COVID-19 symptoms at the individual and household levels. Moreover, the sample used for this study is nationally representative and facilitates the generalisability of the findings to the larger Canadian population. Nevertheless, our findings should be interpreted while taking into consideration some limitations. The study design was cross-sectional and as such, causality cannot be easily established. Also, this study used self-reported data, hence, it is likely that there may have been some recall bias. Additionally, respondents were sampled online using convenience and snowballing, which can induce noise to our results. Moreover, internet-based surveys usually have sampling bias. We tried to overcome this limitation by our sample. Finally, a large share of the older population of Canada is unlikely to complete a survey on a web platform. These include nursing home residents and those with chronic health issues or disabilities.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that COVID-19 mitigation strategies including screening, testing, and containment should focus on the vulnerable populations (i.e., low-income earners, older adults, those of the mixed race, and those who lived in provinces other than Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario). The socioeconomic and demographic determinants of COVID-19 symptoms vary by identity factors including gender and visible minority status in Canada. The analysis suggests that mitigation strategies should be designed to be specific to each gender category, ethnic group, and minority status in Canada.

Data Availability

The survey data cannot be shared publicly as they hold potentially attributable sensitive information regarding the participants. It would therefore be unethical to make them public and would undermine the ethical committee agreement and consent process. Data can be requested to the University of Ottawa Office of Research Ethics and Integrity by researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Office of Research Ethics and Integrity Tabaret Hall 550 Cumberland St Room 154 Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5 Tel.: 613-562-5387 Fax.: 613-562-5338 ethics@uottawa.ca All other relevant data are presented within the article.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada's Partnership Engage Grant # 231377-190299-2001 (RP) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada's Insight Grants # 231415-190299-2001 (RP). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Xu B, Gutierrez B, Mekaru S, Sewalk K, Goodwin L, Loskill A, et al. Epidemiological data from the COVID-19 outbreak, real-time case information. Scientific data. 2020. Mar 24;7(1):1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hui DS, Azhar EI, Madani TA, Ntoumi F, Kock R, Dar O, et al. The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health—The latest 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. International journal of infectious diseases. 2020. Feb 1;91:264–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hamzah FB, Lau C, Nazri H, Ligot DV, Lee G, Tan CL, et al. CoronaTracker: worldwide COVID-19 outbreak data analysis and prediction. Bull World Health Organ. 2020. Mar;1(32). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Raza A, Talha M, e Zaman S, Khan A, Awais M. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Regarding Personal Hygiene and Awareness about COVID-19 among School Children of Government Primary School Haider Abad Town Sargodha.
  • 5.Elflein J. Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Canada—Statistics & Facts. [Internet]. April, 2022. Retrieved: https://www.statista.com/topics/6192/coronavirus-covid-19-in-canada/#dossierKeyfigures. (accessed April 5, 2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Roser M, Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E, Hasell J. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)–Statistics and research. Our World in data. 2020. Mar;4. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organization. Coronavirus [Internet]. 2020. Retrieved: https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_3 (accessed June 6, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Alcendor DJ. Racial disparities-associated COVID-19 mortality among minority populations in the US. Journal of clinical medicine. 2020. Aug;9(8):2442. doi: 10.3390/jcm9082442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hooper MW, Nápoles AM, Pérez-Stable EJ. COVID-19 and racial/ethnic disparities. Jama. 2020. Jun 23;323(24):2466–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.8598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rentsch CT, Kidwai-Khan F, Tate JP, Park LS, King JT Jr, Skanderson M, et al. Patterns of COVID-19 testing and mortality by race and ethnicity among United States veterans: A nationwide cohort study. PLoS medicine. 2020. Sep 22;17(9):e1003379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Debnam Guzman J, Mabeu MC, Pongou R. Identity during a Crisis: COVID-19 and Ethnic Divisions in the United States. InAEA Papers and Proceedings 2022. May (Vol. 112, pp. 319–24). [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pongou R, Tchuente G, Tondji JB. Laissez-faire, social networks, and race in a pandemic. InAEA Papers and Proceedings 2022. May (Vol. 112, pp. 325–29). [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wei Y, Lu Y, Xia L, Yuan X, Li G, Li X, et al. Analysis of 2019 novel coronavirus infection and clinical characteristics of outpatients: An epidemiological study from a fever clinic in Wuhan, China. Journal of Medical Virology. 2020. Nov;92(11):2758–67. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Unim B, Palmieri L, Noce CL, Brusaferro S, Onder G. Prevalence of COVID-19-related symptoms by age group. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research. 2021. Apr;33(4):1145–7. doi: 10.1007/s40520-021-01809-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lapointe-Shaw L, Rader B, Astley CM, Hawkins JB, Bhatia D, Schatten WJ, et al. Web and phone-based COVID-19 syndromic surveillance in Canada: A cross-sectional study. PloS one. 2020. Oct 2;15(10):e0239886. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.St‐Denis X. Sociodemographic determinants of occupational risks of exposure to COVID‐19 in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie. 2020. Aug;57(3):399–452. doi: 10.1111/cars.12288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Baylis P, Beauregard PL, Connolly M, Fortin N, Green DA, Cubillos PG, et al. The Distribution of COVID-19 Related Risks. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020. Oct 5. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wu DC, Jha P, Lam T, Brown P, Gelband H, Nagelkerke N, et al. Action to Beat Coronavirus in Canada/Action pour Battre le Coronavirus (Ab-C) Study Group. Predictors of self-reported symptoms and testing for COVID-19 in Canada using a nationally representative survey. PloS one. 2020. Oct 21;15(10):e0240778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Garg S, Kim L, Whitaker M, O’Halloran A, Cummings C, Holstein R, et al. Hospitalization rates and characteristics of patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019—COVID-NET, 14 states, March 1–30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Weekly Rep. (2020) 69:458–64. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6915e3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dowd JB, Aiello AE. Socioeconomic differentials in immune response. Epidemiology. 2009. Nov;20(6):902–8. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181bb5302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Adler NE. Socioeconomic inequalities in health. No easy solution. J Am Med Assoc. (1993) 269:3140–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.269.24.3140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Li L, Huang T, Wang Y, Wang Z, Liang Y, Huang T, et al. COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 92:577–83. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jin J-M, Bai P, He W, Wu F, Liu X-F, Han D-M, et al. Gender differences in patients with COVID-19: focus on severity and mortality. Front Public Health. (2020) 8:152. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lian J, Jin X, Hao S, Cai H, Zhang S, Zheng L, et al. Analysis of epidemiological and clinical features in older patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) out of Wuhan. Clin Infect Dis. (2020) 382:ciaa242. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Korean Society of Infectious Diseases Korean Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases Korean Society of Epidemiology Korean Society for Antimicrobial Therapy Korean Society for Healthcare-associated Infection Control and Prevention Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Report on the epidemiological features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in the Republic of Korea from January 19 to March 2, 2020. J Korean Med Sci. (2020) 35:e112. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Scully EP, Haverfield J, Ursin RL, Tannenbaum C, Klein SL. Considering how biological sex impacts immune responses and COVID-19 outcomes. Nat Rev Immunol. (2020) 20:442–7. doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-0348-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pongou R, Ahinkorah BO, Maltais S, Mabeu MC, Agarwal A, Yaya S. Psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Plos one. 2022. Nov 17;17(11):e0277238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pongou R, Ahinkorah BO, Mabeu MC, Agarwal A, Maltais S, Yaya S. Examining the association between reported COVID-19 symptoms and testing for COVID-19 in Canada: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ open. 2022. Mar 1;12(3):e056229. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Canning D, Karra M, Dayalu R, Guo M, Bloom DE. The association between age, COVID-19 symptoms, and social distancing behavior in the United States. MedRxiv. 2020. Jan 1. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.19.20065219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Social inequalities in COVID-19 mortality by area- and individual-level characteristics in Canada, January to July/August 2020. 2021. July 7. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/inequalities-deaths/technical-report.html (accessed: August 2o, 2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wilder JM. The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2021. Feb 15;72(4):707–9. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Meer N, Qureshi K, Kasstan B, Hill S. The social determinants of Covid 19 and BAME disproportionality. Discover Society website. April. 2020;30:2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nurchis MC, Pascucci D, Sapienza M, Villani L, D’ambrosio F, Castrini F, et al. Impact of the burden of COVID-19 in Italy: results of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and productivity loss. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020. Jan;17(12):4233. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Roche B, Garchitorena A, Roiz D. The impact of lockdown strategies targeting age groups on the burden of COVID-19 in France. Epidemics. 2020. Dec 1;33:100424. doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2020.100424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yang W, Kandula S, Huynh M, Greene SK, Van Wye G, Li W, et al. Estimating the infection-fatality risk of SARS-CoV-2 in New York City during the spring 2020 pandemic wave: a model-based analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2021. Feb 1;21(2):203–12. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30769-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Menezes AM, Victora CG, Hartwig FP, Silveira MF, Horta BL, Barros AJ, et al. High prevalence of symptoms among Brazilian subjects with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2: a nationwide household survey. medRxiv. 2020. Jan 1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Maragakis LL. Coronavirus and COVID-19: Younger adults are at risk, too. Johns Hopkins Medicine. 2020. Apr. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bosman J, Mervosh S. As virus surges, younger people account for ‘disturbing’number of cases. The New York Times. 2020. Jun 25. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. CLHIA report on long-term care policy: Improving the accessibility, quality and sustainability of long-term care in Canada. 