Table 1 Characteristics of literature included

Agoramoorthy (2021): India (1)

Lack of political coordination and collaboration between the government and health experts.

Implicitly addressed with reference to economic and political inequality (e.g., Indian caste system).

Mostly downstream: income, job and food insecurity, and mental health. Some midstream: unstable, and inadequate housing quality.

Explicitly discussed with reference to marginalized groups such as Indigenous people, Dalits, and migrant worker living within lower social classes.

Policy priorities regarding political cross-collaboration and compassionate civil liberty disaster management policies, epidemic control strategies that concern the elderly.

Alrob (2022): Canada (2)

Implicitly addressed: discrepancy between what the UN and WHO recommended for the health and wellbeing of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers).

Explicitly addressed through structural health inequalities created by the Canadian government among different types of migrants.

Mostly upstream through COVID-19-related mobility policies for migrants.

Explicitly discussed with reference to groups of migrants (seasonal workers, refugees, and asylum seekers) who are affected differently due to policies adopted favouring seasonal workers and jeopardising the human rights of other groups of migrants.

COVID-19-related policies should consider the human rights of migrants.

Bajos (2021): France (3)

Lack of political coordination and collaboration discussed.

Explicitly discussed social inequities: living and working conditions for working class individuals, highest COVID-19 related mortality rate amongst the working class.

Upstream: preventative policies. Some midstream: living and working conditions.

Implicitly discussed disadvantaged groups based on education and income but no mention of people with multiple and other intersecting social disadvantages.

Explicitly addressed: call for upstream preventative policies.

Brooks (2022): European Union (4)

Regional governance and coordination on health through health, pharmaceutical, and fiscal policies

Explicitly discussed: inequalities within and between EU member states (e.g., in health systems and support to populations).

Upstream: health, market (pharmaceutical), and fiscal (recovery plans) policies. Midstream: quality of housing and education, and access to healthcare.

Explicitly discussed disadvantaged populations groups (e.g., workers and people living in densely populated housing and people with comorbidities at risk to contract COVID-19).

Policy implications and priorities to consider supporting the economic development and reducing at the same time inequalities between EU regions.

Combden (2021): Canada and the USA (5)

Implicitly discussed through COVID-19 pandemic responses throughout world and impacts on how national authorities and governments responded (e.g., lack of leadership reported in the USA).

Explicitly discussed through racial/ethnic social and health inequities regarding COVID-19 consequences, lack of data collection on race/ethnicity, and history of racism in healthcare systems.

Upstream: racism. Midstream: access to healthcare and personal protective equipment (PPE). Downstream: employment, age (especially in the USA) and individual comorbidities (e.g., diabetes and obesity).

Explicitly discussed with reference to young and older people, people with comorbidities being more at risk of COVID-19, people living in long-term care, LGBTQ + communities and racialized people.

Programmatic priorities to have for example a robust public health surveillance system, rapid accessible mass testing, rapid collection, collection, analysis and dissemination of testing data, and clear and consistent communication from government and public health leaders.

Dekel (2021): South Africa (6)

Implicitly addressed: no consideration of gender equity in national COVID-19 measures resulting in GBV shadow pandemic.

Implicitly discussed gender inequalities: increased intimate partner violence during COVID-19 strict lockdown period.

No clear consideration of determinants of health.

Explicitly addressed with reference to gender inequities experienced among South African women in shelters of three provinces.

Implicitly discussed programmes: diversify channels of communication and support to abused women and policies (e.g. gender equity integrated national pandemic policies).

DeWit (2020): Japan (7)

Explicitly addressed: COVID-19 countermeasures bridging national and international imperatives.

Explicitly discussed systemic risks (e.g., climate change), and the risk of increased inequality if long-term sustainability is not acted upon in policies (e.g., strengthening social protections).

Implicitly approached upstream determinants of health (e.g., fiscal policies) and holistic policies.

