Home working and social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Evidence from 7 longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Home working has increased since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's onset with concerns that it may have adverse health implications. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing among the employed population aged 16 to 66 through harmonised analyses of 7 UK longitudinal studies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across 3 different stages of the pandemic (T1 = April to June 2020 -first lockdown, T2 = July to October 2020 -eased restrictions, T3 = November 2020 to March 2021 -second lockdown) using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. We successively adjusted the model for sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex), job characteristics (e.g., sector of activity, pre-pandemic home working propensities), and pre-pandemic health. Among respectively 10,367, 11,585, and 12,179 participants at T1, T2, and T3, we found higher rates of home working at T1 and T3 compared with T2, reflecting lockdown periods. Home working was not associated with psychological distress at T1 (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.08) or T2 (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.30). Study limitations include the fact that pre-pandemic home working propensities were derived from external sources, no information was collected on home working dosage and possible reverse association between change in wellbeing and home working likelihood. CONCLUSIONS: No clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress during the second lockdown, but differences across subgroups (e.g., by sex or level of education) may exist. Longer term shifts to home working might not have adverse impacts on population wellbeing in the absence of pandemic restrictions but further monitoring of health inequalities is required.

Long-term psychological distress trajectories and the COVID-19 pandemic in three British birth cohorts: A multi-cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that population mental health outcomes have worsened since the pandemic started. The extent that these changes have altered common age-related trends in psychological distress, where distress typically rises until midlife and then falls after midlife in both sexes, is unknown. We aimed to analyse whether long-term pre-pandemic psychological distress trajectories were disrupted during the pandemic, and whether these changes have been different across cohorts and by sex. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used data from three nationally representative birth cohorts comprising all people born in Great Britain in a single week of 1946 (National Survey of Health and Development, NSHD), 1958 (National Child Development Study, NCDS), or 1970 (British Cohort Study, BCS70). The follow-up data used spanned 39 years in NSHD (1982 to 2021), 40 years in NCDS (1981 to 2001), and 25 years in BCS70 (1996 to 2021). We used psychological distress factor scores, as measured by validated self-reported questionnaires (NSHD: Present State Examination, Psychiatric Symptoms Frequency, and 28- and 12-item versions of General Health Questionnaire; NCDS and BCS70: Malaise Inventory; all: 2-item versions of Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale and Patient Health Questionnaire). We used a multilevel growth curve modelling approach to model the trajectories of distress across cohorts and sexes and obtained estimates of the differences between the distress levels observed during the pandemic and those observed at the most recent pre-pandemic assessment and at the peak in the cohort-specific pre-pandemic distress trajectory, located at midlife. We further analysed whether pre-existing cohort and sex inequalities had changed with the pandemic onset using a difference-in-differences (DiD) approach. The analytic sample included 16,389 participants. By September/October 2020, distress levels had reached or exceeded the levels of the peak in the pre-pandemic life-course trajectories, with larger increases in younger cohorts (standardised mean differences [SMD] and 95% confidence intervals of SMDNSHD,pre-peak = -0.02 [-0.07, 0.04], SMDNCDS,pre-peak = 0.05 [0.02, 0.07], and SMDBCS70,pre-peak = 0.09 [0.07, 0.12] for the 1946, 1958, and 1970 birth cohorts, respectively). Increases in distress were larger among women than men, widening pre-existing sex inequalities (DiD and 95% confidence intervals of DiDNSHD,sex,pre-peak = 0.17 [0.06, 0.28], DiDNCDS,sex,pre-peak = 0.11 [0.07, 0.16], and DiDBCS70,sex,pre-peak = 0.11 [0.05, 0.16] when comparing sex inequalities in the pre-pandemic peak in midlife to those observed by September/October 2020). As expected in cohort designs, our study suffered from high proportions of attrition with respect to the original samples. Although we used non-response weights to restore sample representativeness to the target populations (those born in the United Kingdom in 1946, 1958, and 1970, alive and residing in the UK), results may not be generalisable to other sections within the UK population (e.g., migrants and ethnic minority groups) and countries different than the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-existing long-term psychological distress trajectories of adults born between 1946 and 1970 were disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among women, who reached the highest levels ever recorded in up to 40 years of follow-up data. This may impact future trends of morbidity, disability, and mortality due to common mental health problems.