2014. https://www.clhia.ca/web/clhia_lp4w_lnd_webstation.nsf/page/3C342451F891CF1D85257A240044F961/$file/LTC_Policy_Paper_1_EN.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Graham J. Seniors with COVID show unusual symptoms, doctors say. CNN Health. 2020. Apr 23 [Cited 2020 May 13]. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/23/health/seniors-elderly-coronavirus-symptoms-wellness-partner/index.htmll. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Chen LK. Older adults and COVID-19 pandemic: Resilience matters. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics. 2020. Jul;89:104124. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mena GE, Martinez PP, Mahmud AS, Marquet PA, Buckee CO, Santillana M. Socioeconomic status determines COVID-19 incidence and related mortality in Santiago, Chile. Science. 2021. May 28;372(6545). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Deng Z, Morissette R, Messacar D. Running the economy remotely: Potential for working from home during and after COVID-19.
  • 44.Statistics Canada. 2020. “Labour Force Survey, April 2020.” The Daily. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200508/dq200508a-eng.htm [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lu FS, Nguyen AT, Link NB, Davis JT, Chinazzi M, Xiong X, et al. Estimating the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 in the United States using four complementary approaches. medRxiv. 2020. Jan 1. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.18.20070821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Cloutier L, Merindol N, Pépin G, Marcoux-Huard C, Vasil PA, Houle C, et al. Asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 in a confined adult community population in Quebec: A cross-sectional study. American journal of infection control. 2021. Jan 1;49(1):120–2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Federgruen A, Naha S. Crowding effects dominate demographic attributes in COVID-19 cases. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2021. Jan 1;102:509–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yang F, Aitken N. “People Living in Apartments and Larger Households Were at Higher Risk of Dying from COVID-19 during the First Wave of the Pandemic.” Ottawa: Statistics Canada (Catalogue no. 45280001). 2021, April 13. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Detsky AS, Bogoch II. COVID-19 in Canada: experience and response. Jama. 2020. Aug 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.14033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.DESA U. Leaving no-one behind: The imperative of inclusive development. 2016 report on the World Social Situation. New York, NY: UN. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/full-report.Pdf. 2016.
  • 51.Pongou R. Sex differences in early-age mortality: The preconception origins hypothesis. Demography. 2015. Dec 1;52(6):2053–6. doi: 10.1007/s13524-015-0441-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pongou R. Why is infant mortality higher in boys than in girls? A new hypothesis based on preconception environment and evidence from a large sample of twins. Demography. 2013. Apr 1;50(2):421–44. doi: 10.1007/s13524-012-0161-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sze S, Pan D, Nevill CR, Gray LJ, Martin CA, Nazareth J, et al. Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2020; 29: 100630. PubMed Abstract| Publisher Full Text| Free Full Text. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Rushovich T, Boulicault M, Chen JT, Danielsen AC, Tarrant A, Richardson SS, et al. Sex disparities in COVID-19 mortality vary across US racial groups. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2021. Jun;36(6):1696–701. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06699-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Frye J. On the frontlines at work and at home: The disproportionate economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic on women of color. Center for American Progress. 2020. Apr;23. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hawkins D. Differential occupational risk for COVID‐19 and other infection exposure according to race and ethnicity. American journal of industrial medicine. 2020. Sep;63(9):817–20. doi: 10.1002/ajim.23145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ahmed MM, Sayed AM, El Abd D, Fares S, Said MSM, Elsayed Sedik Ebrahim E. Gender Difference in Perceived Symptoms and Laboratory Investigations in Suspected and Confirmed COVID-19 Cases: A Retrospective Study. J Prim Care Community Health. 2021. Jan-Dec;12:21501327211039718. doi: 10.1177/21501327211039718 ; PMCID: PMC8381412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Jin JM, Bai P, He W, Wu F, Liu XF, Han DM, et al. Gender Differences in Patients With COVID-19: Focus on Severity and Mortality. Front Public Health. 2020. Apr 29;8:152. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00152 ; PMCID: PMC7201103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Niessen A, Teirlinck AC, McDonald SA, van der Hoek W, van Gageldonk-Lafeber R; RIVM COVID-19 epidemiology, surveillance group, Knol MJ. Sex differences in COVID-19 mortality in the Netherlands. Infection. 2022. Jun;50(3):709–717. doi: 10.1007/s15010-021-01744-0 Epub 2022 Feb 9. ; PMCID: PMC9151564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Acosta AM, Garg S, Pham H, Whitaker M, Anglin O, O’Halloran A, et al. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Rates of COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and In-Hospital Death in the United States From March 2020 to February 2021. JAMA Netw Open. 2021. Oct 1;4(10):e2130479. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30479 ; PMCID: PMC8531997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.StatCan 2021. [Internet] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2021001/article/00008-eng.htm
  • 62.The American Medical Association. 2022. [Internet] https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/health-equity/why-race-ethnicity-can-help-determine-covid-19-severity-risk. [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001156.r001

