Socioeconomically disadvantaged people are disproportionally more likely to develop obesity and obesity-related diseases. However, it remains unclear to what extent diet quality contributes to socioeconomic inequalities in obesity. We aimed to assess the role of diet quality in the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and obesity. Data originated from the national nutrition survey, a cross-sectional sample of the adult Swiss population (N=1860). We used education and income as proxies for SES; calculated the Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) as measure of diet quality; and used body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) as obesity markers. We applied counterfactual mediation modelling to generate odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and the proportion mediated by diet quality. Individuals with less than a tertiary education were two to three times more likely to be obese, regardless of the marker (OR; 95% CI: 3.36 (2.01, 5.66) using BMI; 2.44 (1.58, 3.75) using WC; 2.48 (1.63, 3.78) using WHR; and 2.04 (1.43, 2.96) using WHtR). The proportion of the association between educational level and obesity that was mediated by diet quality was 22.1% using BMI, 26.6% using WC, 31.4% using WHtR, and 35.8% using WHR. Similar findings were observed for income. Our findings suggest that diet quality substantially contributes to socioeconomic inequalities in obesity while it does not fully explain them. Focusing efforts on improving the diet quality of disadvantaged groups could help reduce social inequalities in obesity.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including social distancing, wearing personal protective equipment, and lockdown measures, have been at the forefront of outbreak control in nursing homes. We used a mixed methodology to assess which NPIs nursing homes in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, followed for their staff and residents during the first wave of the pandemic, between March 1, 2020 and June 1, 2020. For the qualitative component, we interviewed the attending physicians and/or director of each nursing home. Based on in-vivo codes, NPIs for nursing home workers and residents in each nursing home were thematically classified as: maximally restrictive, moderately restrictive, and minimally restrictive. In the quantitative component, we calculated incident rate ratios (IRR) for infection between the three levels of COVID-19-related measures taken in these nursing homes. We found an equal distribution of maximally (n=4), moderately (n=4), and minimally (n=4) restrictive NPIs. The extent of restriction did not show to be significantly associated with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 cases among residents (maximally restrictive IRR = 3.90, 95%CI 0.82-45.54, p = 0.184; moderately restrictive IRR = 3.55, 95%CI 0.75-41.42, p = 0.212 ; minimally restrictive IRR = reference). Variabilities in NPIs adopted by nursing homes, and the number of COVID-19 cases appear to be randomly affected.