Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Mar 10;16(3):e0239168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239168

Ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality in Mexico: A cross-sectional study based on national data

Ismael Ibarra-Nava 1, Kathia G Flores-Rodriguez 1, Violeta Ruiz-Herrera 1, Hilda C Ochoa-Bayona 1, Alfonso Salinas-Zertuche 1, Magaly Padilla-Orozco 1, Raul G Salazar-Montalvo 1,*
Editor: Mary Hamer Hodges2
PMCID: PMC7946310  PMID: 33690607

Abstract

Introduction

Across the world, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minorities. How ethnicity affects Indigenous peoples in Mexico is unclear. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the mortality associated with ethnicity, particularly of Indigenous peoples, in a large sample of patients with COVID-19 in Mexico.

Methods

We used open access data from the Mexican Ministry of Health, which includes data of all confirmed COVID-19 cases in the country. We used descriptive statistics to compare differences among different groups of patients. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios while adjusting for confounders.

Results

From February 28 to August 3, 2020, a total of 416546 adult patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. Among these, 4178 were Indigenous peoples. Among all patients with COVID-19, whether hospitalized or not, a higher proportion of Indigenous peoples died compared to non-Indigenous people (16.5% vs 11.1%, respectively). Among hospitalized patients, a higher proportion of Indigenous peoples died (37.1%) compared to non-Indigenous peoples (36.3%). Deaths outside the hospital were also higher among Indigenous peoples (3.7% vs 1.7%). A higher proportion of Indigenous peoples died in both the private and public health care sectors. The adjusted odds ratio for COVID-19 mortality among Indigenous peoples with COVID-19 was 1.13 (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.24). The adjusted odds ratio for COVID-19 mortality among Indigenous peoples with COVID-19 was higher among those who received only ambulatory care (1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.92).

Discussion

In this large sample of patients with COVID-19, the findings suggest that Indigenous peoples in Mexico have a higher risk of death from COVID-19, especially outside the hospital. These findings suggest Indigenous peoples lack access to care more so than non-Indigenous people during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico.

Introduction

As COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to increase around the world, an increasing amount of evidence shows that the current pandemic is disproportionately affecting socially disadvantaged groups. Several studies have demonstrated that older individuals and people with underlying medical conditions have an increased risk for adverse outcomes, including death [1, 2]. Moreover, emerging evidence from the USA, the UK, and Brazil has shown that racial and ethnic minorities (REM) have a higher risk of adverse outcomes and death from COVID-19 as well [35]. These health disparities may be due to a higher prevalence of underlying comorbidities and poor access to high quality health care services among REM. Furthermore, specific public health preventive measures to address COVID-19 are hard to implement in REM communities that live in densely populated areas, work on essential services, and use public transportation [6].

Mexico has some of the highest numbers of confirmed cases and deaths in the world. As of August 5th, Mexico ranks seventh worldwide in total number of cases and third in total number of deaths [7]. Access to testing has been a challenge in Mexico, which has one of the lowest testing rates worldwide [8]. Therefore, the true number of cases and deaths is probably higher. Similar to studies conducted in other settings, Mexicans who are older and who have an underlying medical comorbidity have a higher risk of adverse outcomes and death [911]. Mexico is a racially and ethnically diverse country, with an indigenous population of over 12 million (10.1% of the total population) [12]. For centuries, indigenous peoples in Mexico have been marginalized and unfairly treated, resulting in unjust health inequities and unequitable access to health care.

The Epidemiological Surveillance System of Viral Respiratory Diseases of the Mexican Ministry of Health (MoH) collects sociodemographic and clinical data of diagnosed COVID-19 cases, across both public and private hospitals. These data are updated daily and are openly available to anyone. In this study, we aimed to analyze the relationship between risk factors, mainly ethnicity, and COVID-19 adverse outcomes (hospitalization and ICU admission) and mortality. The impact of COVID-19 on indigenous health needs be analyzed to address the existing health inequities that persist in Mexico. Furthermore, our results could help local, state, and federal governments identify high-risk groups for severe illness and death and help them with the implementation of specific preventive measures in these socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

Methods

Study design and population

The present cross-sectional study is based on national and open access data reported by the MoH. These data set is published through the Epidemiological Surveillance System for Viral Respiratory Diseases (SISVER) and it includes data on all suspected COVID-19 patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2. For this study, we included data from laboratory-confirmed patients with COVID-19 in Mexico from February 28 to August 3rd, 2020. The SISVER reports laboratory-confirmed cases through 475 Viral Respiratory Diseases Monitoring Units (USMERs) across the country, which consist of both public and private providers in primary care and hospitals. Patient information is collected by physicians based on an epidemiological study format for all suspected cases of COVID-19. Laboratory-confirmed cases were defined as a positive result of real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay.