Age of First Overweight and Obesity, COVID-19 and Long COVID in Two British Birth Cohorts.

Longer exposure to obesity, and thus a longer period in an inflamed state, may increase susceptibility to infectious diseases and worsen severity. Previous cross-sectional work finds higher BMI is related to worse COVID-19 outcomes, but less is known about associations with BMI across adulthood. To examine this, we used body mass index (BMI) collected through adulthood in the 1958 National Child Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). Participants were grouped by the age they were first overweight (> 25 kg/m2) and obese (> 30 kg/m2). Logistic regression was used to assess associations with COVID-19 (self-reported and serology-confirmed), severity (hospital admission and contact with health services) and long-COVID reported at ages 62 (NCDS) and 50 (BCS70). An earlier age of obesity and overweight, compared to those who never became obese or overweight, was associated with increased odds of adverse COVID-19 outcomes, but results were mixed and often underpowered. Those with early exposure to obesity were over twice as likely in NCDS (odds ratio (OR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-4.00) and three times as likely in BCS70 (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.74-5.22) to have long COVID. In NCDS they were also over four times as likely to be admitted to hospital (OR 4.69, 95% CI 1.64-13.39). Most associations were somewhat explained by contemporaneous BMI or reported health, diabetes or hypertension; however, the association with hospital admission in NCDS remained. An earlier age of obesity onset is related to COVID-19 outcomes in later life, providing evidence of the long-term impact of raised BMI on infectious disease outcomes in midlife.

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.

Characterising patterns of COVID-19 and long COVID symptoms: evidence from nine UK longitudinal studies.

Multiple studies across global populations have established the primary symptoms characterising Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and long COVID. However, as symptoms may also occur in the absence of COVID-19, a lack of appropriate controls has often meant that specificity of symptoms to acute COVID-19 or long COVID, and the extent and length of time for which they are elevated after COVID-19, could not be examined. We analysed individual symptom prevalences and characterised patterns of COVID-19 and long COVID symptoms across nine UK longitudinal studies, totalling over 42,000 participants. Conducting latent class analyses separately in three groups ('no COVID-19', 'COVID-19 in last 12 weeks', 'COVID-19 > 12 weeks ago'), the data did not support the presence of more than two distinct symptom patterns, representing high and low symptom burden, in each group. Comparing the high symptom burden classes between the 'COVID-19 in last 12 weeks' and 'no COVID-19' groups we identified symptoms characteristic of acute COVID-19, including loss of taste and smell, fatigue, cough, shortness of breath and muscle pains or aches. Comparing the high symptom burden classes between the 'COVID-19 > 12 weeks ago' and 'no COVID-19' groups we identified symptoms characteristic of long COVID, including fatigue, shortness of breath, muscle pain or aches, difficulty concentrating and chest tightness. The identified symptom patterns among individuals with COVID-19 > 12 weeks ago were strongly associated with self-reported length of time unable to function as normal due to COVID-19 symptoms, suggesting that the symptom pattern identified corresponds to long COVID. Building the evidence base regarding typical long COVID symptoms will improve diagnosis of this condition and the ability to elicit underlying biological mechanisms, leading to better patient access to treatment and services.

A quantitative approach to the intersectional study of mental health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic in UK young adults.