Decision Letter 0

Haroon Ahmed

16 Jun 2022

PGPH-D-22-00694

Gender and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 related symptoms in Canada: Evidence from a national cross-sectional survey

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Sanny Yaya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 06-07-2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Haroon Ahmed, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please update the 'Competing Interests' statement,please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist".

2. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

- State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

- State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

3. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements 

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that "The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I don't know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript reports the results of an online survey investigating the relationships between socio-demographic variables and COVID-19 symptoms. In general the manuscript is well written, although there are grammatical errors so I encourage the authors to carefully review the text. There are several areas (outlined below) where, in its current form, I do not believe the manuscript meets the publication criteria set by PLoS Global Public Health.

1. Title. "Gender and ethnic disparities ..." does not seem to reflect the results of the study. None of the statistical models found differences in the odds of reporting COVID-19 symptoms between males and females.

2. The data availability statement indicates data may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. This does not meet the journal requirement of data being fully available at the time of publication.

3. The methods section does not contain sufficient detail about the sampling method or target population. For instance, there is limited information about the survey per se, but nothing related to the ampling methdology such as eligibility criteria, how the survey was advertised to potential participants or the sampling frame. There is a sentence in the 'strengths and limitations' section indicating that convenience and snowballing were used, but this is the only mention of the sampling methodology in the manuscript.