A total of 443813 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were included in the SISVER data set. We excluded 11312 patients who were 17 years or younger, 12562 patients whose ethnicity was not recorded and another 3393 patients with missing or unknown data for type of health care sector (public or private) in which they were treated for COVID-19. The total sample for our study consisted of 416546 patients. We further divided our sample by hospital admission, resulting in two samples of 113853 hospitalized patients and 302693 non-hospitalized patients. Missing or unknown data on comorbidities and risk factors were treated as negative for that comorbidity or risk factor as they were most likely left blank on the form if the patient did not have it or did not know they had it. The variables included in our study were sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, and health care sector), comorbidities (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, and chronic kidney disease), risk factors (obesity and smoking status), and adverse outcomes (hospital admission, ICU admission, endotracheal intubation, and death).

In Mexico, three different definitions are used to determine if a person is Indigenous [13]. The most common one is the population aged 3 or older that speaks an Indigenous language; this represents 6.5% of the population. The second definition is living in a household where at least one person speaks an Indigenous language; this represents 10.1% of the population. Finally, the last definition is about self-identity. Around 21.5% of Mexicans self-identify as Indigenous. In our data set, ethnicity was assessed by asking if the patient spoke any indigenous language, regardless of whether they also spoke Spanish or not. These data are openly available at https://coronavirus.gob.mx/.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were described using the mean and standard deviation. Categorical variables were described in frequencies and percentages. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) and their corresponding p-values for death by sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities and risk factors. A multiple logistic regression model was used adjusting by age, gender, and health care sector for each of the comorbidities and risk factors previously mentioned. The selection of variables for our model was based on a review of the literature. All statistical analysis was performed using R version 4.0.2 and RStudio Desktop version 1.3.1073. No ethics approval was required for this study.

Results

The MoH COVID-19 database included 1011050 suspected cases of COVID-19 as of August 3rd, 2020. Of these, 432501 adult patients tested positive for COVID-19. A total of 12562 had missing data on their ethnicity and 3393 had missing data on the type of health care sector (private or public) where they received treatment. In the end, our sample consisted of 416546 adult patients with COVID-19 (Fig 1). Of these, 113853 required hospitalization (hospitalized sample) and 302693 received only ambulatory care (non-hospitalized sample).

Fig 1. Flowchart of the MoH data set used for this study.

Fig 1

Table 1 shows the demographic, comorbidity, and risk factor data among survivors and non-survivors in all three of our samples. Across all samples, the mean age of non-survivors was similar (61.0 in non-hospitalized patients and 62.0 in hospitalized patients) and higher than survivors. Among survivors, the mean age of hospitalized patients was higher than non-hospitalized patients (53.6 and 41.8, respectively). Across all samples, a higher proportion of men, Indigenous peoples and patients treated in the public sector died. A higher proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) died inside or outside the hospital. The most common comorbidities in all patients with COVID-19 that resulted in death were high blood pressure (20383) and diabetes (17660). Among hospitalized patients, more than 40% of them with any of the four comorbidities analyzed died.

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics and present comorbidities and risk factors among survivors and non-survivors of all COVID-19 patients, hospitalized patients and non-hospitalized patients.

All COVID-19 patients (n = 416546) Hospitalized patients (n = 113853) Non-hospitalized patients (n = 302693)
Survivors n = 370038 (88.8%) Non-survivors n = 46,508 (11.2%) Survivors n = 72566 (63.7%) Non-survivors n = 41287 (36.3%) Survivors 297472 (98.3%) Non-survivors 5221 (1.7%)
Age (years ± SD) 44.1 ± 14.7 61.9 ± 13.8 53.6 ± 15.0 62.0 ± 13.8 41.8 ± 13.6 61.0 ± 14.1
Gender
 Women (n = 195153) 178795 (91.6%) 16358 (8.4%) 29357 (66.8%) 14588 (33.2%) 149438 (98.8%) 1770 (1.2%)
 Men (n = 221393) 191243 (86.4%) 30150 (13.6%) 43209 (61.8%) 26699 (38.2%) 148034 (97.7%) 3451 (2.3%)
Ethnic group
 Non-indigenous (n = 412368) 336551 (88.9%) 45817 (11.1%) 71559 (63.7%) 40692 (36.3%) 294992 (98.3%) 5125 (1.7%)
 Indigenous (n = 4178) 3487 (83.5%) 691 (16.5%) 1007 (62.9%) 595 (37.1%) 2480 (96.3%) 96 (3.7%)
Sector
 Private (n = 11476) 10911 (95.1%) 565 (4.9%) 2579 (84.2%) 485 (15.8%) 8332 (99.0%) 80 (1.0%)
 Public (n = 405070) 359127 (88.7%) 45943 (11.3%) 69987 (63.2%) 40802 (36.8%) 289140 (98.3%) 5141 (1.7%)
Comorbidities
 Diabetes (n = 68137) 50477 (74.1%) 17660 (25.9%) 20773 (56.8%) 15794 (43.2%) 29704 (94.1%) 1866 (5.9%)
 COPD (n = 6633) 4394 (66.2%) 2239 (33.8%) 2067 (51.2%) 1972 (48.8%) 2327 (89.7%) 267 (10.3%)
 High blood pressure (n = 84577) 64194 (75.9%) 20383 (24.1%) 22992 (55.8%) 18184 (44.2%) 41202 (94.9%) 2199 (5.1%)
 Chronic kidney disease (n = 8444) 5264 (62.3%) 3180 (37.7%) 2730 (48.9%) 2852 (51.1%) 2534 (88.5%) 328 (11.5%)
Risk Factors
 Obesity (n = 79635) 68205 (85.6%) 11430 (14.4%) 16846 (62.7%) 10030 (37.3%) 51359 (97.3%) 1400 (2.7%)
 Smoking (n = 30818) 27001 (87.6) 3817 (12.4%) 5449 (61.4%) 3426 (38.6%) 21552 (98.2%) 5221 (1.8%)