PURPOSE: Mental health inequalities across social identities/positions during the COVID-19 pandemic have been mostly reported independently from each other or in a limited way (e.g., at the intersection between age and sex or gender). We aim to provide an inclusive socio-demographic mapping of different mental health measures in the population using quantitative methods that are consistent with an intersectional perspective. METHODS: Data included 8,588 participants from two British cohorts (born in 1990 and 2000-2002, respectively), collected in February/March 2021 (during the third UK nationwide lockdown). Measures of anxiety and depressive symptomatology, loneliness, and life satisfaction were analysed using Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) models. RESULTS: We found evidence of large mental health inequalities across intersectional strata. Large proportions of those inequalities were accounted for by the additive effects of the variables used to define the intersections, with some of the largest gaps associated with sexual orientation (with sexual minority groups showing substantially worse outcomes). Additional inequalities were found by cohort/generation, birth sex, racial/ethnic groups, and socioeconomic position. Intersectional effects were observed mostly in intersections defined by combinations of privileged and marginalised social identities/positions (e.g., lower-than-expected life satisfaction in South Asian men in their thirties from a sexual minority and a disadvantaged childhood social class). CONCLUSION: We found substantial inequalities largely cutting across intersectional strata defined by multiple co-constituting social identities/positions. The large gaps found by sexual orientation extend the existing evidence that sexual minority groups were disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Study implications and limitations are discussed.

Psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and life satisfaction following COVID-19 infection: evidence from 11 UK longitudinal population studies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on associations between COVID-19 illness and mental health is mixed. We aimed to examine whether COVID-19 is associated with deterioration in mental health while considering pre-pandemic mental health, time since infection, subgroup differences, and confirmation of infection via self-reported test and serology data. METHODS: We obtained data from 11 UK longitudinal studies with repeated measures of mental health (psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and life satisfaction; mental health scales were standardised within each study across time) and COVID-19 status between April, 2020, and April, 2021. We included participants with information available on at least one mental health outcome measure and self-reported COVID-19 status (suspected or test-confirmed) during the pandemic, and a subset with serology-confirmed COVID-19. Furthermore, only participants who had available data on a minimum set of covariates, including age, sex, and pre-pandemic mental health were included. We investigated associations between having ever had COVID-19 and mental health outcomes using generalised estimating equations. We examined whether associations varied by age, sex, ethnicity, education, and pre-pandemic mental health, whether the strength of the association varied according to time since infection, and whether associations differed between self-reported versus confirmed (by test or serology) infection. FINDINGS: Between 21 Dec, 2021, and July 11, 2022, we analysed data from 54 442 participants (ranging from a minimum age of 16 years in one study to a maximum category of 90 years and older in another; including 33 200 [61·0%] women and 21 242 [39·0%] men) from 11 longitudinal UK studies. Of 40 819 participants with available ethnicity data, 36 802 (90·2%) were White. Pooled estimates of standardised differences in outcomes suggested associations between COVID-19 and subsequent psychological distress (0·10 [95% CI 0·06 to 0·13], I2=42·8%), depression (0·08 [0·05 to 0·10], I2=20·8%), anxiety (0·08 [0·05 to 0·10], I2=0·0%), and lower life satisfaction (-0·06 [-0·08 to -0·04], I2=29·2%). We found no evidence of interactions between COVID-19 and sex, education, ethnicity, or pre-pandemic mental health. Associations did not vary substantially between time since infection of less than 4 weeks, 4-12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks, and were present in all age groups, with some evidence of stronger effects in those aged 50 years and older. Participants who self-reported COVID-19 but had negative serology had worse mental health outcomes for all measures than those without COVID-19 based on serology and self-report. Participants who had positive serology but did not self-report COVID-19 did not show association with mental health outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Self-reporting COVID-19 was longitudinally associated with deterioration in mental health and life satisfaction. Our findings emphasise the need for greater post-infection mental health service provision, given the substantial prevalence of COVID-19 in the UK and worldwide. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Inequalities in healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from 12 UK population-based longitudinal studies.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated associations between multiple sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, occupational social class, education and ethnicity) and self-reported healthcare disruptions during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Coordinated analysis of prospective population surveys. SETTING: Community-dwelling participants in the UK between April 2020 and January 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Over 68 000 participants from 12 longitudinal studies. OUTCOMES: Self-reported healthcare disruption to medication access, procedures and appointments. RESULTS: Prevalence of healthcare disruption varied substantially across studies: between 6% and 32% reported any disruption, with 1%-10% experiencing disruptions in medication, 1%-17% experiencing disruption in procedures and 4%-28% experiencing disruption in clinical appointments. Females (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.40; I2=54%), older persons (eg, OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.72; I2=77% for 65-75 years vs 45-54 years) and ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities) (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; I2=0% vs white) were more likely to report healthcare disruptions. Those in a more disadvantaged social class were also more likely to report healthcare disruptions (eg, OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27; I2=0% for manual/routine vs managerial/professional), but no clear differences were observed by education. We did not find evidence that these associations differed by shielding status. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic could contribute to the maintenance or widening of existing health inequalities.