3. There are numerous discrepancies between the information in the methods and results. Three examples are:

a) Outcome variable. From the methods "The second outcome variable was COVID-19 related symptoms among either respondent or a household member." The reported results were that 13% of respondents has at least one COVID-19 symptom, while 7% reported they or at least one household member had symptoms. Since the second outcome includes symptoms in the repondent or any household member I do not understand how the prevalence can be lower than that for the respondents. Therefore I cannot make sense of any results reported for the second outcome.

b) Gener-specific models. The methods indicate that Model 3 was the basis for the gender-specific models. This model contained all variables with the exception of number of household members (according to the results in Tables 3 and 4). However, Figure 3 which describes the results of the gender-specific models includes household size.

c) The age groups mentioned in the methods are not the same as those presented in the results.

4. Data were collected for race and minority group, and both were included in the statistical models. There seems to be potential for these two variables to be related. Have the authors assessed whether these variables show enough independence from each other to both be included in the models (eg, do the 351 "yes" responses for minority group come from specific races, rather than across all races)?

5. Table 4. Several entries in Table 4 are incorrect. Model 3 aOR for >$100,000 is outside the 95% CI; Model 4 aOR for number of household members do not look correct in relation to the 95% CI

6. Conclusion. In the conclusion older individuals and individuals in larger households are used as examples of vulnerable populations that should be the focus of COVID-19 mitigation strategies. However, the results from this study do not support these as vulnerable populations. Older individuals had lower odds of COVID-19 symptoms, while the odds of symptoms at an individual level was not related to household size. It was only when the outcome was symptoms in respondent or >=1 household member that the size of the household become significant which is not surprising since the probability of at least one member having symptoms should increase with the number of people at risk.

The authors may also like to consider the following suggestions:

7. Given the non-specific nature of many COVID-19 symptoms it is interesting that the authors have choosen to use presence of a single symptom, rather than the WHO case definition which requires fever AND cough, or at least 3 symptoms. How sensitive are your results to the definition of COVID-19 symptoms? Would the results change if fever AND cough were required, rather than a single symptom? At the moment the study could relate to any infectious disease having fever or cough as a symptom, rather than COVID-19 specifically.

8. It is not clear to me why the results of Models 1 to 3 need to be presented. It appears the conclusions are drawn from Model 4, and there are no real differences in aOR as additional variables are added to the models.

9. It would be helpful if Table 1 included the actual frequencies, along with the weighted frequencies. It is mentioned that the sample was not representative, but there is no corresponding information about which groups are over-sampled or under-sampled.

10. The income variable is personal income. It is not clear how useful this information is for the household outcome since the respondent may have very different characteristics to other members of the household. In the discussion it is concluded that lower incomes means people are more exposed due to the nature of lower-paying jobs. This is an over-generalisation when you don't know the circumstances of the household. For instance, there is a big difference if the respondent income is the only income for the household versus if the respondent is not the main income-earner in the household.

Reviewer #2: Overall:

The findings are potentially of interest, but given the fact that similar studies have already been published and the results widely reported, additional comparison is needed to provide sufficient justification of these results as a standalone publication.

I would recommend adding a comparison to other sources and previous publications (as referenced in the introduction). Are these results aligned with or in contradiction to these other sources and findings? How do these results compare to other countries? These should be included not only in the tables, but in charts to more clearly communicate the results.

In addition, the authors mention the fact that data were collected for subsequent waves; I would suggest including those data here to expand the time scale and basis for analysis.

Specific comments:

Page 6: Missing word in first sentence, second paragraph.

Materials and Methods: How was the survey disseminated? It is clear that it was a convenience sample, but where was it advertised and how were people encouraged to participate? Please provide additional information about recruitment for the convenience sample.

The charts in the figures need to include units on the y-axis and appear to be lacking both figure titles and legends.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript investigated the association between socio-demographic factors (such as gender, age, province, race, minority groups, and level of education) and COVID-19 related symptoms in Canada. An online survey was conducted to collect the socio-demographic data. This study suggested that mitigation strategies should focus on the vulnerable populations. The structure of this manuscript is clear, and the writing is well. However, this paper needs further improvements.

My comments are:

(1) Many studies have thoroughly investigated the impact of socio-demographic factors and other factors on the spreading of COVID-19 in various areas. They have confirmed that the scale of COVID-19 pandemics is associated with socio-demographic factors. Published papers concluded that vulnerable populations need more attention during the COVID-19 pandemics. The results and conclusions of this manuscript provided limited additional information on the impact of socio-demographic factors on COVID-19 pandemics. The necessity of this manuscript should be highlighted. Please highlight the necessity and innovation in the abstract and background sections.