Implicitly addressed with a brief and general reference to “the most disadvantaged” populations.

Call for strategies and policies that bolster long-term sustainability and resilience.

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2020): European Union and the UK (8)

Lack of coordination and collaboration between national/regional authorities and civil society organisations discussed.

Implicitly discussed different conventions: Charters of Fundamental rights of the EU and Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Implicitly discussed midstream and downstream social determinants of health: housing, education, occupation, disability, access to care and protective personal equipment.

Explicitly discussed diverse communities: ethnic minorities, irregular migrants, LGBTQI people, people with diseases, people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities, people using drugs.

Implicitly discussed: continuity of services, material supports, use of digital technologies, community engagement approach, and needs assessment and evaluation of services.

Griffiths (2022): Australia (9)

Addressed through WHO’s advice to use lockdowns for short periods versus what Australia decided to put in place, i.e. a 4-month long lockdown.

Implicitly addressed through the negative mental health consequences experienced by people who lost their job during lockdowns.

Downstream: engagement in work and social interaction among people experiencing loss of work during the pandemic.

Implicitly discussed the consequences the mental health of youth and older people in the State of Victoria.

Programme-related: priority to consider people’s engagement in work and their mental health.

Jiao (2022): Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (10)

Explicitly addressed through BRICS regional cooperation related to COVID-19 responses (health, vaccination, and financial support).

Explicitly addressed through national support to cope with COVID-19 (e.g., financial support for COVID-19 treatment in China or single moms in South Africa).

Upstream: regional governance to respond to COVID-19.

People living in poverty and disadvantaged conditions such as in slums in India and Brazil, refugees, and migrants in South Africa.

Policy and programmatic priorities to focus on regional cooperation and health equity.

O’Connor (2021): The UK and Republic of Ireland (11)

Lack of political coordination and collaboration of public health measures along the ROI-NI border explicitly discussed.

Implicitly addressed through differences in reported COVID-19 cases and mortality rates due to cross-border policy disparities.

Implicitly approached midstream social determinants of health: access to jobs, healthcare services and schools.

Based on people of different age groups, parents of children across the border, and people who had COVID-19.

Recommendation for a ‘all-island’ approach in responding to the pandemic considering the specificities of populations on the two sides of the border.

Smith (2021): China, Hong Kong, Canada, and the UK (12)

Implicitly addressed: Case study outbreaks and responses discussed were mostly generic, one-sized-fits- all but some examples of efforts grounded in intersectional approaches.

Explicitly addressed gender equity and feminist intersectional approach.

Implicitly approached downstream and midstream determinants: race/ethnicity, age, disability, gender.

Explicitly discussed intersectional consequences of pandemic responses on women and people living at the intersection of multiple inequities (e.g., essential workers).

Implicitly discussed: call for integration of a feminist intersectional approach in pandemic responses, government policies and research, and outlines policy gaps.

Szylovec (2021): Brazil (13)

Lack of political coordination and collaboration discussed.

Explicitly discussed social and economic inequality.

Implicitly approached midstream determinants: socially vulnerable people in poor living conditions, elderly people, workers in the informal sectors.

No technical recommendations from the Ministry of Health were provided to people living in poor living conditions (e.g., favelas and those without access to water, and Indigenous Brazilian communities).

Recommendations to include vulnerable populations from the start when designing emergency measures, need for unified leadership during health crises, using health equity approach for future research.

Wang (2021): Japan, Italy, China, and Singapore (14)

Implicitly addressed: Briefly mentioned how the results will help policymakers explore effective response measures within the capabilities of their jurisdiction.

Explicitly discussed through the inequities experienced by socio-economically disadvantaged groups.

Discussed midstream and downstream determinants: socioeconomic factors, age, living and working conditions.

Implicitly discussed: socio-economically disadvantaged and the elderly.

Implicitly addressed: recommend countries choose response strategies based on their local specificities.