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.

Mental and social wellbeing and the UK coronavirus job retention scheme: Evidence from nine longitudinal studies.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to major economic disruptions. In March 2020, the UK implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme - known as furlough - to minimize the impact of job losses. We investigate associations between change in employment status and mental and social wellbeing during the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS: Data were from 25,670 respondents, aged 17-66, across nine UK longitudinal studies. Furlough and other employment changes were defined using employment status pre-pandemic and during the first lockdown (April-June 2020). Mental and social wellbeing outcomes included psychological distress, life satisfaction, self-rated health, social contact, and loneliness. Study-specific modified Poisson regression estimates, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and pre-pandemic mental and social wellbeing, were pooled using meta-analysis. Associations were also stratified by sex, age, education, and household composition. RESULTS: Compared to those who remained working, furloughed workers were at greater risk of psychological distress (adjusted risk ratio, ARR = 1.12; 95%CI: 0.97, 1.29), low life satisfaction (ARR = 1.14; 95%CI: 1.07, 1.22), loneliness (ARR = 1.12; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.23), and poor self-rated health (ARR = 1.26; 95%CI: 1.05, 1.50). Nevertheless, compared to furloughed workers, those who became unemployed had greater risk of psychological distress (ARR = 1.30; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.52), low life satisfaction (ARR = 1.16; 95%CI: 0.98, 1.38), and loneliness (ARR = 1.67; 95%CI: 1.08, 2.59). Effects were not uniform across all sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: During the early stages of the pandemic, those furloughed had increased risk of poor mental and social wellbeing, but furloughed workers fared better than those who became unemployed, suggesting that furlough may have partly mitigated poorer outcomes.

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.

Older Adults in the United States Have Worse Cardiometabolic Health Compared to England.

Explanations for lagging life expectancy in the United States compared to other high-income countries have focused largely on "deaths of despair," but attention has also shifted to the role of stalling improvements in cardiovascular disease and the obesity epidemic. Using harmonized data from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study and English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, we assess differences in self-reported and objective measures of health, among older adults in the United States and England and explore whether the differences in body mass index (BMI) documented between the United States and England explain the U.S. disadvantage. Older adults in the United States have a much higher prevalence of diabetes, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high inflammation (C-reactive protein) compared to English adults. While the distribution of BMI is shifted to the right in the United States with more people falling into extreme obesity categories, these differences do not explain the cross-country differences in measured biological risk. We conclude by considering how country differences in health may have affected the burden of coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in both countries.

Psychological Distress Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Adults in the United Kingdom Based on Coordinated Analyses of 11 Longitudinal Studies.