Table 2 shows admissions to hospitals, ICUs, and deaths among Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous people. A total of 4178 (1.0%) of patients with COVID-19 were Indigenous. Of these, a total of 1602 (38.3%) were admitted to the hospital compared to only 27.2% of non-Indigenous people. Additionally, 155 (3.7%) Indigenous peoples were admitted to the ICU compared to only 2.1% of non-Indigenous people. Regarding deaths (outside and inside a hospital), 691 (16.5%) of all Indigenous peoples died. Only 11.1% of non-Indigenous people died. The proportion of deaths among Indigenous peoples was higher compared to non-Indigenous people inside the hospital (37.1% vs 36.3%, respectively) and in the ICU (52.9% and 51.6%). Deaths outside the hospital were also higher among Indigenous peoples (3.7% vs 1.7%).

Table 2. Hospital admission, ICU admission and deaths by ethnicity.

Indigenous n = 4178 (1.0%) Not Indigenous n = 412368 (99.0%) Total n = 416546
Admitted to hospital 1602 (38.3%) 112251 (27.2%) 113853
Admitted to ICU 155 (3.7%) 8715 (2.1%) 8870
Deaths 691 (16.5%) 45817 (11.1%) 46508
% deaths (hospital) 37.1 36.3 -
% deaths (not in hospital) 3.7 1.7 -
% deaths (ICU) 52.9 51.6 -

Table 3 shows the distribution of sociodemographic characteristics and the prevalence of comorbidities and risk factors among Indigenous and non-Indigenous non-survivors. A higher proportion of Indigenous non-survivors died in almost all age groups compared to non-Indigenous people. Men are more likely to die in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people; however, Indigenous men and women were more likely to die from COVID-19 than non-Indigenous people. While a higher proportion of deaths happened in the public sector, Indigenous peoples were more likely to die in both sectors. Finally, a higher proportion of Indigenous peoples with comorbidities and risk factors died compared to non-Indigenous people.

Table 3. Sociodemographic characteristics and present comorbidities and risk factors among all non-survivors by ethnicity.

Indigenous n = 691 Non-Indigenous n = 45817
Age (years ± SD) 63.4 ± 13.0 61.9 ± 13.8
Age group
 18–39 28 (2.3%) 2724 (1.7%)
 40–49 73 (8.8%) 5828 (6.2%)
 50–59 153 (18.0%) 10705 (14.0%)
 60–69 94 (13.6%) 12599 (26.4%)
 70 or older 243 (39.6%) 13961 (39.2%)
Gender
 Female 230 (13.6%) 16128 (8.3%)
 Male 461 (18.5%) 29689 (13.6%)
Sector
 Private 4 (12.1%) 561 (4.9%)
 Public 687 (16.6%) 45256 (11.3%)
Comorbidities
 Diabetes 258 (28.7%) 17402 (25.9%)
 COPD 47 (34.6%) 2192 (33.7%)
 HBP 270 (29.6%) 20113 (24.0%)
 CKD 40 (44.4%) 3140 (37.6%)

Regarding our multiple logistic regression models (Table 4), we observed that, compared to non-Indigenous people, Indigenous peoples in general and those who received ambulatory care had significantly higher odds of dying (OR 1.13, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.24 in all COVID-19 patients; OR 1.55, 95%CI 1.24 to1.92 in non-hospitalized patients). Interestingly, people treated in the public health care sector also had higher odds of death compared to people treated in the private sector in all the models. However, this was the only factor where the OR was higher among hospitalized patients than non-hospitalized patients (OR 3.22, 95%CI 2.91 to 3.55 vs OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.72 to 2.71). Men, older people, patients with obesity and patients with comorbidities had higher odds of dying as well, especially among non-hospitalized patients.

Table 4. Multiple logistic regression models (ORs and 95%CIs) on all COVID-19 patients, hospitalized patients and non-hospitalized patients.

All COVID-19 patients Hospitalized patients Non-hospitalized patients
Age group
 18–39 (ref) 1 1 1
 40–49 3.38 (3.22–3.54)** 1.82 (1.72–1.92)** 3.53 (3.11–4.02)**
 50–59 7.40 (7.09–7.74)** 2.79 (2.65–2.94)** 8.21 (7.29–9.27)**
 59–69 15.05 (14.40–15.73)** 4.13 (3.92–4.34)** 18.62 (16.51–21.05)**
 70 or older 27.20 (26.00–28.47)** 5.95 (5.64–6.26)** 38.31 (33.92–43. 39)**
Gender
 Women (ref) 1 1 1
 Men 1.79 (1.75–1.83)** 1.36 (1.32–1.39)** 2.09 (1.97–2.22)**
Ethnic group
 Non-indigenous (ref) 1 1 1
 Indigenous 1.13 (1.03–1.24)** 0.92 (0.83–1.02) 1.55 (1.24–1.92)**
Sector
 Private (ref) 1 1 1
 Public 2.89 (2.64–3.16)** 3.22 (2.91–3.55)** 2.14 (1.72–2.71)**
Comorbidities*
 Diabetes 1.61 (1.57–1.65)** 1.17 (1.14–1.21)** 1.72 (1.61–1.84)**
 COPD 1.36 (1.29–1.44)** 1.12 (1.06–1.20)** 1.72 (1.45–1.98)**
 High blood pressure 1.27 (1.24–1.30)** 1.14 (1.11–1.17)** 1.30 (1.21–1.38)**
 Chronic kidney disease 2.57 (2.44–2.71)** 1.66 (1.59–1.79)** 3.02 (2.64–3.44)**
Risk Factors*
 Obesity 1.39 (1.35–1.42)** 1.17 (1.13–1.20)** 1.62 (1.52–1.73)**
 Smoking 0.99 (0.95–1.03) 0.98 (0.94–1.03) 0.93 (0.84–1.04)

*The reference groups were those without the comorbidity or risk factor.

**p<0.05.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the most extensive study of hospital and ambulatory mortality of COVID-19 patients in Mexico. Among all patients, we found that patients who died were more likely to be older, men, Indigenous, receive treatment in the public sector, and have comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors. Similar to previous studies, we found that age, gender, and the presence of comorbidities are important predictors of death among patients with COVID-19 [1, 2, 4, 5, 911]. Overall, Mexicans have a high burden of chronic diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and chronic kidney disease, although the prevalence of some of these diseases seems to be higher among Indigenous peoples [1418]. Our results show that a higher proportion of Indigenous peoples in almost all age groups, in both genders, and with comorbidities died in our sample, which suggests access to care and the quality of care might play a role on the impact of COVID-19 among Indigenous peoples.

We found that ethnicity was mostly associated with death in those who received ambulatory care even after adjusting for health care sector. This finding suggests that poor access to health care services might be a driver of higher mortality among Indigenous peoples. Despite progress in the socioeconomic and health conditions of Indigenous peoples in recent years, most of them remain uninsured or are affiliated to the public health care sector, which is often of poorer quality compared to the private sector [12, 1921]. Furthermore, one study found that Indigenous peoples in Mexico were less likely to receive any type of health care among those seeking medical care [22]. The current COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care systems worldwide. Therefore, an inequitable distribution of health resources could be playing a role in access to care as well. For example, municipalities with a high proportion of Indigenous peoples have only 63 clinics, 31 beds and 86 doctors per 100000, while those with a low proportion of Indigenous peoples have 377 clinics, 336 beds and 670 doctors per 100000 [12]. Finally, language barriers may also affect access to care at the local level. This is particularly relevant to older Indigenous peoples, where only 1 out of 5 report speaking Spanish in addition to their Indigenous languages [12].

