ABSTRACT
Background Increasing demands of COVID-19 on the healthcare system necessitated redeployment of HCWs outside their routine specialties. Previous studies, highlighting ethnic and occupational inequalities in redeployment, are limited by small cohorts with limited ethnic diversity. Aims To assess how ethnicity, migration status, and occupation are associated with HCWs redeployment experiences during COVID-19 in a nationwide ethnically diverse sample. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the nationwide United Kingdom Research Study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study. We used logistic regression to examine associations of ethnicity, migration status, and occupation with redeployment experiences of HCWs, including provision of training and supervision, patient contact during redeployment and interaction with COVID-19 patients. Results Of the 10,889 HCWs included, 20.4% reported being redeployed during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020. Those in nursing roles (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.22, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.42, p=0.009) (compared to medical roles) had higher likelihood of being redeployed as did migrants compared to those born in the UK (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.49, p=0.01) (in a subcohort of HCWs on the agenda for change (AfC) pay scales). Asian HCWs were less likely to report receiving training (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88, p=0.005) and Black HCWs (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.57, p=0.02) were more likely to report receiving supervision, compared to White colleagues. Finally, redeployed Black (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.66, p=0.009) and Asian HCWs (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48, p<0.001) were more likely to report face-to-face interaction with COVID-19 patients than White HCWs. Conclusions Our findings highlight disparities in HCWs redeployment experiences by ethnicity, migration, and job role which are potentially related to structural inequities in healthcare. For future emergencies, redeployment should be contingent upon risk assessments, accompanied by training and supervision tailored to individual HCWs experience and skillset.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Occupational DiseasesABSTRACT
Objectives: To investigate how ethnicity and other sociodemographic, work, and physical health factors are related to mental health in UK healthcare and ancillary workers (HCWs), and how structural inequities in these factors may contribute to differences in mental health by ethnicity. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the UK-REACH national cohort study. Setting: HCWs across UK healthcare settings. Participants: 11,695 HCWs working between December 2020-March 2021. Main outcome measures: Anxiety or depression symptoms (4-item Patient Health Questionnaire, cut-off [≥]3), and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms (3-item civilian PTSD Checklist, cut-off [≥]5). Results: Asian, Black, Mixed/multiple and Other ethnic groups had greater odds of PTSD than the White ethnic group. Differences in anxiety/depression were less pronounced. Younger, female HCWs, and those who were not doctors had increased odds of symptoms of both PTSD and anxiety/depression. Ethnic minority HCWs were more likely to experience the following work factors that were also associated with mental ill-health: workplace discrimination, feeling insecure in raising workplace concerns, seeing more patients with COVID-19, reporting lack of access to personal protective equipment (PPE), and working longer hours and night shifts. Ethnic minority HCWs were also more likely to live in a deprived area and have experienced bereavement due to COVID-19. After adjusting for sociodemographic and work factors, ethnic differences in PTSD were less pronounced and ethnic minority HCWs had lower odds of anxiety/depression compared to White HCWs. Conclusions: Ethnic minority HCWs were more likely to experience PTSD and disproportionately experienced work and sociodemographic factors associated with PTSD, anxiety and depression. These findings could help inform future work to develop workplace strategies to safeguard HCWs' mental health. This will only be possible with adequate investment in staff recruitment and retention, alongside concerted efforts to address inequities due to structural discrimination.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anxiety Disorders , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Stress Disorders, TraumaticABSTRACT
Key Features of the UK-REACH Cohort (Profile in a nutshell) The UK-REACH Cohort was established to understand why ethnic minority healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of poorer outcomes from COVID-19 when compared to their white ethnic counterparts in the United Kingdom (UK). Through study design, it contains a uniquely high percentage of participants from ethnic minority backgrounds about whom a wide range of qualitative and quantitative data has been collected. A total of 17891 HCWs aged 16-89 years (mean age: 44) have been recruited from across the UK via all major healthcare regulators, individual National Health Service (NHS) hospital trusts and UK HCW membership bodies who advertised the study to their registrants/staff to encourage participation in the study. Data available include linked healthcare records for 25 years from the date of consent and consent to obtain genomic sequencing data collected via saliva. Online questionnaires include information on demographics, COVID-19 exposures at work and home, redeployment in the workforce due to COVID-19, mental health measures, workforce attrition, and opinions on COVID-19 vaccines, with baseline (n=15 119), 6 (n=5632) and 12-month follow-up data captured. Request data access and collaborations by following documentation found at https://www.uk-reach.org/main/data_sharing.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background Several countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs' views on this are largely unknown. Methods We administered an online questionnaire to 17891 United Kingdom (UK) HCWs in Spring 2021 as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) nationwide prospective cohort study. We categorised responses to a free-text question 'What should society do if people don't get vaccinated against COVID-19?' using content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not and used logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and occupational, health and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics. Findings Of 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the freetext question; 18% (n=578) of those favoured mandatory vaccination but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n=1047). Older HCWs, HCWs vaccinated against influenza (OR 1.48; 95%CI 1.10-1.99, vs none) and with more positive vaccination attitudes generally (OR 1.10; 95%CI 1.06-1.14) were more likely to favour mandatory vaccination (OR 1.26; 95%CI 1.17-1.37, per decade increase), whereas female HCWs (OR= 0.80, 95%CI 0.65-0.99, vs male), Black HCWs (OR= 0.48, 95%CI 0.26-0.87, vs White), those hesitant about COVID-19 vaccination (OR= 0.56; 95%CI 0.43-0.71, vs not hesitant), in an Allied Health Profession (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.51-0.88, vs Medical), or who trusted their organisation (OR 0.78; 95%CI 0.63-0.96) were less likely to. Interpretation Only one in six of the HCWs in this large, diverse, UK-wide sample favoured mandatory vaccination. Building trust, educating and supporting HCWs who are hesitant about vaccination may be more acceptable, effective and equitable. Funding MRC-UK Research and Innovation grant (MR/V027549/1) and the Department of Health and Social Care via the National Institute for Health Research.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT The 4C Mortality Score (4C Score) was designed to risk stratify hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We assessed inclusion of 4C Score in COVID-19 management guidance and its documentation in patients' case notes in January 2021 in UK hospitals. 4C Score was included within guidance by 50% of sites, though score documentation in case notes was highly variable. Higher documentation of 4C Score was associated with score integration within admissions proformas, inclusion of 4C Score variables or link to online calculator, and management decisions. Integration of 4C Score within clinical pathways may encourage more widespread use.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundVaccination is key to successful prevention of COVID-19 particularly nosocomial acquired infection in health care workers (HCWs). Vaccine hesitancy is common in the population and in HCWs, and like COVID-19 itself, hesitancy is more frequent in ethnic minority groups. UK-REACH (United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes) is a large-scale study of COVID-19 in UK HCWs from diverse ethnic backgrounds, which includes measures of vaccine hesitancy. The present study explores predictors of vaccine hesitancy using a phenomic approach, considering several hundred questionnaire-based measures. MethodsUK-REACH includes a questionnaire study encompassing 12,431 HCWs who were recruited from December 2020 to March 2021 and completed a lengthy online questionnaire (785 raw items; 392 derived measures; 260 final measures). Ethnicity was classified using the Office for National Statistics five (ONS5) and eighteen (ONS18) categories. Missing data were handled by multiple imputation. Variable selection used the islasso package in R, which provides standard errors so that results from imputations could be combined using Rubins rules. The data were modelled using path analysis, so that predictors, and predictors of predictors could be assessed. Significance testing used the Bayesian approach of Kass and Raftery, a very strong Bayes Factor of 150, N=12,431, and a Bonferroni correction giving a criterion of p<4.02 x 10-8 for the main regression, and p<3.11 x 10-10 for variables in the path analysis. ResultsAt the first step of the phenomic analysis, six variables were direct predictors of greater vaccine hesitancy: Lower pro-vaccination attitudes; no flu vaccination in 2019-20; pregnancy; higher COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs; younger age; and lower optimism the roll-out of population vaccination. Overall 44 lower variables in total were direct or indirect predictors of hesitancy, with the remaining 215 variables in the phenomic analysis not independently predicting vaccine hesitancy. Key variables for predicting hesitancy were belief in conspiracy theories of COVID-19 infection, and a low belief in vaccines in general. Conspiracy beliefs had two main sets of influences: O_LIHigher Fatalism, which was influenced a) by high external and chance locus of control and higher need for closure, which in turn were associated with neuroticism, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness; and b) by religion being important in everyday life, and being Muslim. C_LIO_LIreceiving information via social media, not having higher education, and perceiving greater risks to self, the latter being influenced by higher concerns about spreading COVID, greater exposure to COVID-19, and financial concerns. C_LI There were indirect effects of ethnicity, mediated by religion. Religion was more important for Pakistani and African HCWs, and less important for White and Chinese groups. Lower age had a direct effect on hesitancy, and age and female sex also had several indirect effects on hesitancy. ConclusionsThe phenomic approach, coupled with a path analysis revealed a complex network of social, cognitive, and behavioural influences on SARS-Cov-2 vaccine hesitancy from 44 measures, 6 direct and 38 indirect, with the remaining 215 measures not having direct or indirect effects on hesitancy. It is likely that issues of trust underpin many associations with hesitancy. Understanding such a network of influences may help in tailoring interventions to address vaccine concerns and facilitate uptake in more hesistant groups. FundingUKMRI-MRC and NIHR
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Little is known about T-cell responses during acute coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). We measured T-cell interferon gamma (IFN-{gamma}) responses to spike 1 (S1), spike 2 (S2), nucleocapsid (N) and membrane (M) SARS-CoV-2 antigens using the T-SPOT(R) Discovery SARS-CoV-2 assay, a proven EliSPOT technology, in 114 hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients and assessed their association with clinical disease phenotype. T-SPOT(R) Discovery SARS-CoV-2 responses were detectable within 2 days of a positive PCR and did not correlate with vaccination status or symptom duration. Higher responses to S1 protein associated with a higher symptom burden, and serum IL-6 levels. Despite treatment with dexamethasone this subgroup was also at greater risk of requiring continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the days following sampling. Higher T-cell responses measured using T-SPOT(R) Discovery SARS-CoV-2 associate with progressive disease in acute COVID-19 disease and may have utility as a prognostic biomarker that should be evaluated in larger cohorts.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , COVID-19ABSTRACT
ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate personal protective equipment (aPPE) for healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) during the first UK national COVID-19 lockdown (March 2020) and at the time of questionnaire response (December 2020 - February 2021). DesignTwo cross sectional analyses using data from a questionnaire-based cohort study. SettingNationwide questionnaire from 4th December 2020 to 28th February 2021. ParticipantsA representative sample of HCWs or ancillary workers in a UK healthcare setting aged 16 or over, registered with one of seven main UK healthcare regulatory bodies. Main outcome measureBinary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). Results10,508 HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 3702 (35.2%) of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 6806 (83.9%) reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. After adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector, work region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs (per decade increase in age: aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.26, p<0.001) and those working in Intensive Care Units (1.61, 1.38 - 1.89, p<0.001) were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Those from Asian ethnic groups compared to White (0.77, 0.67-0.89, p<0.001), those in allied health professional (AHPs) and dental roles (vs those in medical roles; AHPs: 0.77, 0.68 - 0.87, p<0.001; dental: 0.63, 0.49-0.81, p<0.001), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none ([≥]21 patients 0.74, 0.61-0.90, p=0.003) were less likely to report aPPE at all times in the primary analysis. aPPE at all times was also not uniform across UK regions (reported access being better in South West and North East England than London). Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times (2.18, 1.97-2.40, p<0.001). With the exception of occupation, these factors were also significantly associated with aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. ConclusionsWe found that only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the period of the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key sociodemographic and occupational determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, the majority of which have persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important public health implications for HCWs, particularly as cases of infection and long-COVID continue to rise in the UK. Trial registrationISRCTN 11811602 What is already known on this topicAccess to personal protective equipment (PPE) is crucial to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from infection. Limited data exist concerning the prevalence of, and factors relating to, PPE access for HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) during the COVID-19 pandemic. What this study addsOnly a third of HCWs reported having access to appropriate PPE all of the time during the first UK national lockdown. Older HCWs, those working in Intensive Care Units and those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, were more likely to report access to adequate PPE. Those from Asian ethnic groups (compared to White ethnic groups) and those who saw a high number of COVID-19 were less likely to report access to adequate PPE. Our findings have important implications for the mental and physical health of HCWs working during the pandemic in the UK.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background In most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs. Methods Nationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis. Findings 11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks. Interpretation Despite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks. Funding MRC-UK Research and Innovation (MR/V027549/1), the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Biomedical Research Centres and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and adverse outcome. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination is now available for frontline UK HCWs; however, demographic/occupational associations with vaccine uptake in this cohort are unknown. We sought to establish these associations in a large UK hospital workforce. MethodsWe conducted cross-sectional surveillance examining vaccine uptake amongst all staff at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. We examined proportions of vaccinated staff stratified by demographic factors, occupation and previous COVID-19 test results (serology/PCR) and used logistic regression to identify predictors of vaccination status after adjustment for confounders. FindingsWe included 19,044 HCWs; 12,278 (64.5%) had received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Compared to White HCWs (70.9% vaccinated), a significantly smaller proportion of ethnic minority HCWs were vaccinated (South Asian 58.5%, Black 36.8% p<0.001 for both). After adjustment, factors found to be negatively associated with vaccine uptake were; younger age, female sex, increasing deprivation and belonging to any non-White ethnic group (Black: aOR0.30, 95%CI 0.26-0.34, South Asian:0.67, 0.62-0.72). Allied health professionals and administrative/executive staff were more likely to be vaccinated than doctors. InterpretationEthnic minority HCWs and those from more deprived areas as well as those from particular occupational groups are less likely to take up SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. These findings have major implications for the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programmes, in HCWs and the wider population and should inform the national vaccination programme to prevent the disparities of the pandemic from widening. FundingNIHR, UKRI/MRC
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
ImportanceThe association of ethnicity with outcomes in patients with COVID-19 is unclear. ObjectiveTo determine whether the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality are associated with ethnicity. Data SourcesWe searched all English language articles published 1st December 2019 - 30th June 2020 within MEDLINE, EMBASE, PROSPERO and the Cochrane library using indexing terms for COVID-19 and ethnicity, as well as manuscripts awaiting peer review on MedRxiv during the same period. Study SelectionIncluded studies reported original clinical data, disaggregated by ethnicity, on patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. We excluded correspondence, area level, modelling and basic science articles. Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion. Of 926 identified articles, 35 were included in the meta-analyses. Data Extraction and SynthesisThe review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Reviewers independently extracted data using a piloted form on: (1) rates of infection, ICU admission and mortality by ethnicity; and (2) unadjusted and adjusted data comparing ethnic minority and White groups. Data were pooled using random effects models. Main Outcomes and MeasuresOutcomes were: (1) infection with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed on molecular testing; (2) ICU admission; and (3) mortality in COVID-19 confirmed and suspected cases. Results13,535,562 patients from 35 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Black, Asian and Hispanic individuals had a greater risk of infection compared to White individuals (Black: pooled adjusted RR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.59-2.67; Asian: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.15-1.59; Hispanic: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.39-2.25). Black individuals were significantly more likely to be admitted to ICU than White individuals (pooled adjusted RR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.02-2.55). Risk of mortality was similar across ethnicities among hospitalised patients, but increased among Asian and Mixed ethnic groups in the general population. ConclusionsBlack, Asian and Hispanic ethnic groups are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Black individuals may be more likely to require ICU admission for COVID-19. There may also be disparities in risk of death from COVID-19 at a population level. Our findings are of critical public health importance and should inform policy on minimising SARS-CoV-2 exposure in ethnic minority groups. KEY POINTSO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIs ethnicity associated with vulnerability to, and outcomes from, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? FindingsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, rates of infection and outcomes from COVID-19 were compared between ethnic groups. Individuals from Black, Asian and Hispanic ethnicity were significantly more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection than those of White ethnicity. Black individuals were more likely to need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for COVID-19 than White individuals. Risk of mortality was similar across ethnicities among hospitalised patients, but increased among Asian and Mixed ethnic groups in the general population. MeaningThere is strong evidence for an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst ethnic minorities, and targeted public health policies are required to reduce this risk.