Importance: How population mental health has evolved across the COVID-19 pandemic under varied lockdown measures is poorly understood, and the consequences for health inequalities are unclear. Objective: To investigate changes in mental health and sociodemographic inequalities from before and across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 longitudinal studies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adult participants from 11 UK longitudinal population-based studies with prepandemic measures of psychological distress. Analyses were coordinated across these studies, and estimates were pooled. Data were collected from 2006 to 2021. Exposures: Trends in the prevalence of poor mental health were assessed in the prepandemic period (time period 0 [TP 0]) and at 3 pandemic TPs: 1, initial lockdown (March to June 2020); 2, easing of restrictions (July to October 2020); and 3, a subsequent lockdown (November 2020 to March 2021). Analyses were stratified by sex, race and ethnicity, education, age, and UK country. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel regression was used to examine changes in psychological distress from the prepandemic period across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological distress was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire, the Kessler 6, the 9-item Malaise Inventory, the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, the 8-item or 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression across different studies. Results: In total, 49 993 adult participants (12 323 [24.6%] aged 55-64 years; 32 741 [61.2%] women; 4960 [8.7%] racial and ethnic minority) were analyzed. Across the 11 studies, mental health deteriorated from prepandemic scores across all 3 pandemic periods, but there was considerable heterogeneity across the study-specific estimated effect sizes (pooled estimate for TP 1: standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06-0.25; TP 2: SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.27; TP 3: SMD, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.32). Changes in psychological distress across the pandemic were higher in women (TP 3: SMD, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11, 0.35) than men (TP 3: SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.26) and lower in individuals with below-degree level education at TP 3 (SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.30) compared with those who held degrees (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.38). Increased psychological distress was most prominent among adults aged 25 to 34 years (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.14-0.84) and 35 to 44 years (SMD, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.10-0.60) compared with other age groups. No evidence of changes in distress differing by race and ethnicity or UK country were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the substantial deterioration in mental health seen in the UK during the first lockdown did not reverse when lockdown lifted, and a sustained worsening was observed across the pandemic period. Mental health declines have been unequal across the population, with women, those with higher degrees, and those aged 25 to 44 years more affected than other groups.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first trimester and the risk of early miscarriage: a UK population-based prospective cohort study of 3041 pregnancies conceived during the pandemic.