(2) Materials and Methods: The authors used data from the first wave collected between July and October 2020. However, the infectious capacities of different SARS-CoV-2 variants and the symptom caused by SARS-CoV-2 variants were distinct. I suspect that the results of this paper cannot be used to guide the future prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemics.

(3) Page 5, Exposure variables: please explain why you chose these eight exposure variables and give the references.

(4) How did you deal with the potential collinearity problem among independent variables?

(5) Results: I recommend the authors state the necessity and the logical role of the subsection at the beginning of each subsection.

(6) Discussion: it is better to discuss how can the results and conclusions of this manuscript illuminate the mitigation ways of the pandemics caused by SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, such as the Omicron variants of concern.

Reviewer #4: 1. The manuscript is technically sound and well written and meets the publication criteria for PLOS Public Health. Methodology applied to answer the research question was appropriate.

2. Statistical analysis was done appropriately. The authors made sure to explain how they arrived to the final model that was used in logistic regression, to make it easier to follow, perhaps the authors should report only those results from the final statistical model. Since the paper is not about comparing statistical models, this should not be the focus of the results section.

3. The authors mentioned that they will make the data available upon request.

4. The manuscript is well written, save for very minor issues in commas and semi-colons in the introduction section and consistency of using abbreviations versus full name (e.g. WHO and World Health Organization)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001156.r003

Decision Letter 1

Haroon Ahmed

11 Nov 2022

PGPH-D-22-00694R1

Gender and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 related symptoms in Canada: Evidence from a national cross-sectional survey

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Yaya S,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

EDITOR: The manuscript can be accepted for the publication after the incorporation of minor comments of Reviewer 4.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 20-11-2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Haroon Ahmed, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: No additional comments.

Reviewer #3: The authors have adequately addressed my comments.

Reviewer #4: General

The general presentation of the manuscript has improved.

Results

A few things need to be done in the results section. Currently the tables are not easy to read.

-Table 2: Are the values in the YES column in percentages, if so it needs to be clear in the table.

-Tables 3 & 4: The authors did a good job with regression analysis running different models. Which model did you decide to use for your results and why? Did you do a model fit and which type did you use to assess. To make the tables easier to read, please present only the results from the model with the best fit and give a brief statement of the process.

Discussion

The most important or main results are best presented in the first paragraph in 3-4 lines at most, to give readers a quick idea of what is to follow.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001156.r005

Decision Letter 2

Daniel Kim

17 Mar 2023

PGPH-D-22-00694R2

Identity and COVID-19 related symptoms in Canada: Gender, ethnicity, and minority status

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Yaya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniel Kim, M.D., Dr.P.H.

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

2. Your manuscript is missing the following sections: Introduction. Please ensure these are present, and in the correct order, and that any references to subheadings in your main text are correct. An outline of the required sections can be consulted in our submission guidelines here:

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

For Figures 1 and 2, please use better resolution graphs and also display 95% confidence intervals for the prevalence estimates.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the updates and changes to the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001156.r007

Decision Letter 3

Daniel Kim

18 Apr 2023

Identity and COVID-19 related symptoms in Canada: Gender, ethnicity, and minority status

PGPH-D-22-00694R3

Dear Dr. Yaya,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Identity and COVID-19 related symptoms in Canada: Gender, ethnicity, and minority status' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Daniel Kim, M.D., Dr.P.H.

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers .docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The survey data cannot be shared publicly as they hold potentially attributable sensitive information regarding the participants. It would therefore be unethical to make them public and would undermine the ethical committee agreement and consent process. Data can be requested to the University of Ottawa Office of Research Ethics and Integrity by researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Office of Research Ethics and Integrity Tabaret Hall 550 Cumberland St Room 154 Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5 Tel.: 613-562-5387 Fax.: 613-562-5338 ethics@uottawa.ca All other relevant data are presented within the article.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES