Coverage, completion and outcomes of COVID-19 risk assessments in a multi-ethnic nationwide cohort of UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis from the UK-REACH Study.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on the outcomes of COVID-19 risk assessment in healthcare workers (HCWs) or the association of ethnicity, other sociodemographic and occupational factors with risk assessment outcomes. METHODS: We used questionnaire data from UK-REACH (UK Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers), an ethnically diverse, nationwide cohort of UK HCWs. We derived four binary outcomes: (1) offered a risk assessment; (2) completed a risk assessment; (3) working practices changed as a result of the risk assessment; (4) wanted changes to working practices after risk assessment but working practices did not change.We examined the association of ethnicity, other sociodemographic/occupational factors and actual/perceived COVID-19 risk variables on our outcomes using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 8649 HCWs were included in total. HCWs from ethnic minority groups were more likely to report being offered a risk assessment than white HCWs, and those from Asian and black ethnic groups were more likely to report having completed an assessment if offered. Ethnic minority HCWs had lower odds of reporting having their work change as a result of risk assessment. Those from Asian and black ethnic groups were more likely to report no changes to their working practices despite wanting them.Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with lower odds of being offered a risk assessment and having adjustments made to working practices. DISCUSSION: We found differences in risk assessment outcomes by ethnicity, other sociodemographic/occupational factors and actual/perceived COVID-19 risk factors. These findings are concerning and warrant further research using actual (rather than reported) risk assessment outcomes in an unselected cohort.

Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, intensive care admission, and death: a global systematic review and meta-analysis of over 200 million study participants.

Background: COVID-19 has exacerbated existing ethnic inequalities in health. Little is known about whether inequalities in severe disease and deaths, observed globally among minoritised ethnic groups, relates to greater infection risk, poorer prognosis, or both. We analysed global data on COVID-19 clinical outcomes examining inequalities between people from minoritised ethnic groups compared to the ethnic majority group. Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) were searched from 1st December 2019 to 3rd October 2022, for studies reporting original clinical data for COVID-19 outcomes disaggregated by ethnicity: infection, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality. We assessed inequalities in incidence and prognosis using random-effects meta-analyses, with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) use to assess certainty of findings. Meta-regressions explored the impact of region and time-frame (vaccine roll-out) on heterogeneity. PROSPERO: CRD42021284981. Findings: 77 studies comprising over 200,000,000 participants were included. Compared with White majority populations, we observed an increased risk of testing positive for infection for people from Black (adjusted Risk Ratio [aRR]:1.78, 95% CI:1.59-1.99, I2 = 99.1), South Asian (aRR:3.00, 95% CI:1.59-5.66, I2 = 99.1), Mixed (aRR:1.64, 95% CI:1.02-1.67, I2 = 93.2) and Other ethnic groups (aRR:1.36, 95% CI:1.01-1.82, I2 = 85.6). Black, Hispanic, and South Asian people were more likely to be seropositive. Among population-based studies, Black and Hispanic ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of hospitalisation; Black, Hispanic, South Asian, East Asian and Mixed ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of ICU admission. Mortality risk was increased for Hispanic, Mixed, and Indigenous groups. Smaller differences were seen for prognosis following infection. Following hospitalisation, South Asian, East Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups had an increased risk of ICU admission, and mortality risk was greater in Mixed ethnic groups. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Interpretation: Our study suggests that systematic ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 health outcomes exist, with large differences in exposure risk and some differences in prognosis following hospitalisation. Response and recovery interventions must focus on tackling drivers of ethnic inequalities which increase exposure risk and vulnerabilities to severe disease, including structural racism and racial discrimination. Funding: ESRC:ES/W000849/1.