STUDY QUESTION: Does maternal infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the first trimester affect the risk of miscarriage before 13 week's gestation? SUMMARY ANSWER: Pregnant women with self-reported diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the first trimester had a higher risk of early miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Viral infections during pregnancy have a broad spectrum of placental and neonatal pathology. Data on the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy are still emerging. Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported an increased risk of preterm birth, caesarean delivery, maternal morbidity and stillbirth. Data on the impact of first trimester infection on early pregnancy outcomes are scarce. This is the first study, to our knowledge, to investigate the rates of early pregnancy loss during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak among women with self-reported infection. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a nationwide prospective cohort study of pregnant women in the community recruited using social media between 21 May and 31 December 2020. We recruited 3545 women who conceived during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic who were <13 week's gestation at the time of recruitment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The COVID-19 Contraception and Pregnancy Study (CAP-COVID) was an on-line survey study collecting longitudinal data from pregnant women in the UK aged 18 years or older. Women who were pregnant during the pandemic were asked to complete on-line surveys at the end of each trimester. We collected data on current and past pregnancy complications, their medical history and whether they or anyone in their household had symptoms or been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection during each trimester of their pregnancy. RT-PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection from respiratory samples (e.g. nasopharynx) is the standard practice for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. We compared rate of self-reported miscarriage in three groups: 'presumed infected', i.e. those who reported a diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first trimester; 'uncertain', i.e. those who did not report a diagnosis but had symptoms/household contacts with symptoms/diagnosis; and 'presumed uninfected', i.e. those who did not report any symptoms/diagnosis and had no household contacts with symptoms/diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 3545 women registered for the CAP-COVID study at <13 weeks gestation and were eligible for this analysis. Data for the primary outcome were available from 3041 women (86%). In the overall sample, the rate of self-reported miscarriage was 7.8% (238/3041 [95% CI, 7-9]). The median gestational age (GA) at miscarriage was 9 weeks (interquartile range 8-11). Seventy-seven women were in the 'presumed infected' group (77/3041, 2.5% [95% CI 2-3]), 295/3041 were in the uncertain group (9.7% [95% CI 9-11]) and the rest in the 'presumed uninfected' (87.8%, 2669/3041 [95% CI 87-89]). The rate of early miscarriage was 14% in the 'presumed infected' group, 5% in the 'uncertain' and 8% in the 'presumed uninfected' (11/77 [95% CI 6-22] versus 15/295 [95% CI 3-8] versus 212/2669 [95% CI 7-9], P = 0.02). After adjusting for age, BMI, ethnicity, smoking status, GA at registration and the number of previous miscarriages, the risk of early miscarriage appears to be higher in the 'presumed infected' group (relative rate 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.0, P = 0.06). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We relied on self-reported data on early pregnancy loss and SARS-CoV-2 infection without any means of checking validity. Some women in the 'presumed uninfected' and 'uncertain' groups may have had asymptomatic infections. The number of 'presumed infected' in our study was low and therefore the study was relatively underpowered. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This was a national study from the UK, where infection rates were one of the highest in the world. Based on the evidence presented here, women who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their first trimester may be at an increased risk of a miscarriage. However, the overall rate of miscarriage in our study population was 8%. This is reassuring and suggests that if there is an effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the risk of miscarriage, this may be limited to those with symptoms substantial enough to lead to a diagnostic test. Further studies are warranted to evaluate a causal association between SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy and miscarriage risk. Although we did not see an overall increase in the risk of miscarriage, the observed comparative increase in the presumed infected group reinforces the message that pregnant women should continue to exercise social distancing measures and good hygiene throughout their pregnancy to limit their risk of infection. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by a grant from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital Charity (G13-559194). The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. J.A.H. is supported by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship. A.L.D. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support to J.A.H. and A.L.D. as above; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Pre-pandemic mental health and disruptions to healthcare, economic and housing outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from 12 UK longitudinal studies.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and livelihoods, and people already experiencing mental ill health may have been especially vulnerable. AIMS: Quantify mental health inequalities in disruptions to healthcare, economic activity and housing. METHOD: We examined data from 59 482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal studies with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within each study, we estimated the association between psychological distress assessed pre-pandemic and disruptions since the start of the pandemic to healthcare (medication access, procedures or appointments), economic activity (employment, income or working hours) and housing (change of address or household composition). Estimates were pooled across studies. RESULTS: Across the analysed data-sets, 28% to 77% of participants experienced at least one disruption, with 2.3-33.2% experiencing disruptions in two or more domains. We found 1 s.d. higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with (a) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.20-1.40), with fully adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.24 (95% CI 1.09-1.41) for disruption to procedures to 1.33 (95% CI 1.20-1.49) for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access; (b) loss of employment (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.21) and income (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 -1.19), and reductions in working hours/furlough (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00-1.09) and (c) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18-1.32) or in one domain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07-1.16), relative to no disruption. There were no associations with housing disruptions (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: People experiencing psychological distress pre-pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare and economic disruptions, and clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Failing to address these disruptions risks further widening mental health inequalities.

Changes in the behavioural determinants of health during the COVID-19 pandemic: gender, socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in five British cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is expected to have far-reaching consequences on population health. We investigated whether these consequences included changes in health-impacting behaviours which are important drivers of health inequalities. METHODS: Using data from five representative British cohorts (born 2000-2002, 1989-1990, 1970, 1958 and 1946), we investigated sleep, physical activity (exercise), diet and alcohol intake (N=14 297). We investigated change in each behaviour (pre/during the May 2020 lockdown), and differences by age/cohort, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic position (childhood social class, education attainment and adult financial difficulties). Logistic regression models were used, accounting for study design and non-response weights, and meta-analysis used to pool and test cohort differences in association. RESULTS: Change occurred in both directions-shifts from the middle part of the distribution to both declines and increases in sleep, exercise and alcohol use. Older cohorts were less likely to report changes in behaviours while the youngest reported more frequent increases in sleep, exercise, and fruit and vegetable intake, yet lower alcohol consumption. Widening inequalities in sleep during lockdown were more frequent among women, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and ethnic minorities. For other outcomes, inequalities were largely unchanged, yet ethnic minorities were at higher risk of undertaking less exercise and consuming lower amounts of fruit and vegetables. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide new evidence on the multiple changes to behavioural outcomes linked to lockdown, and the differential impacts across generation, gender, socioeconomic circumstances across life, and ethnicity. Lockdown appeared to widen some (but not all) forms of health inequality.