Our study had some limitations. Selection bias could be present as Mexico is mainly using a sentinel surveillance system to identify and report COVID-19 cases. This system mainly identifies people seeking care. Thus, asymptomatic and mild cases might be missed. This could be particularly problematic for our sample of patients who did not require hospitalization and, thus, our whole sample as well. Ethnicity was also missing in 12562 (2.9%) of 432501 adult patients with COVID-19. However, this percentage is much lower than previous studies conducted in the UK and Brazil [4, 5]. Ethnicity was determined in this data set by asking the patient if they spoke an Indigenous language. According to a recent national survey, 21.5% of Mexicans consider themselves Indigenous, but only 6.5% of the population actually spoke an Indigenous language [23]. Only 4178 (1.0%) patients spoke an Indigenous language in our sample, which suggests Indigenous peoples lack access to adequate testing and are, therefore, underrepresented in our sample. Finally, our models were not able to be adjusted for socioeconomic status. For this reason, we included health care sector as a variable in our model unlike previous studies in Mexico, as income is associated with insurance type.

Mexico is a racially and ethnically diverse country. However, most Mexicans are considered mestizos, or people of mixed European, African and Indian ancestry. This has resulted in the erasure of racial identities and it poses a challenge to the study of race in the country [24]. However, some studies have attempted to measure health inequities by using skin color rather than race self-identity. For example, one study showed that light brown, dark brown and black Mexicans had lower levels of self-rated health compared to White Mexicans [25]. We were only able to classify ethnicity as Indigenous and non-Indigenous based on language. Further research is need on how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected non-White Mexicans in general, regardless of self-identify.

Our study also has several strengths. To our knowledge, our study is the first study to address the impact of a pandemic in a specific vulnerable group, such as Indigenous peoples in Mexico. Our study adds to the growing evidence of how ethnic and racial inequities affect the health of REM across different settings in the world. Another key strength of the study was the large sample size with relatively few missing data for all the predictors that were analyzed. The large sample size also enabled high statistical power which yielded narrow confidence intervals for our multiple regression model. Our study also accounted for the health care sector in which patients were treated, which had not been included in previous studies conducted in Mexico.

In conclusion, we present evidence suggesting that Indigenous peoples in Mexico have a higher risk of death from COVID-19. Our results also suggest that access to care might be playing an important role on the impact of COVID-19 among Indigenous peoples. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted what we have known for quite a long time: Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities continue to be marginalized, and urgent action is needed to address the health inequities that persist among the most vulnerable. Beyond addressing the current inequities in the COVID-19 response, the financial, social, and educational barriers need be addressed as well if we hope to achieve social and health justice for Mexican Indigenous peoples and other ethnic minorities.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(CSV)

Data Availability

We have attached a zip file containing the csv file (data set) with the raw data. This data set was downloaded directly from a Government of Mexico's website and it is open access data. The uploaded file contains data up to August 3rd, 2020. You can download the data at https://datos.gob.mx/busca/dataset/informacion-referente-a-casos-covid-19-en-mexico. However, you will find the data set is updated daily, so it will not be the same as the one we have attached a Supporting Information file.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet. Marzo de 2020;395(10229):1054–62. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zheng Z, Peng F, Xu B, Zhao J, Liu H, Peng J, et al. Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Infect. Agosto de 2020;81(2):e16–25. 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Laurencin CT, McClinton A. The COVID-19 Pandemic: a Call to Action to Identify and Address Racial and Ethnic Disparities. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. Junio de 2020;7(3):398–402. 10.1007/s40615-020-00756-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Williamson EJ, Walker AJ, Bhaskaran K, Bacon S, Bates C, Morton CE, et al. OpenSAFELY: factors associated with COVID-19 death in 17 million patients. Nature [Internet]. el 8 de Julio de 2020. [citado el 9 de julio de 2020]; Disponible en: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2521-4 [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Baqui P, Bica I, Marra V, Ercole A, van der Schaar M. Ethnic and regional variations in hospital mortality from COVID-19 in Brazil: a cross-sectional observational study. Lancet Glob Health. Agosto de 2020;8(8):e1018–26. 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30285-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kirby T. Evidence mounts on the disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on ethnic minorities. Lancet Respir Med. Junio de 2020;8(6):547–8. 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30228-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organizatin. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), Situation Report—206 [Internet]. 2020. Disponible en: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200813-covid-19-sitrep-206.pdf?sfvrsn=bf38f66b_4
  • 8.Suárez V, Suarez Quezada M, Oros Ruiz S, Ronquillo De Jesús E. Epidemiología de COVID-19 en México: del 27 de febrero al 30 de abril de 2020. Rev Clínica Esp. Mayo de 2020;S0014256520301442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Giannouchos TV, Sussman RA, Mier JM, Poulas K, Farsalinos K. Characteristics and risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and adverse outcomes in Mexico: an analysis of 89,756 laboratory–confirmed COVID-19 cases. Eur Respir J. el 30 de Julio de 2020;2002144. 10.1183/13993003.02144-2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hernández-Galdamez DR, González-Block MÁ, Romo-Dueñas DK, Lima-Morales R, Hernández-Vicente IA, Lumbreras-Guzmán M, et al. Increased Risk of Hospitalization and Death in Patients with COVID-19 and Pre-existing Noncommunicable Diseases and Modifiable Risk Factors in Mexico. Arch Med Res. Julio de 2020;S0188440920307220. 10.1016/j.arcmed.2020.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hernández-Vásquez A, Azañedo D, Vargas-Fernández R, Bendezu-Quispe G. Association of Comorbidities With Pneumonia and Death Among COVID-19 Patients in Mexico: A Nationwide Cross-sectional Study. J Prev Med Pub Health. el 31 de Julio de 2020;53(4):211–9. 10.3961/jpmph.20.186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Díaz de León-Martínez L, de la Sierra-de la Vega L, Palacios-Ramírez A, Rodriguez-Aguilar M, Flores-Ramírez R. Critical review of social, environmental and health risk factors in the Mexican indigenous population and their capacity to respond to the COVID-19. Sci Total Environ. Septiembre de 2020;733:139357. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mamo D, editor. The Indigenous World 2020. World: IWGIA; 2020. 784 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Meza R, Barrientos-Gutierrez T, Rojas-Martinez R, Reynoso-Noverón N, Palacio-Mejia LS, Lazcano-Ponce E, et al. Burden of type 2 diabetes in Mexico: past, current and future prevalence and incidence rates. Prev Med. Diciembre de 2015;81:445–50. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.10.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Campos-Nonato I, Hernández-Barrera L, Pedroza-Tobías A, Medina C, Barquera S. Hipertensión arterial en adultos mexicanos: prevalencia, diagnóstico y tipo de tratamiento. Ensanut MC 2016. Salud Pública México. el 4 de Mayo de 2018;60(3, may-jun):233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Agudelo-Botero M, Valdez-Ortiz R, Giraldo-Rodríguez L, González-Robledo MC, Mino-León D, Rosales-Herrera MF, et al. Overview of the burden of chronic kidney disease in Mexico: secondary data analysis based on the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. BMJ Open. Marzo de 2020;10(3):e035285. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gómez-Dantés H, Fullman N, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, Cahuana-Hurtado L, Darney B, Avila-Burgos L, et al. Dissonant health transition in the states of Mexico, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet. Noviembre de 2016;388(10058):2386–402. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31773-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mendoza-Caamal EC, Barajas-Olmos F, García-Ortiz H, Cicerón-Arellano I, Martínez-Hernández A, Córdova EJ, et al. Metabolic syndrome in indigenous communities in Mexico: a descriptive and cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. Diciembre de 2020;20(1):339. 10.1186/s12889-020-8378-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Carrillo-Balam G, Cantoral A, Rodríguez-Carmona Y, Christensen DL. Health-care coverage and access to health care in the context of type 2 diabetes and hypertension in rural Mexico: a systematic literature review. Public Health. Abril de 2020;181:8–15. 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.11.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Servan-Mori E, Torres-Pereda P, Orozco E, Sosa-Rubí SG. An explanatory analysis of economic and health inequality changes among Mexican indigenous people, 2000–2010. Int J Equity Health. 2014;13(1):21. 10.1186/1475-9276-13-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Puig A, Pagán JA, Wong R. Assessing Quality Across Healthcare Subsystems in Mexico: J Ambulatory Care Manage. Abril de 2009;32(2):123–31. 10.1097/JAC.0b013e31819942e5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Leyva-Flores R, Servan-Mori E, Infante-Xibille C, Pelcastre-Villafuerte BE, Gonzalez T. Primary Health Care Utilization by the Mexican Indigenous Population: The Role of the Seguro Popular in Socially Inequitable Contexts. Caylà JA, editor. PLoS ONE. el 6 de 10.1371/journal.pone.0102781 de 2014;9(8):e102781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rizo Amezquita JN. Población Indígena en cifras. Con resultados de la Encuesta Intercensal 2015 del Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [Internet]. Disponible en: http://www.conamed.gob.mx/gobmx/boletin/pdf/boletin13/poblacion_indigena.pdf
  • 24.Ayala MI. The Demography of Race and Ethnicity of Mexico. En: Sáenz R, Embrick DG, Rodríguez NP, editores. The International Handbook of the Demography of Race and Ethnicity [Internet]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2015. [citado el 20 de agosto de 2020]. p. 73–90. (International Handbooks of Population; vol. 4). Disponible en: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-90-481-8891-8_4 [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ortiz-Hernandez L, Ayala-Guzman CI, Perez-Salgado D. Health inequities associated with skin color and ethnicity in Mexico. Lat Am Caribb Ethn Stud. el 2 de Enero de 2020;15(1):70–85. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mary Hamer Hodges

11 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-29414

Ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality in Mexico: a cross-sectional study based on national data

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Raul Salazar-Montalvo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 address each comment made by the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 10th December 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mary Hamer Hodges, MBBS MRCP DSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

This is a much needed paper on COVID in Mexico. However the analysis does not add a great deal to the debate but could take the analysis and discussion to a more complex level.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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

**********

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 is an important and much needed paper and it really is excellent to see ethnic and gender stratification of data on COVID in Mexico. As the authors point out, COVID in Mexico is tracking the same lines as elsewhere with ethnic minority groups experiencing worse outcomes and more men dying than women.