Socioeconomic inequalities of Long COVID: a retrospective population-based cohort study in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of Long COVID by socioeconomic deprivation and to further examine the inequality by sex and occupation. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey between 26 April 2020 and 31 January 2022. This is the largest nationally representative survey of COVID-19 in the UK with longitudinal data on occupation, COVID-19 exposure and Long COVID. SETTING: Community-based survey in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 201,799 participants aged 16 to 64 years and with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The risk of Long COVID at least 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection by index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and the modifying effects of socioeconomic deprivation by sex and occupation. RESULTS: Nearly 10% (n = 19,315) of participants reported having Long COVID. Multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for a range of variables (demographic, co-morbidity and time), showed that participants in the most deprived decile had a higher risk of Long COVID (11.4% vs. 8.2%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34, 1.59) compared to the least deprived decile. Significantly higher inequalities (most vs. least deprived decile) in Long COVID existed in healthcare and patient-facing roles (aOR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.27, 2.44), in the education sector (aOR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.31, 2.16) and in women (aOR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.40, 1.73) than men (aOR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.51). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the heterogeneous degree of inequality in Long COVID by deprivation, sex and occupation. These findings will help inform public health policies and interventions in incorporating a social justice and health inequality lens.

Ethnic differences in cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis.

Background: Few studies have compared SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity by ethnic group. We sought to establish whether cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ according to ethnicity in UK Healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, we used baseline data from two immunological cohort studies conducted in HCWs in Leicester, UK. Blood samples were collected between March 3, and September 16, 2021. We excluded HCW who had not received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at the time of sampling and those who had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcome measures were SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific total antibody titre, neutralising antibody titre and ELISpot count. We compared our outcome measures by ethnic group using univariable (t tests and rank-sum tests depending on distribution) and multivariable (linear regression for antibody titres and negative binomial regression for ELISpot counts) tests. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, vaccine type, length of interval between vaccine doses and time between vaccine administration and sample collection and expressed as adjusted geometric mean ratios (aGMRs) or adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs). To assess differences in the early immune response to vaccination we also conducted analyses in a subcohort who provided samples between 14 and 50 days after their second dose of vaccine. Findings: The total number of HCWs in each analysis were 401 for anti-spike antibody titres, 345 for neutralising antibody titres and 191 for ELISpot. Overall, 25.4% (19.7% South Asian and 5.7% Black/Mixed/Other) were from ethnic minority groups. In analyses including the whole cohort, neutralising antibody titres were higher in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs (aGMR 1.47, 95% CI [1.06-2.06], P = 0.02) as were T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 peptides (aIRR 1.75, 95% CI [1.05-2.89], P = 0.03). In a subcohort sampled between 14 and 50 days after second vaccine dose, SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody and neutralising antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) was higher in South Asian HCWs compared to White HCWs (9616 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml, 95% CI [7178-12,852] vs 5888 BAU/ml [5023-6902], P = 0.008 and 2851 95% CI [1811-4487] vs 1199 [984-1462], P < 0.001 respectively), increments which persisted after adjustment (aGMR 1.26, 95% CI [1.01-1.58], P = 0.04 and aGMR 2.01, 95% CI [1.34-3.01], P = 0.001). SARS-CoV-2 ELISpot responses to S1 and whole spike peptides (S1 + S2 response) were higher in HCWs from South Asian ethnic groups than those from White groups (S1: aIRR 2.33, 95% CI [1.09-4.94], P = 0.03; spike: aIRR, 2.04, 95% CI [1.02-4.08]). Interpretation: This study provides evidence that, in an infection naïve cohort, humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are stronger in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs. These differences are most clearly seen in the early period following vaccination. Further research is required to understand the underlying mechanisms, whether differences persist with further exposure to vaccine or virus, and the potential impact on vaccine effectiveness. Funding: DIRECT and BELIEVE have received funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the COVID-19 National Core Studies Immunity (NCSi) programme (MC_PC_20060).

Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, intensive care admission, and death: a global systematic review and meta-analysis of over 200 million study participants

Background COVID-19 has exacerbated existing ethnic inequalities in health. Little is known about whether inequalities in severe disease and deaths, observed globally among minoritised ethnic groups, relates to greater infection risk, poorer prognosis, or both. We analysed global data on COVID-19 clinical outcomes examining inequalities between people from minoritised ethnic groups compared to the ethnic majority group. Methods Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) were searched from 1st December 2019 to 3rd October 2022, for studies reporting original clinical data for COVID-19 outcomes disaggregated by ethnicity: infection, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality. We assessed inequalities in incidence and prognosis using random-effects meta-analyses, with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) use to assess certainty of findings. Meta-regressions explored the impact of region and time-frame (vaccine roll-out) on heterogeneity. PROSPERO: CRD42021284981. Findings 77 studies comprising over 200,000,000 participants were included. Compared with White majority populations, we observed an increased risk of testing positive for infection for people from Black (adjusted Risk Ratio [aRR]:1.78, 95% CI:1.59–1.99, I2 = 99.1), South Asian (aRR:3.00, 95% CI:1.59–5.66, I2 = 99.1), Mixed (aRR:1.64, 95% CI:1.02–1.67, I2 = 93.2) and Other ethnic groups (aRR:1.36, 95% CI:1.01–1.82, I2 = 85.6). Black, Hispanic, and South Asian people were more likely to be seropositive. Among population-based studies, Black and Hispanic ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of hospitalisation;Black, Hispanic, South Asian, East Asian and Mixed ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of ICU admission. Mortality risk was increased for Hispanic, Mixed, and Indigenous groups. Smaller differences were seen for prognosis following infection. Following hospitalisation, South Asian, East Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups had an increased risk of ICU admission, and mortality risk was greater in Mixed ethnic groups. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Interpretation Our study suggests that systematic ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 health outcomes exist, with large differences in exposure risk and some differences in prognosis following hospitalisation. Response and recovery interventions must focus on tackling drivers of ethnic inequalities which increase exposure risk and vulnerabilities to severe disease, including structural racism and racial discrimination. Funding 10.13039/501100000269ESRC:ES/W000849/1.

One virus, many lives: a qualitative study of lived experiences and quality of life of adults from diverse backgrounds living in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) pandemic has had far-reaching consequences for people's lives. In the UK, more than 23 million have been infected and nearly 185 000 have lost their lives. Previous research has looked at differential outcomes of COVID-19, based on socio-demographic factors such as age, sex, ethnicity and deprivation. We conducted a qualitative study with a diverse sample of adults living in the UK, to understand their lived experiences and quality of life (QoL) during the pandemic. METHODS: Participants were recruited with the help of civil society partners and community organisations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and July 2021. Interviews were recorded with permission and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed following an inductive analytical approach as outlined in the Framework Method. RESULTS: 18 participants (≥16 years) representing different ethnicities, sexes, migration and employment statuses and educational qualifications took part. Five key themes and 14 subthemes were identified and presented using the QoL framework. The five key themes describe how COVID-19 affected the following aspects of QoL: (1) financial and economic, (2) physical health, (3) social, (4) mental health and (5) personal fulfilment and affective well-being. The narratives illustrated inequities in the impact of COVID-19 for individuals with intersecting social, economic, and health disparities. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the multidimensional and differential impact of the pandemic on different population groups, with most of the negative economic impacts being borne by people in low-paid and insecure jobs. Similarly, adverse social, physical and mental health impacts particularly affected people already experiencing displacement, violence, physical and mental illnesses or even those living alone. These findings indicate that COVID-19 impacts have been influenced by intersecting health and socioeconomic inequalities, which pre-existed. These inequities should be taken into consideration while designing pandemic recovery and rebuilding packages.

Prevention and treatment of infectious diseases in migrants in Europe in the era of universal health coverage.

Some subpopulations of migrants to Europe are generally healthier than the population of the country of settlement, but are at increased risk of key infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, HIV, and viral hepatitis, as well as under- immunisation. Infection screening programmes across Europe work in disease silos with a focus on individual diseases at the time of arrival. We argue that European health-care practitioners and policy makers would benefit from developing a framework of universal health care for migrants, which proactively offers early testing and vaccinations by delivering multi-disease testing and catch-up vaccination programmes integrated within existing health systems. Such interventions should be codeveloped with migrant populations to overcome barriers faced in accessing services. Aligning policies with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control guidance for health care for migrants, community-based preventive health-care programmes should be delivered as part of universal health care. However, effective implementation needs appropriate funding, and to be underpinned by high-quality evidence.

