Socioeconomic position and adverse childhood experiences as risk factors for health-related behaviour change and employment adversity during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a prospective cohort study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have disproportionately affected already disadvantaged populations. METHODS: We analysed data from 2710 young adult participants of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. We assessed the associations of socioeconomic position (SEP) and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs, e.g. abuse, neglect, measures of family dysfunction) with changes to health-related behaviours (meals, snacks, exercise, sleep, alcohol and smoking/vaping), and to financial and employment status during the first UK lockdown between March-June 2020. RESULTS: Experiencing 4+ ACEs was associated with reporting decreased sleep quantity during lockdown (OR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.07-2.18) and increased smoking and/or vaping (OR 1.85, 95% CI: 0.99-3.43); no other associations were seen between ACEs or SEP and health-related behaviour changes. Adverse financial and employment changes were more likely for people with low SEP and for people who had experienced multiple ACEs; e.g. a history of 4+ ACEs was associated with being furloughed or on other leave during lockdown (OR 1.92, 95% CI: 1.35-2.74). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of young adults, there was little evidence that lockdown worsened inequalities in health-related behaviours. However, adverse financial and employment consequences of lockdown were more likely to be experienced by people who have already experienced socioeconomic deprivation or childhood adversity, thereby widening social inequalities and demonstrating the need for support into adulthood for those with a history of ACEs.

The UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and smoking, alcohol consumption and vaping during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from eight longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Employment disruptions can impact smoking and alcohol consumption. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented furlough schemes to prevent job loss. We examine how furlough was associated with smoking, vaping and alcohol consumption in the UK. METHODS: Data from 27,841 participants in eight UK adult longitudinal surveys were analysed. Participants self-reported employment status and current smoking, current vaping and alcohol consumption (>4 days/week or 5+ drinks per typical occasion) both before and during the early stages of the pandemic (April-July 2020). Risk ratios were estimated within each study using modified Poisson regression, adjusting for a range of potential confounders, including pre-pandemic behaviour. Findings were synthesised using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Compared to stable employment and after adjustment for pre-pandemic characteristics, furlough was not associated with smoking (ARR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.95-1.16; I2: 10%), vaping (ARR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74-1.08; I2: 0%) or drinking (ARR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.94-1.13; I2: 48%). There were similar findings for no longer being employed, and stable unemployment, though this varied by sex: stable unemployment was associated with smoking for women (ARR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.00-1.82; I2: 47%) but not men (0.84; 95% CI: 0.67-1.05; I2: 0%). No longer being employed was associated with vaping among women (ARR = 2.74; 95% CI: 1.59-4.72; I2: 0%) but not men (ARR = 1.25; 95% CI: 0.83-1.87; I2: 0%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear evidence of furlough or unemployment having adverse impacts on smoking, vaping or drinking behaviours during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Differences in risk compared to those who remained employed were largely explained by pre-pandemic characteristics.

The UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and diet, physical activity, and sleep during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from eight longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the UK implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough) to minimise job losses. Our aim was to investigate associations between furlough and diet, physical activity, and sleep during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analysed data on 25,092 participants aged 16-66 years from eight UK longitudinal studies. Changes in employment, including being furloughed, were based on employment status before and during the first lockdown. Health behaviours included fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, and sleep. Study-specific estimates obtained using modified Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and pre-pandemic health and health behaviours, were statistically pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Associations were also stratified by sex, age, and education. RESULTS: Across studies, between 8 and 25% of participants were furloughed. Compared to those who remained working, furloughed workers were slightly less likely to be physically inactive (RR = 0.85; [95% CI 0.75-0.97]; I 2 = 59%) and did not differ overall with respect to low fruit and vegetable consumption or atypical sleep, although findings for sleep were heterogenous (I 2 = 85%). In stratified analyses, furlough was associated with lower fruit and vegetable consumption among males (RR = 1.11; [1.01-1.22]; I 2 = 0%) but not females (RR = 0.84; [0.68-1.04]; I 2 = 65%). Considering changes in quantity, furloughed workers were more likely than those who remained working to report increases in fruit and vegetable consumption, exercise, and hours of sleep. CONCLUSIONS: Those furloughed exhibited similar health behaviours to those who remained in employment during the initial stages of the pandemic. There was little evidence to suggest that adoption of such social protection policies in the post-pandemic recovery period and during future economic crises had adverse effects on population health behaviours.

Continuing inequalities in COVID-19 mortality in England and Wales, and the changing importance of regional, over local, deprivation.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have highlighted that where individuals live is far more important for risk of dying with COVID-19, than for dying of other causes. Deprivation is commonly proposed as explaining such differences. During the period of localised restrictions in late 2020, areas with higher restrictions tended to be more deprived. We explore how this impacted the relationship between deprivation and mortality and see whether local or regional deprivation matters more for inequalities in COVID-19 mortality. METHODS: We use publicly available population data on deaths due to COVID-19 and all-cause mortality between March 2020 and April 2021 to investigate the scale of spatial inequalities. We use a multiscale approach to simultaneously consider three spatial scales through which processes driving inequalities may act. We go on to explore whether deprivation explains such inequalities. RESULTS: Adjusting for population age structure and number of care homes, we find highest regional inequality in October 2020, with a COVID-19 mortality rate ratio of 5.86 (95% CI 3.31 to 19.00) for the median between-region comparison. We find spatial context is most important, and spatial inequalities higher, during periods of low mortality. Almost all unexplained spatial inequality in October 2020 is removed by adjusting for deprivation. During October 2020, one standard deviation increase in regional deprivation was associated with 20% higher local mortality (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.30). CONCLUSIONS: Spatial inequalities are greatest in periods of lowest overall mortality, implying that as mortality declines it does not do so equally. During the prolonged period of low restrictions and low mortality in summer 2020, spatial inequalities strongly increased. Contrary to previous months, we show that the strong spatial patterning during autumn 2020 is almost entirely explained by deprivation. As overall mortality declines, policymakers must be proactive in detecting areas where this is not happening, or risk worsening already strong health inequalities.

Links between obesity, weight stigma and learning in adolescence: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Educational attainment is a key social determinant of health. Health and education are linked by multiple pathways, many of which are not well understood. One such pathway is the association between being above a healthy weight and lower academic achievement. While various explanations have been put forward to explain this relationship, evidence for causal pathways is sparse and unclear. This study addresses that evidence gap. METHODS: We interviewed 19 adults (late 20s; 14 female, 5 male) and one young person (14 years, male) from the UK in 2019/2020. Participants were recruited from the ALSPAC 1990s birth cohort, sampled to ensure diversity in socio-economic status and educational attainment, and a community-based weight management group for young people. Interviews focused on experiences of being above a healthy weight during secondary school and how this may have affected their learning and achievement. Interviews were face-to-face, digitally recorded, and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the data thematically. RESULTS: We identified key pathways through which higher body weight may negatively impact educational performance and showed how these are linked within a novel theoretical model. Because larger body size is highly stigmatised, participants engaged in different strategies to minimise their exposure to negative attention. Participants sought to increase their social acceptance or become less socially visible (or a combination of both). A minority navigated this successfully; they often had many friends (or the 'right' friends), experienced little or no bullying at school and weight appeared to have little effect on their achievement at school. For most however, the behaviours resulting from these strategies (e.g. disruptive behaviour, truanting, not working hard) or the physical, social or mental impacts of their school experiences (e.g. hungry, tired, self-conscious, depressed) made it difficult to concentrate and/or participate in class, which in turn affected how teachers viewed them. CONCLUSIONS: Action to combat weight stigma, both within schools and in wider society, is urgently required to help address these educational disparities that in turn can impact health in later life.

Interrogating structural inequalities in COVID-19 mortality in England and Wales

BackgroundNumerous observational studies have highlighted structural inequalities in COVID-19 mortality in the UK. Such studies often fail to consider the complex spatial nature of such inequalities in their analysis, leading to the potential for bias and an inability to reach conclusions about the most appropriate structural levels for policy intervention.MethodsWe use publicly available population data on COVID-19 related- and all-cause mortality between March and July 2020 in England and Wales to investigate the spatial scale of such inequalities. We propose a multiscale approach to simultaneously consider four spatial scales at which processes driving inequality may act and apportion inequality between these.ResultsAdjusting for population age structure, number of care homes and residing in the North we find highest regional inequality in March and June/July. We find finer-grained within-region increased steadily from March until July. The importance of spatial context increases over the study period. No analogous pattern is visible for non-COVID mortality. Higher relative deprivation is associated with increased COVID-19 mortality at all stages of the pandemic but does not explain structural inequalities.ConclusionResults support initial stochastic viral introduction in the South, with initially high inequality decreasing before the establishment of regional trends by June and July, prior to reported regionality of the ‘second-wave’. We outline how this framework can help identify structural factors driving such processes, and offer suggestions for a long-term, locally-targeted model of pandemic relief in tandem with regional support to buffer the social context of the area.

Interrogating structural inequalities in COVID-19 mortality in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Numerous observational studies have highlighted structural inequalities in COVID-19 mortality in the UK. Such studies often fail to consider the hierarchical, spatial nature of such inequalities in their analysis, leading to the potential for bias and an inability to reach conclusions about the most appropriate structural levels for policy intervention. METHODS: We use publicly available population data on COVID-19-related mortality and all-cause mortality between March and July 2020 in England and Wales to investigate the spatial scale of such inequalities. We propose a multiscale approach to simultaneously consider three spatial scales at which processes driving inequality may act and apportion inequality between these. RESULTS: Adjusting for population age structure and number of local care homes we find highest regional inequality in March and June/July. We find finer grained within region inequality increased steadily from March until July. The importance of spatial context increases over the study period. No analogous pattern is visible for non-COVID-19 mortality. Higher relative deprivation is associated with increased COVID-19 mortality at all stages of the pandemic but does not explain structural inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Results support initial stochastic viral introduction in the South, with initially high inequality decreasing before the establishment of regional trends by June and July, prior to reported regionality of the 'second-wave'. We outline how this framework can help identify structural factors driving such processes, and offer suggestions for a long-term, locally targeted model of pandemic relief in tandem with regional support to buffer the social context of the area.