The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - A resource for COVID-19 research: Antibody testing results, April - June 2021.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and their offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. The study reacted rapidly and repeatedly to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, deploying multiple online questionnaires and a previous home-based antibody test in October 2020. A second antibody test, in collaboration with ten other longitudinal population studies, was completed by 4,622 ALSPAC participants between April and June 2021. Of 4,241 participants with a valid spike protein antibody test result (8.2% were void), indicating antibody response to either COVID-19 vaccination or natural infection, 3,172 were positive (74.8%). Generational differences were substantial, with 2,463/2,555 G0 participants classified positive (96.4%) compared to 709/1,686 G1 participants (42.1%). Of 4,199 participants with a valid nucleocapsid antibody test result (9.2% were void), suggesting potential and recent natural infection, 493 were positive (11.7%); 248/2,526 G0 participants (9.8%) and 245/1,673 G1 participants (14.6%) tested positive, respectively. We also compare results for this round of testing to that undertaken in October 2020. Future work will combine these test results with additional sources of data to identify participants' COVID-19 infection and vaccination status. These ALSPAC COVID-19 serology data are being complemented with linkage to health records and Public Health England pillar testing results as they become available, in addition to four previous questionnaire waves and a prior antibody test. Data have been released as an update to the previous COVID-19 datasets. These comprise: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to all four previous questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors; and 2) individual participant-specific release files enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the second ALSPAC antibody test and the data obtained from it.

The beneficial role of personality in preserving well-being during the pandemic: A longitudinal population study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased rates of mental health problems. We examined the possible role of the personality characteristic, Locus of Control (LOC), in moderating pandemic-induced stress. METHODS: The UK-based Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents & Children (ALSPAC), 7021 adults (mean ages: women 57.6 (SD = 4.48); partners 60.5 (SD = 5.36)) responded to a 2020 questionnaire which included a generalised measure of LOC. Between March 2020-January 2021, questionnaires focussed on the pandemic were administered, which included measures of mental health. Over 60 % of respondents completed questionnaires at three timepoints of interest. RESULTS: In those with an internal LOC higher rates of positive well-being and reduced likelihood of anxiety and depression were shown compared to those who were external, e.g. after adjustment for socioeconomic/demographic factors mean differences in well-being score for internal compared with external women was +2.01 (95%CI +1.02,+2.10) p = 0.0001; for their partners +2.52 (95%CI +1.22,+3.82) p = 0.0002. External women were more likely than internals to have depression (adjusted OR 3.41 [95%CI 1.77,6.57] p < 0.0005. LIMITATIONS: Attrition is a problem in this 30-year-old longitudinal cohort. Those still participating are more likely to have higher education and SES levels, be female and have an internal LOC. This population suffers from a lack of ethnic diversity. CONCLUSIONS: Having an internal LOC positively moderated the effects of pandemic-induced stress on the frequency of anxiety and depression in middle-age. Programmes geared to raise internality and coping strategies may have long-term benefits on well-being in stressful situations, especially for women and frontline health professionals.

CO-CONNECT: A hybrid architecture to facilitate rapid discovery and access to UK wide data in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 data have been generated across the UK as a by-product of clinical care and public health provision, and numerous bespoke and repurposed research endeavours. Analysis of these data has underpinned the UK's response to the pandemic and informed public health policies and clinical guidelines. However, these data are held by different organisations and this fragmented landscape has presented challenges for public health agencies and researchers as they struggle to find, navigate permissions to access and interrogate the data they need to inform the pandemic response at pace. OBJECTIVE: To transform UK COVID-19 diagnostic datasets to be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR). METHODS: A federated infrastructure model was rapidly built to enable the automated and reproducible mapping of health Data Partners' pseudonymised data to the OMOP common data model without the need for any data to leave the data controllers' secure environments and to support federated cohort discovery queries and meta-analysis. RESULTS: 56 datasets from 19 organisations are being connected to the federated network. The data includes research cohorts and COVID-19 data collected through routine health care provision linked to longitudinal healthcare records and demographics. The infrastructure is live, supporting aggregate level querying of data across the UK. CONCLUSIONS: CO-CONNECT was developed by a multidisciplinary team enabling rapid COVID-19 data discovery, instantaneous meta-analysis across data sources, and is researching streamlined data extraction for egress into a Trusted Research Environment (TRE) for research and public health analysis. CO-CONNECT has the potential to make UK health data more interconnected and better able to answer national-level research questions whilst maintaining patient confidentiality and local governance procedures.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and children ALSPAC G0 Partners: A cohort profile

ALSPAC is an ongoing population-based, observational study designed to investigate how genetic/environmental characteristics might influence the health/development of children and their parents. It has evolved to facilitate the measurement of many outcomes in the parental cohort. Pregnant women resident in Bristol, UK with expected dates of delivery between April 1991-December 1992 were eligible. 14,541 pregnancies were originally enrolled. Partners of the pregnant women were initially invited to take part by the women with formal enrolment of individuals since 2010. Data has been collected from 12,113 partners, with 3,807 formally enrolled. Data collected to date: 21 questionnaires, clinical follow up in 2012 (mean age: 53 years) and a family-based clinical follow-up currently ongoing (mean age: 63 years). Questionnaires asked about a wide range of environmental measures, physical/mental health and other phenotypic details including six questionnaires throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical measures include anthropometrics, blood pressure, body composition, cardiovascular health and a fasting blood sample. DNA has been extracted with genome-wide data available on >3,000 partners and exomes on ~1500 trios. The data contributes to one of the most deeply phenotyped birth cohorts in the world, providing trios of data and multi-generational information, and is fully accessible through a managed access process.

Antibody levels following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: associations with post-vaccination infection and risk factors in two UK longitudinal studies.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody levels can be used to assess humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and may predict risk of future infection. Higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 anti-Spike antibodies are known to be associated with increased protection against future SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, variation in antibody levels and risk factors for lower antibody levels following each round of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been explored across a wide range of socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and health factors within population-based cohorts. Methods: Samples were collected from 9361 individuals from TwinsUK and ALSPAC UK population-based longitudinal studies and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Cross-sectional sampling was undertaken jointly in April-May 2021 (TwinsUK, N=4256; ALSPAC, N=4622), and in TwinsUK only in November 2021-January 2022 (N=3575). Variation in antibody levels after first, second, and third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables were analysed. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we tested associations between antibody levels following vaccination and: (1) SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination(s); (2) health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables. Results: Within TwinsUK, single-vaccinated individuals with the lowest 20% of anti-Spike antibody levels at initial testing had threefold greater odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next 6-9 months (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.0), compared to the top 20%. In TwinsUK and ALSPAC, individuals identified as at increased risk of COVID-19 complication through the UK 'Shielded Patient List' had consistently greater odds (two- to fourfold) of having antibody levels in the lowest 10%. Third vaccination increased absolute antibody levels for almost all individuals, and reduced relative disparities compared with earlier vaccinations. Conclusions: These findings quantify the association between antibody level and risk of subsequent infection, and support a policy of triple vaccination for the generation of protective antibodies. Funding: Antibody testing was funded by UK Health Security Agency. The National Core Studies program is funded by COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing - National Core Study (LHW-NCS) HMT/UKRI/MRC ([MC_PC_20030] and [MC_PC_20059]). Related funding was also provided by the NIHR 606 (CONVALESCENCE grant [COV-LT-0009]). TwinsUK is funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation (CDRF), Zoe Ltd and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: [217065/Z/19/Z]) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC.

Vaccination against the virus that causes COVID-19 triggers the body to produce antibodies that help fight future infections. But some people generate more antibodies after vaccination than others. People with lower levels of antibodies are more likely to get COVID-19 in the future. Identifying people with low antibody levels after COVID-19 vaccination is important. It could help decide who receives priority for future vaccination. Previous studies show that people with certain health conditions produce fewer antibodies after one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. For example, people with weakened immune systems. Now that third booster doses are available, it is vital to determine if they increase antibody levels for those most at risk of severe COVID-19. Cheetham et al. show that a third booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies to high levels in 90% of individuals, including those at increased risk. In the experiments, Cheetham et al. measured antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19 in 9,361 individuals participating in two large long-term health studies in the United Kingdom. The experiments found that UK individuals advised to shield from the virus because they were at increased risk of complications had lower levels of antibodies after one or two vaccine doses than individuals without such risk factors. This difference was also seen after a third booster dose, but overall antibody levels had large increases. People who received the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine as their first dose also had lower antibody levels after one or two doses than those who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine first. Positively, this difference in antibody levels was no longer seen after a third booster dose. Individuals with lower antibody levels after their first dose were also more likely to have a case of COVID-19 in the following months. Antibody levels were high in most individuals after the third dose. The results may help governments and public health officials identify individuals who may need extra protection after the first two vaccine doses. They also support current policies promoting booster doses of the vaccine and may support prioritizing booster doses for those at the highest risk from COVID-19 in future vaccination campaigns.

Voluntary risk mitigation behaviour can reduce impact of SARS-CoV-2: a real-time modelling study of the January 2022 Omicron wave in England.

BACKGROUND: Predicting the likely size of future SARS-CoV-2 waves is necessary for public health planning. In England, voluntary "plan B" mitigation measures were introduced in December 2021 including increased home working and face coverings in shops but stopped short of restrictions on social contacts. The impact of voluntary risk mitigation behaviours on future SARS-CoV-2 burden is unknown. METHODS: We developed a rapid online survey of risk mitigation behaviours ahead of the winter 2021 festive period and deployed in two longitudinal cohort studies in the UK (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) and TwinsUK/COVID Symptom Study (CSS) Biobank) in December 2021. Using an individual-based, probabilistic model of COVID-19 transmission between social contacts with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant parameters and realistic vaccine coverage in England, we predicted the potential impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron wave in England in terms of the effective reproduction number and cumulative infections, hospital admissions and deaths. Using survey results, we estimated in real-time the impact of voluntary risk mitigation behaviours on the Omicron wave in England, if implemented for the entire epidemic wave. RESULTS: Over 95% of survey respondents (NALSPAC = 2686 and NTwins = 6155) reported some risk mitigation behaviours, with vaccination and using home testing kits reported most frequently. Less than half of those respondents reported that their behaviour was due to "plan B". We estimate that without risk mitigation behaviours, the Omicron variant is consistent with an effective reproduction number between 2.5 and 3.5. Due to the reduced vaccine effectiveness against infection with the Omicron variant, our modelled estimates suggest that between 55% and 60% of the English population could be infected during the current wave, translating into between 12,000 and 46,000 cumulative deaths, depending on assumptions about severity and vaccine effectiveness. The actual number of deaths was 15,208 (26 November 2021-1 March 2022). We estimate that voluntary risk reduction measures could reduce the effective reproduction number to between 1.8 and 2.2 and reduce the cumulative number of deaths by up to 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting future infection burden is affected by uncertainty in disease severity and vaccine effectiveness estimates. In addition to biological uncertainty, we show that voluntary measures substantially reduce the projected impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant but that voluntary measures alone would be unlikely to completely control transmission.

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.

Bias from questionnaire invitation and response in COVID-19 research: an example using ALSPAC.

Background: Longitudinal studies are crucial for identifying potential risk factors for infection with, and consequences of, COVID-19, but relationships can be biased if they are associated with invitation and response to data collection. We describe factors relating to questionnaire invitation and response in COVID-19 questionnaire data collection in a multigenerational birth cohort (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC). Methods: We analysed online questionnaires completed between the beginning of the pandemic and easing of the first UK lockdown by participants with valid email addresses who had not actively disengaged from the study. We assessed associations of pre-pandemic sociodemographic, behavioural, anthropometric and health-related factors with: i) being sent a questionnaire; ii) returning a questionnaire; and iii) item response (for specific questions). Analyses were conducted in three cohorts: the index children born in the early 1990s (now young adults; 41 variables assessed), their mothers (35 variables) and the mothers' partners (27 variables). Results: Of 14,849 young adults, 41% were sent a questionnaire, of whom 57% returned one. Item response was >95%. In this cohort, 78% of factors were associated with being sent a questionnaire, 56% with returning one, and, as an example of item response, 20% with keyworker status response. For instance, children from mothers educated to degree-level had greater odds of being sent a questionnaire (OR=5.59; 95% CI=4.87-6.41), returning one (OR=1.60; 95% CI=1.31-1.95), and responding to items (e.g., keyworker status OR=1.65; 95% CI=0.88-3.04), relative to children from mothers with fewer qualifications. Invitation and response rates and associations were similar in all cohorts. Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of considering potential biases due to non-response when using longitudinal studies in COVID-19 research and interpreting results. We recommend researchers report response rates and factors associated with invitation and response in all COVID-19 observational research studies, which can inform sensitivity analyses.