Long title: Exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral load kinetics measured by facemask sampling associates with household transmission.

OBJECTIVES: No studies have examined longitudinal patterns of naturally exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral load (VL) during acute infection. We report this using facemask sampling (FMS) and assessed the relationship between emitted RNA VL and household transmission. METHODS: Between December 2020 and February 2021, we recruited participants within 24 hours of a positive RT-qPCR on upper respiratory tract sampling (URTS) (day 0). Participants gave FMS (for 1 hour) and URTS (self-taken) on 7 occasions up to day 21. Samples were analysed by RT-qPCR (from sampling matrix strips within the mask) and symptom diaries recorded. Household transmission was assessed through reporting of positive URTS RT-qPCR in household contacts. RESULTS: Analysis of 203 FMS and 190 URTS from 34 participants showed that RNA VL peaked in the first five days following sampling. Concomitant URTS, FMS RNA VL and symptom scores however were poorly correlated, but a higher severity of reported symptoms was associated with FMS positivity up to day 5. Of 28 participants who had household contacts, 12 (43%) reported transmission. Frequency of household transmission was associated with the highest (peak) FMS RNA VL obtained (negative copies/strip: 0% household transmission; 1-1000 copies/strip: 20%; 1001 - 10,000 copies/strip: 57%; >10,000 copies/strip: 75%; p=0.048; age adjusted odds ratio of transmission per log increase in copies/strip: 4.97; 95% CI: 1.20-20.55, p=0.02) but this was not observed with peak URTS RNA VL. CONCLUSIONS: Exhaled RNA VL measured by FMS is highest in early infection, can be positive in symptomatic patients with concomitantly negative URTS and is strongly associated with household transmission.

Hate Crime during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of an Ethnically Diverse University Student Population

The COVID-19 pandemic coincided with a rise in reports of hate crime against East and Southeast Asian minorities. Political rhetoric blaming China for causing the pandemic was tantamount to a 'permission to hate', making COVID-19 a catalyst of hate crime against Chinese people which also fuelled overt prejudice against other ethnic minorities. Researching experiences of hate offences in an ethnically diverse university student population in the United Kingdom during COVID-19, this qualitative study found that actual reported cases potentially underestimate the problem of hate crime. Analysing data from semi-structured interviews, we argue that a focus on reported cases alone risks obscuring the full extent of pandemic-related harassment and the insidious nature of hate crimes more generally. Minority ethnic interview participants lived with varying degrees of fear of victimisation, even if they were not personally subjected to any actual incidents during the pandemic. Accounts of pre-pandemic experiences, along with vicarious experiences involving victims with similar characteristics as interview participants, confirm the status of hate crime as a 'message crime'. Third-party bystander accounts involving the victimisation of others whose identity research participants did not share afford additional insights into the nature and extent of pandemic-related hate.

"Data makes the story come to life:" understanding the ethical and legal implications of Big Data research involving ethnic minority healthcare workers in the United Kingdom-a qualitative study.

The aim of UK-REACH ("The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers") is to understand if, how, and why healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. In this article, we present findings from the ethical and legal stream of the study, which undertook qualitative research seeking to understand and address legal, ethical, and social acceptability issues around data protection, privacy, and information governance associated with the linkage of HCWs' registration data and healthcare data. We interviewed 22 key opinion leaders in healthcare and health research from across the UK in two-to-one semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were coded using qualitative thematic analysis. Participants told us that a significant aspect of Big Data research in public health is varying drivers of mistrust-of the research itself, research staff and funders, and broader concerns of mistrust within participant communities, particularly in the context of COVID-19 and those situated in more marginalised community settings. However, despite the challenges, participants also identified ways in which legally compliant and ethically informed approaches to research can be crafted to mitigate or overcome mistrust and establish greater confidence in Big Data public health research. Overall, our research indicates that a "Big Data Ethics by Design" approach to research in this area can help assure (1) that meaningful community and participant engagement is taking place and that extant challenges are addressed, and (2) that any new challenges or hitherto unknown unknowns can be rapidly and properly considered to ensure potential (but material) harms are identified and minimised where necessary. Our findings indicate such an approach, in turn, will help drive better scientific breakthroughs that translate into medical innovations and effective public health interventions, which benefit the publics studied, including those who are often marginalised in research.

