MATERIALS AND METHODS: Epidemiological data for selfreported bone fractures were obtained through direct interviews using a validated questionnaire from the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.

RESULTS: Of 15,378 respondents, 6.63% (n=1019) reported bone fractures, with a higher proportion of men (65.8%, n=671) than women (34.2%, n=348). Higher odds of selfreporting bone fractures were seen in males (aOR, 2.12; 95%CI: 1.69, 2.65), those with a history of injury (aOR 5.01; 95%CI: 3.10, 6.32) and those who were obese (aOR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.89), highly active (aOR 1.25; 95%CI: 1.02, 1.53), smokers (aOR 1.35; 95%CI: 1.11, 1.65) and alcohol consumers (aOR 1.67; 95%CI: 1.20,2.32).

DESIGN: Population-based prospective observational study.

SETTING: Urban and rural communities in 20 high income, middle income and low income.

PARTICIPANTS: 119 894 community-dwelling middle-aged adults.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associations of social isolation with mortality, cardiovascular death, non-cardiovascular death and incident diseases.

RESULTS: Social isolation was more common in middle-income and high-income countries compared with low-income countries, in urban areas than rural areas, in older individuals and among women, those with less education and the unemployed. It was more frequent among smokers and those with a poorer diet. Social isolation was associated with greater risk of mortality (HR of 1.26, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.36), incident stroke (HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.40), cardiovascular disease (HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.25) and pneumonia (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.37), but not cancer. The associations between social isolation and mortality were observed in populations in high-income, middle-income and low-income countries (HR (95% CI): 1.69 (1.32 to 2.17), 1.27 (1.15 to 1.40) and 1.47 (1.25 to 1.73), respectively, interaction p=0.02). The HR associated with social isolation was greater in men than women and in younger than older individuals. Mediation analyses for the association between social isolation and mortality showed that unhealthy behaviours and comorbidities may account for about one-fifth of the association.

METHODS: Between August 2020 and September 2021, we surveyed 24,506 community-dwelling participants from the Prospective Urban-Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study across high (HIC), upper middle (UMIC)-and lower middle (LMIC)-income countries. We collected information regarding the impact of the pandemic on their self-reported personal finances and sources of income.

FINDINGS: Overall, 32.4% of participants had suffered an adverse financial impact, defined as job loss, inability to meet financial obligations or essential needs, or using savings to meet financial obligations. 8.4% of participants had lost a job (temporarily or permanently); 14.6% of participants were unable to meet financial obligations or essential needs at the time of the survey and 16.3% were using their savings to meet financial obligations. Participants with a post-secondary education were least likely to be adversely impacted (19.6%), compared with 33.4% of those with secondary education and 33.5% of those with pre-secondary education. Similarly, those in the highest wealth tertile were least likely to be financially impacted (26.7%), compared with 32.5% in the middle tertile and 30.4% in the bottom tertile participants. Compared with HICs, financial impact was greater in UMIC [odds ratio of 2.09 (1.88-2.33)] and greatest in LMIC [odds ratio of 16.88 (14.69-19.39)]. HIC participants with the lowest educational attainment suffered less financial impact (15.1% of participants affected) than those with the highest education in UMIC (22.0% of participants affected). Similarly, participants with the lowest education in UMIC experienced less financial impact (28.3%) than those with the highest education in LMIC (45.9%). A similar gradient was seen across country income categories when compared by pre-pandemic wealth status.

INTERPRETATION: The financial impact of the pandemic differs more between HIC, UMIC, and LMIC than between socio-economic categories within a country income level. The most disadvantaged socio-economic subgroups in HIC had a lower financial impact from the pandemic than the most advantaged subgroup in UMIC, with a similar disparity seen between UMIC and LMIC. Continued high levels of infection will exacerbate financial inequity between countries and hinder progress towards the sustainable development goals, emphasising the importance of effective measures to control COVID-19 and, especially, ensuring high vaccine coverage in all countries.

METHODS: Using data from the PURE Study, we estimated risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment among households with at least one person with NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and respiratory diseases; n=17 435), with hypertension only (a leading risk factor for NCDs; n=11 831) or with neither (n=22 654) by country income group: high-income countries (Canada and Sweden), upper middle income countries (UMICs: Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa and Turkey), lower middle income countries (LMICs: the Philippines, Colombia, India, Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) and low-income countries (LICs: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) and China.

RESULTS: The prevalence of catastrophic spending and impoverishment is highest among households with NCDs in LMICs and China. After adjusting for covariates that might drive health expenditure, the absolute risk of catastrophic spending is higher in households with NCDs compared with no NCDs in LMICs (risk difference=1.71%; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.67), UMICs (0.82%; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27) and China (7.52%; 95% CI 5.88 to 9.16). A similar pattern is observed in UMICs and China for impoverishment. A high proportion of those with NCDs in LICs, especially women (38.7% compared with 12.6% in men), reported not taking medication due to costs.