I think however that the analysis does not add a great deal to the debate and our understandings of COVID as it stands, it could however take the discussion and analysis to a more complex level.

1) Greater clarity is needed about the use of terms race, ethnicity and indigenous. Indigenous is a category defined culturally and not biologically. It is not a category of race, but of social defined characteristics such as history and language. As the authors state, in the case of these data indigeneity is defined as a speaker of indigenous language. In this case it would be good to a) state up front what the national defininition is -are the national statistics on indigeneity also based solely on lanaguage? If not, can you state what the defintion is (as opposed to the 'language' indicator in the COVID) data.

2) In relation to the above, can you clarify the relationship between ethnicity and COVID mortality. For example, is language a barrier to care, are indigenous people less likely to seek care, are there different transmission patterns in indigenous localities and what are these.

3) What about Afro-Mexican populations. Are there any data on the incidence and morbidity of COVID among other non-indigenous ethnicities?

4) Consider if you actually need to use the term 'race' and whether this just muddies the water. There are no solid data (that I am aware of) that suggest a biological risk factor for speficic racial characteristics, so race is really a proxy for social inequality. If this is the case, it should be stated and explained clearly.

5) What data are there on testing? So, for example, are indigenous people overrepresented in the mortality and hospitalisations data because they are testing less? Some context on this would help. So for example with such a high rate of uninsured indigenous people and the excessive cost of testing in the private sector, the higher death rate could be due to the lower testing rate of indigenous people. Some mention of consideration of this is important to avoid this potential confounder.

6) In relation to 5), what is known about reporting of death rates and COVID in indigenous communities? Can you say anything about the localities where indigenous patients have died? Is there likely to be underrreporting?

6) Could you include some three way tables, for example, to look at the proportion of women, men and indigenous people who receive private care?

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jennie Gamlin

[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 One. 2021 Mar 10;16(3):e0239168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239168.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Jan 2021

Reviewer 1 – Jennie Gamlin

1. Greater clarity is needed about the use of terms race, ethnicity and indigenous. Indigenous is a category defined culturally and not biologically. It is not a category of race, but of social defined characteristics such as history and language. As the authors state, in the case of these data, indigeneity is defined as a speaker of indigenous language. In this case it would be good to a) state up front what the national definition is -are the national statistics on indigeneity also based solely on language? If not, can you state what the definition is (as opposed to the 'language' indicator in the COVID data)?

Response: Dear Ms. Gamlin. First of all, thank you for your comments and questions. They have been of great help to us. Regarding this first comment, we agree that being Indigenous is defined culturally and not biologically. For this reason, we decided to add the three definitions in our manuscript (please see page 6-7, lines 127-133). We also added a new reference to support this (see reference Our analyses only included those who spoke an Indigenous language because that was the only variable available in the data set. Fortunately, this is the definition most commonly used in Mexico. We agree that being Indigenous is not a category of race, although Indigenous people suffer from a lot of racism in Mexico. We were more careful throughout the article with the use of these two words.

2. In relation to the above, can you clarify the relationship between ethnicity and COVID mortality. For example, is language a barrier to care, are indigenous people less likely to seek care, are there different transmission patterns in indigenous localities and what are these.

Response: Unfortunately, we were unable to determine if there are different transmission patterns in Indigenous localities because we had no access to this type of data. Furthermore, as far as we know, there are not available sources that report statistics specific to Indigenous communities and localities. Regarding access to care, one article did mention language barriers as a potential barrier. We added this to our discussion as we believe it is important to mention (see page 14, lines 240-243). We also discuss that only 1% of the total sample spoke an Indigenous language (compared to 6.5% of the population who report speaking an Indigenous language). This suggests an inequitable distribution of resources, testing and access to care (see page 14, lines 254-257). Thank you.

3. What about Afro-Mexican populations. Are there any data on the incidence and morbidity of COVID among other non-indigenous ethnicities?

Response: Thank you for this question. We believe it is an extremely important one. Unfortunately, we do not “measure” race the same way other countries do. We discuss why in page 15, lines 260-269. To this date, no studies have been done that attempt to compare skin color and COVID-19 outcomes.