Prevalence of long COVID-19 among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A proportion of those who survive the acute phase of COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms, commonly known as long COVID-19. Given that healthcare workers (HCWs) face an elevated risk of acute COVID-19 compared with the general population, the global burden of long COVID-19 in HCWs is likely to be large; however, there is limited understanding of the prevalence of long COVID-19 in HCWs, or its symptoms and their clustering. This review will aim to estimate the pooled prevalence and the symptoms of long COVID-19 among HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2 globally, and investigate differences by country, age, sex, ethnicity, vaccination status and occupation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. Medline (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), Embase (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via EBSCO), OpenGrey (grey literature) and medRxiv (preprint server) will be searched from the 31 December 2019 onward. All research studies and preprint articles reporting any primary data on the prevalence and/or the symptoms of long COVID-19 among adult HCWs will be included. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. Outcomes are anticipated to be the prevalence of long COVID-19 among HCWs around the world and trajectory of symptoms. Data synthesis will include random-effect meta-analysis for studies reporting prevalence data of long COVID-19 following SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. The results will be presented with a 95% CI as an estimated effect across studies. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I² statistic. Where meta-analysis is inappropriate, a narrative synthesis of the evidence will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not needed as data will be obtained from published articles. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminate the results of our review at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022312781.

Health Communication and Inequalities in Primary Care Access during the COVID-19 Pandemic among Ethnic Minorities in the United Kingdom: Lived Experiences and Recommendations.

Health Communication is critical in the context of public health and this was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ethnic minority groups were significantly impacted during the pandemic; however, communication and information available to them were reported to be insufficient. This study explored the health information communication amongst ethnic communities in relation to their experiences with primary health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research used qualitative methodology using focus groups and semi-structured interviews with community members and leaders from three ethnic minority communities (African-Caribbean, Somali and South Asian) in Leicester, United Kingdom. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and open-coded. Rigour was determined through methodological coherence, appropriate and sufficient sampling, and iterative data collection and analysis. Six focus groups and interviews were conducted with 42 participants. Four overarching themes were identified related to health communication, experiences, services and community recommendations to improve primary care communication. To address primary care inequalities effectively and improve future health communication strategies, experiences from the pandemic should be reflected upon, and positive initiatives infused into the healthcare strategies, especially for ethnic minority communities.

Discriminatory Ability of Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry to Identify Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Predict Prognosis.

Background: Rapid diagnostic and prognostic tests for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are urgently required. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic ability of breath analysis using gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Between February and May 2021, we took 1 breath sample for analysis using GC-IMS from participants who were admitted to the hospital for COVID-19, participants who were admitted to the hospital for other respiratory infections, and symptom-free controls, at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, United Kingdom. Demographic, clinical, and radiological data, including requirement for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation as a marker for severe disease in the COVID-19 group, were collected. Results: A total of 113 participants were recruited into the study. Seventy-two (64%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, 20 (18%) were diagnosed with another respiratory infection, and 21 (19%) were healthy controls. Differentiation between participants with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory tract infections with GC-IMS was highly accurate (sensitivity/specificity, 0.80/0.88; area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUROC], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96). GC-IMS was also moderately accurate at identifying those who subsequently required CPAP (sensitivity/specificity, 0.62/0.80; AUROC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87). Conclusions: GC-IMS shows promise as both a diagnostic tool and a predictor of prognosis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and should be assessed further in larger studies.