Bias from questionnaire invitation and response in COVID-19 research: an example using ALSPAC [version 2;peer review: 2 approved]

Background: Longitudinal studies are crucial for identifying potential risk factors for infection with, and consequences of, COVID-19, but relationships can be biased if they are associated with invitation and response to data collection. We describe factors relating to questionnaire invitation and response in COVID-19 questionnaire data collection in a multigenerational birth cohort (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC). Methods: We analysed online questionnaires completed between the beginning of the pandemic and easing of the first UK lockdown by participants with valid email addresses who had not actively disengaged from the study. We assessed associations of pre-pandemic sociodemographic, behavioural, anthropometric and health-related factors with: i) being sent a questionnaire;ii) returning a questionnaire;and iii) item response (for specific questions). Analyses were conducted in three cohorts: the index children born in the early 1990s (now young adults;41 variables assessed), their mothers (35 variables) and the mothers’ partners (27 variables). Results: Of 14,849 young adults, 41% were sent a questionnaire, of whom 57% returned one. Item response was >95%. In this cohort, 78% of factors were associated with being sent a questionnaire, 56% with returning one, and, as an example of item response, 20% with keyworker status response. For instance, children from mothers educated to degree-level had greater odds of being sent a questionnaire (OR=5.59;95% CI=4.87-6.41), returning one (OR=1.60;95% CI=1.31-1.95), and responding to items (e.g., keyworker status OR=1.65;95% CI=0.88-3.04), relative to children from mothers with fewer qualifications. Invitation and response rates and associations were similar in all cohorts. Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of considering potential biases due to non-response when using longitudinal studies in COVID-19 research and interpreting results. We recommend researchers report response rates and factors associated with invitation and response in all COVID-19 observational research studies, which can inform sensitivity analyses.

Long COVID burden and risk factors in 10 UK longitudinal studies and electronic health records.

The frequency of, and risk factors for, long COVID are unclear among community-based individuals with a history of COVID-19. To elucidate the burden and possible causes of long COVID in the community, we coordinated analyses of survey data from 6907 individuals with self-reported COVID-19 from 10 UK longitudinal study (LS) samples and 1.1 million individuals with COVID-19 diagnostic codes in electronic healthcare records (EHR) collected by spring 2021. Proportions of presumed COVID-19 cases in LS reporting any symptoms for 12+ weeks ranged from 7.8% and 17% (with 1.2 to 4.8% reporting debilitating symptoms). Increasing age, female sex, white ethnicity, poor pre-pandemic general and mental health, overweight/obesity, and asthma were associated with prolonged symptoms in both LS and EHR data, but findings for other factors, such as cardio-metabolic parameters, were inconclusive.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - A resource for COVID-19 research: Antibody testing results, April – June 2021 [version 1;peer review: 2 approved]

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0;G0) and their offspring (Generation 1;G1) ever since. The study reacted rapidly and repeatedly to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, deploying multiple online questionnaires and a previous home-based antibody test in October 2020. A second antibody test, in collaboration with ten other longitudinal population studies, was completed by 4,622 ALSPAC participants between April and June 2021. Of participants with a valid spike protein antibody test result (4,241;8.2% void), indicating antibody response to either COVID-19 vaccination or natural infection, 3,172 were positive (74.8%). Generational differences were substantial, with 2,463/2,555 G0 participants classified positive (96.4%) compared to 709/1,686 G1 participants (42.1%). Of participants with a valid nucleocapsid antibody test result (4,199;9.2% void), suggesting potential and recent natural infection, 493 were positive (11.7%);with 248/2,526 G0 participants (9.8%) and 245/1,673 G1 participants (14.6%) testing positive, respectively. We also compare results for this round of testing to that undertaken in October 2020. Future work will combine these test results with additional sources of data to identify participants’ COVID-19 infection and vaccination status. These ALSPAC COVID-19 serology data are being complemented with linkage to health records and Public Health England pillar testing results as they become available, in addition to four previous questionnaire waves and a prior antibody test. Data have been released as an update to the previous COVID-19 datasets. These comprise: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to all four previous questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors;and 2) individual participant-specific release files enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the second ALSPAC antibody test and the data obtained from it.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - A resource for COVID-19 research: Home-based antibody testing results, October 2020. An emphasis on self-screening at a population level.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. The study reacted rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, deploying online questionnaires in March and May 2020. Home-based antibody tests and a further questionnaire were sent to 5220 participants during a two-week period of October 2020.  4.2% (n=201) of participants reported a positive antibody test (3.2% G0s [n=81]; 5.6% G1s [n=120]). 43 reported an invalid test, 7 did not complete and 3 did not report their result. Participants uploaded a photo of their test to enable validation: all positive tests, those where the participant could not interpret the result and a 5% random sample were manually checked against photos. We report 92% agreement (kappa=0.853). Positive tests were compared to additional COVID-19 status information: 58 (1.2%) participants reported a previous positive test, 73 (1.5%) reported that COVID-19 was suspected by a doctor, but not tested and 980 (20.4%) believed they had COVID-19 due to their own suspicions.  Of those reporting a positive result on our antibody test, 55 reported that they did not think they had had COVID-19. Results from antibody testing and questionnaire data will be complemented by health record linkage and results of other biological testing- uniting Pillar testing data with home testing and self-report. Data have been released as an update to the original datasets released in July 2020. It comprises: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to all three questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors and 2) as individual participant-specific release files enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the antibody testing, associated questionnaire and the data obtained from it.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - A resource for COVID-19 research: Generation 2 questionnaire data capture May-July 2020.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 from the Bristol area (UK). ALSPAC has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and their offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. From 2012, ALSPAC has identified G1 participants who were pregnant (or their partner was) or had become parents, and enrolled them, their partners, and children in the ALSPAC-Generation 2 (ALSPAC-G2) study, providing a unique multi-generational cohort. At present, approximately 1,100 G2 children (excluding those in utero) from 810 G1 participants have been enrolled. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, ALSPAC rapidly deployed two online questionnaires; one during the initial lockdown phase in 2020 (9 th April-15 th May), and another when national lockdown restrictions were eased (26 th May-5 th July). As part of this second questionnaire, G1 parents completed a questionnaire about each of their G2 children. This covered: parental reports of children's feelings and behaviour since lockdown, school attendance, contact patterns, and health. A total of 289 G1 participants completed this questionnaire on behalf of 411 G2 children. This COVID-19 G2 questionnaire data can be combined with pre-pandemic ALSPAC-G2 data, plus ALSPAC-G1 and -G0 data, to understand how children's health and behaviour has been affected by the pandemic and its management. Data from this questionnaire will be complemented with linkage to health records and results of biological testing as they become available. Prospective studies are necessary to understand the impact of this pandemic on children's health and development, yet few relevant studies exist; this resource will aid these efforts. Data has been released as: 1) a freely-available dataset containing participant responses with key sociodemographic variables; and 2) an ALSPAC-held dataset which can be combined with existing ALSPAC data, enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study.

Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in two longitudinal UK population cohorts.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and mitigation measures are likely to have a marked effect on mental health. It is important to use longitudinal data to improve inferences. AIMS: To quantify the prevalence of depression, anxiety and mental well-being before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, to identify groups at risk of depression and/or anxiety during the pandemic. METHOD: Data were from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) index generation (n = 2850, mean age 28 years) and parent generation (n = 3720, mean age 59 years), and Generation Scotland (n = 4233, mean age 59 years). Depression was measured with the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire in ALSPAC and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in Generation Scotland. Anxiety and mental well-being were measured with the Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 and the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. RESULTS: Depression during the pandemic was similar to pre-pandemic levels in the ALSPAC index generation, but those experiencing anxiety had almost doubled, at 24% (95% CI 23-26%) compared with a pre-pandemic level of 13% (95% CI 12-14%). In both studies, anxiety and depression during the pandemic was greater in younger members, women, those with pre-existing mental/physical health conditions and individuals in socioeconomic adversity, even when controlling for pre-pandemic anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence for increased anxiety in young people that is coincident with the pandemic. Specific groups are at elevated risk of depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is important for planning current mental health provisions and for long-term impact beyond this pandemic.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - A resource for COVID-19 research: Questionnaire data capture April-May 2020.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992. The resource provides an informative and efficient setting for collecting data on the current coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In early March 2020, a questionnaire was developed in collaboration with other longitudinal population studies to ensure cross-cohort comparability. It targeted retrospective and current COVID-19 infection information (exposure assessment, symptom tracking and reported clinical outcomes) and the impact of both disease and mitigating measures implemented to manage the COVID-19 crisis more broadly. Data were collected on symptoms of COVID-19 and seasonal flu, travel prior to the pandemic, mental health and social, behavioural and lifestyle factors. The online questionnaire was deployed across parent (G0) and offspring (G1) generations between 9 th April and 15 th May 2020. 6807 participants completed the questionnaire (2706 original mothers, 1014 original fathers/partners, 2973 offspring (mean age ~28 years) and 114 offspring partners). Eight (0.01%) participants (4 G0 and 4 G1) reported a positive test for COVID-19, 77 (1.13%; 28 G0 and 49 G1) reported that they had been told by a doctor they likely had COVID-19 and 865 (12.7%; 426 G0 and 439 G1) suspected that they have had COVID-19.  Using algorithmically defined cases, we estimate that the predicted proportion of COVID-19 cases ranged from 1.03% - 4.19% depending on timing during the period of reporting (October 2019-March 2020). Data from this first questionnaire will be complemented with at least two more follow-up questionnaires, linkage to health records and results of biological testing as they become available. Data has been released as: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses with key sociodemographic factors and 2) as a composite release coordinating data from the existing resource, thus enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - A resource for COVID-19 research: Generation 2 questionnaire data capture May-July 2020 [version 1;peer review: awaiting peer review]

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 from the Bristol area (UK). ALSPAC has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0;G0) and their offspring (Generation 1;G1) ever since. From 2012, ALSPAC has identified G1 participants who were pregnant (or their partner was) or had become parents, and enrolled them, their partners, and children in the ALSPAC-Generation 2 (ALSPAC-G2) study, providing a unique multi-generational cohort. At present, approximately 1,100 G2 children (excluding those in utero) from 810 G1 participants have been enrolled. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, ALSPAC rapidly deployed two online questionnaires;one during the initial lockdown phase in 2020 (9th April-15th May), and another when national lockdown restrictions were eased (26th May-5th July). As part of this second questionnaire, G1 parents completed a questionnaire about each of their G2 children. This covered: parental reports of children’s feelings and behaviour since lockdown, school attendance, contact patterns, and health. A total of 289 G1 participants completed this questionnaire on behalf of 411 G2 children. This COVID-19 G2 questionnaire data can be combined with pre-pandemic ALSPAC-G2 data, plus ALSPAC-G1 and -G0 data, to understand how children’s health and behaviour has been affected by the pandemic and its management. Data from this questionnaire will be complemented with linkage to health records and results of biological testing as they become available. Prospective studies are necessary to understand the impact of this pandemic on children’s health and development, yet few relevant studies exist;this resource will aid these efforts. Data has been released as: 1) a freely-available dataset containing participant responses with key sociodemographic variables;and 2) an ALSPAC-held dataset which can be combined with existing ALSPAC data, enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study.

Longitudinal evidence for persistent anxiety in young adults through COVID-19 restrictions [version 1;peer review: awaiting peer review]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related mitigation measures are associated with poorer mental health in cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys. However, it’s unclear if this represents an adaptive response to an unprecedented event that is short lived, or the beginning of longer mental health problems that persist beyond the initial outbreak of the pandemic. We used data from the index generation of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (young people aged 26-29) to examine anxiety at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020) and again once restrictions were eased (June 2020). We compared these to two pre-pandemic assessments of anxiety measured 2013/2014 and 2015/17. We found that the percentage of individuals with anxiety was almost double during the COVID-19 assessments compared to pre-pandemic levels, with 15% of individuals having anxiety at both occasions (persistent anxiety). Being female, those with per-existing mental health conditions, a history of financial problems and those who had reported difficulties accessing mental health information were at greater risk of persistent anxiety. Our findings suggest that anxiety in response to COVID-19 is not just an initial reaction but potentially the start of a persistent problem that extends beyond the pandemic. Efforts must be made to address risk groups who could be disproportionally affected as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigation measures.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - A resource for COVID-19 research: Questionnaire data capture May-July 2020.

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners and their offspring ever since. The study reacted rapidly to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, deploying an online questionnaire early on during lockdown (from 9 th April to 15 th May). In late May 2020, a second questionnaire was developed asking about physical and mental health, lifestyle and behaviours, employment and finances. The online questionnaire was deployed across the parent and offspring generations between the 26th May and 5 th July 2020. 6482 participants completed the questionnaire (2639 original mothers, 1039 original fathers/partners, 2711 offspring (mean age ~28 years) and 93 partners of offspring). 1039 new participants who did not respond to the first questionnaire deployed in April completed the second questionnaire.  A positive COVID-19 was reported by 36 (0.6%) participants (12 G0 and 24 G1), 91 (1.4%; 35 G0 and 56 G1) reported that they had been told by a doctor they likely had COVID-19 and 838 (13%; 422 G0 and 416 G1) suspected that they have had COVID-19.  Using algorithmically estimated cases based on symptoms, we estimate that the predicted prevalence of COVID-19 from mid-April to time of questionnaire completion was 3.1%. Data from both COVID questionnaires will be complemented with linkage to health records and results of biological testing as they become available. Data has been released as an update to the original dataset released in May 2020. It comprises: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to both questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors and 2) as a composite release coordinating data from the existing resource, thus enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the second questionnaire and the data obtained from it.