4. Consider if you actually need to use the term 'race' and whether this just muddies the water. There are no solid data (that I am aware of) that suggest a biological risk factor for specific racial characteristics, so race is really a proxy for social inequality. If this is the case, it should be stated and explained clearly.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We chose to include the term race in our discussion because the literature uses both “race” and “ethnicity” as potential determinants of health in the COVID-19 pandemic. We understand that it is not being used in the literature to imply biological differences, but rather as a way to highlight social inequities, as you mention. In our article, we were careful with the use of the term “race”. In fact, we only mention it as a “self-identity” in the Mexican context in the discussion (see page 15, lines 262-266).

5. What data are there on testing? So, for example, are indigenous people overrepresented in the mortality and hospitalisations data because they are testing less? Some context on this would help. So, for example with such a high rate of uninsured indigenous people and the excessive cost of testing in the private sector, the higher death rate could be due to the lower testing rate of indigenous people. Some mention of consideration of this is important to avoid this potential confounder.

Response: Thank you for this question. The data set we used included all the people who had been tested up until August 3rd, 2020. As mentioned in lines 254-257, Only 4178 of our sample (COVID-19 positive) spoke an Indigenous language. We checked the total sample to include those who tested negative and only 9037 spoke an Indigenous language (around 1% of all those who were tested). This is considerably lower than the 6.5% of the Mexican population who speak an Indigenous language. We mention this is a limitation in page 15, lines 254-256 as well.

6. In relation to 5), what is known about reporting of death rates and COVID in indigenous communities? Can you say anything about the localities where indigenous patients have died? Is there likely to be underrreporting?

Response: Thank you. This is a great question. Unfortunately, no data on this is available in the literature or in official government sources. The data set we used includes “municipality of residence” as a variable. However, this does not mean that the person actually received attention there. The Mexican health system is using a sentinel surveillance system to diagnose COVID-19 cases, which means not every facility is actually testing suspicious patients. As mentioned above, we do believe there is underreporting because of the small proportion of Indigenous peoples being tested and diagnosed with COVID-19 (both around 1%).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mary Hamer Hodges

27 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-29414R1

Ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality in Mexico: a cross-sectional study based on national data

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. %Raul G. Salazar-Montalvo%,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 address the study limitations identifed by the reviewer

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by %26 February%. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mary Hamer Hodges, MBBS MRCP DSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please add in a 'limitation' section which picks up on the unanswerable questions (see original review comments as well) and considers the data in this light and comment on whether any new data has emerged since this paper was written which have any impact on the findings, since the situation is rapidly changing.

[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 #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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

**********

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 #1: The authors have adequately responded to the concerns of the first review although, as they note in their response, some of the concerns cannot be addressed due to lack of data. For example the extent of underreporting is not know, the low level of testing may skew results, it is not clear where in the country data correspond to. There is further concerns that the indigenous respondents only make up 1% of the dataset, which means that they are very considerably underrrepresented in data. This being the case it would be helpful if the authors could add in a 'limitation' section which picks up on these unanswerable questions (see original review comments as well) and considers the data in this light. I also wonder if there are any new data which have emerged since this paper was written which have any impact on the findings, since the situation is rapidly changing it would be worth thinking about this.

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: 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 One. 2021 Mar 10;16(3):e0239168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239168.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


6 Feb 2021

Thank you both for your feedback and suggestions. We have made further changes to our limitations section in the Discussion. (See page 14, lines 248-252 and page 15, lines 263 and 267). Just an update regarding our testing strategy: it has not changed, unfortunately. The sentinel surveillance system is still in place, and the government has not announced any new plan regarding testing or focus on Indigenous communities. Furthermore, we thought it would be important to mention the lack of trust Indigenous communities have on the government, as this week an entire community of 40,000 Indigenous peoples are refusing to vaccinate because they do not trust the government.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Mary Hamer Hodges

15 Feb 2021

Ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality in Mexico: a cross-sectional study based on national data

PONE-D-20-29414R2

Dear Dr. % Raul Salazar-Montalvo%,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mary Hamer Hodges, MBBS MRCP DSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for these revisions.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mary Hamer Hodges

23 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-29414R2

Ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality in Mexico: a cross-sectional study based on national data

Dear Dr. Salazar-Montalvo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mary Hamer Hodges

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (CSV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    We have attached a zip file containing the csv file (data set) with the raw data. This data set was downloaded directly from a Government of Mexico's website and it is open access data. The uploaded file contains data up to August 3rd, 2020. You can download the data at https://datos.gob.mx/busca/dataset/informacion-referente-a-casos-covid-19-en-mexico. However, you will find the data set is updated daily, so it will not be the same as the one we have attached a Supporting Information file.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES