Adriana Nascimento Santos Cartaxo

Mrs. Adriana Nascimento Santos Cartaxo

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
4 March 2021 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ACAdriana Nascimento Santos Cartaxo
Adriana Nascimento Santos Cartaxo
FBFrancisco Iran Cartaxo Barbosa
Francisco Iran Cartaxo Barbosa
PBPaulo Henrique de Souza Bermejo
Paulo Henrique de Souza Bermejo
MMMarina Figueiredo Moreira
Marina Figueiredo Moreira
DPDavid Nadler Prata
David Nadler Prata
The world is facing the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), which began in China. By August 18, 2020, the United States, Brazil, and India were the most affected countries. Health infrastructure and socioeconomic vulnerabilities may be affecting the response capacities of these countries. We compared official indicators to identify which vulnerabilities better determined the exposure risk to COVID-19 in both the most and least affected countries. To achieve this purpose, we collected indicators from the Infectious Disease Vulnerability Index (IDVI), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE). All indicators were normalized to facilitate comparisons. Speed, incidence, and population were used to identify the groups of countries with the highest and lowest risks of infection. Countries’ response capacities were determined based on socioeconomic, political, and health infrastructure conditions. Vulnerabilities were identified based on the indicator sensitivity. The highest-risk group included the U.S., Brazil, and India, whereas the lowest-risk group (with the largest population by continent) consisted of China, New Zealand, and Germany. The high-sensitivity cluster had 18 indicators (50% extra IDVI), such as merchandise trade, immunization, public services, maternal mortality, life expectancy at birth, hospital beds, GINI index, adolescent fertility, governance, political stability, transparency/corruption, industry, and water supply. The greatest vulnerability of the highest-risk group was related first to economic factors (merchandise trade), followed by public health (immunization), highlighting global dependence on Chinese trade, such as protective materials, equipment, and diagnostic tests. However, domestic political factors had more indicators, beginning with high sensitivity and followed by healthcare and economic conditions, which signified a lesser capacity to guide, coordinate, and supply the population with protective measures, such as social distancing.

1 January 2020 in SSRN Electronic Journal
Verified
Preprint
Open access
PDF file
ACAdriana Nascimento Santos Cartaxo
Adriana Nascimento Santos Cartaxo
FBFrancisco Iran Cartaxo Barbosa
Francisco Iran Cartaxo Barbosa
PBPaulo Henrique De Souza Bermejo
Paulo Henrique De Souza Bermejo
MMMarina Figueiredo Moreira
Marina Figueiredo Moreira
DPDavid Nadler Prata
David Nadler Prata
Background: The world is facing the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), which began in China. By Aug 18, 2020, the United States, Brazil, and India were the most affected countries. Health infrastructure and socioeconomic vulnerabilities may be affecting the response capacities of these countries. We compared officials’ indicators to identify which vulnerabilities better determined the exposure risk to COVID-19 in both the most and least affected countries. Methods: To achieve this purpose, we collected indicators from the Infectious Disease Vulnerability Index (IDVI), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE). All indicators were normalized to facilitate comparisons. Speed, incidence, and population were used to identify the groups of countries with the highest and lowest risks of infection. Countries’ response capacities were determined based on socioeconomic, political, and health infrastructure conditions. Vulnerabilities were identified based on the indicator sensitivity. Findings: The highest-risk group included the U.S., Brazil, and India, whereas the lowest-risk group (with the largest population by continent) consisted of China, New Zealand, and Germany. The high-sensitivity cluster had 18 indicators (50% extra IDVI), such as merchandise trade, immunization, public services, maternal mortality, life expectancy at birth, hospital beds, GINI index, adolescent fertility, governance, political stability, transparency/corruption, industry, and water supply. Interpretation: The greatest vulnerability of the highest-risk group was related first to economic factors (merchandise trade), followed by public health (immunization), highlighting global dependence on Chinese trade, such as protective materials, equipment, and diagnostic tests. However, domestic political factors had more indicators, beginning with high sensitivity and followed by healthcare and economic conditions, which signified a lesser capacity to guide, coordinate, and supply the population with protective measures, such as social distancing. Funding: Decentralized Execution Term from the Ministry of Health to the Federal University of Tocantins (BR). Declaration of Interests: None.