Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 18 de 18
Filter
1.
EClinicalMedicine ; : 101346, 2022 Mar 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1739677

ABSTRACT

Background: Several countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs' views on this are largely unknown. Using data from the nationwide UK-REACH study we aimed to understand UK HCW's views on improving SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage, including mandatory vaccination. Methods: Between 21st April and 26th June 2021, we administered an online questionnaire via email to 17 891 UK HCWs recruited as part of a longitudinal cohort from across the UK who had previously responded to a baseline questionnaire (primarily recruited through email) as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) nationwide prospective cohort study. We categorised responses to a free-text question "What should society do if people do not get vaccinated against COVID-19?" using qualitative content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not, using logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and its occupational, health, and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics. Findings: Of 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the free text question. Median age of free text responders was 47 years (IQR 36-56) and 2705 (74.3%) were female. 18% (n = 578) favoured mandatory vaccination (201 [6%] participants for HCWs and others working with vulnerable populations; 377 [12%] for the general population), but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n = 1047). Older HCWs (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.44-2.34 [≥55 years vs 16 years to <40 years]), HCWs vaccinated against influenza (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.11-2.01 [2 vaccines vs none]), and with more positive vaccination attitudes generally (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.15) were more likely to favour mandatory vaccination, whereas female HCWs (OR= 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.96, vs male HCWs) and Black HCWs (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.85, vs white HCWs) were less likely to. Interpretation: Only one in six of the HCWs in this large, diverse, UK-wide sample favoured mandatory vaccination. Building trust, educating, and supporting HCWs who are hesitant about vaccination may be more acceptable, effective, and equitable.

3.
Ther Adv Infect Dis ; 9: 20499361221074569, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1666600

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Data concerning differences in demographics/disease severity between the first and second waves of COVID-19 are limited. We aimed to examine prognosis in patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 amongst different ethnic groups between the first and second waves in the UK. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included 1763 patients presenting to a regional hospital centre in Leicester (UK) and compared those in the first (n = 956) and second (n = 807) waves. Admission National Early Warning Scores, mechanical ventilation and mortality rate were lower in the second wave compared with the first. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality risk in second wave patients was approximately half that of first wave patients [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.75]. In the second wave, Black patients were at higher risk of 30-day mortality than White patients (4.73, 1.56-14.3). CONCLUSION: We found that disporportionately higher risks of death in patients from ethnic minority groups were not equivalent across consecutive waves of the pandemic. This suggests that risk factors for death in those from ethnic minority groups are malleable and potentially reversible. Our findings need urgent investigation in larger studies.

8.
PLoS Med ; 18(11): e1003823, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504361

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and adverse outcomes. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination is now available for frontline UK HCWs; however, demographic/occupational associations with vaccine uptake in this cohort are unknown. We sought to establish these associations in a large UK hospital workforce. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted cross-sectional surveillance examining vaccine uptake amongst all staff at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. We examined proportions of vaccinated staff stratified by demographic factors, occupation, and previous COVID-19 test results (serology/PCR) and used logistic regression to identify predictors of vaccination status after adjustment for confounders. We included 19,044 HCWs; 12,278 (64.5%) had received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Compared to White HCWs (70.9% vaccinated), a significantly smaller proportion of ethnic minority HCWs were vaccinated (South Asian, 58.5%; Black, 36.8%; p < 0.001 for both). After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, occupation, SARS-CoV-2 serology/PCR results, and COVID-19-related work absences, factors found to be negatively associated with vaccine uptake were younger age, female sex, increased deprivation, pregnancy, and belonging to any non-White ethnic group (Black: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.26-0.34, p < 0.001; South Asian: aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.72, p < 0.001). Those who had previously had confirmed COVID-19 (by PCR) were less likely to be vaccinated than those who had tested negative. Limitations include data being from a single centre, lack of data on staff vaccinated outside the hospital system, and that staff may have taken up vaccination following data extraction. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic minority HCWs and those from more deprived areas as well as younger staff and female staff are less likely to take up SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. These findings have major implications for the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programmes, in HCWs and the wider population, and should inform the national vaccination programme to prevent the disparities of the pandemic from widening.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/pharmacology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Minority Groups , United Kingdom/epidemiology
9.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 9: 100180, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1461657

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs. METHODS: Nationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis. FINDINGS: 11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks. INTERPRETATION: Despite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Emphasis should be placed on the safety and benefit of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy and in those with previous COVID-19. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks. FUNDING: UKRI-MRC and NIHR.

10.
BMJ Open ; 11(9): e050647, 2021 09 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1416675

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality and devastated economies globally. Among groups at increased risk are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related outcomes. To date, there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK HCWs or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation, and adjusted for confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A baseline questionnaire will be administered to a national cohort of UK HCWs and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators, with follow-up questionnaires administered at 4 and 8 months. With consent, questionnaire data will be linked to health records with 25-year follow-up. Univariate associations between ethnicity and clinical COVID-19 outcomes, physical and mental health, and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested. Multivariable analyses will test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables. We will model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress about questions on sensitive topics by clearly participant information that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and there is no obligation to answer these or any other questions, and by providing support organisation links. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers submitted to pre-print servers and peer reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11811602; Pre-results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delivery of Health Care , Health Personnel , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Minority Groups , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
12.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e046392, 2021 06 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286744

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has spread rapidly worldwide, causing significant morbidity and mortality. People from ethnic minorities, particularly those working in healthcare settings, have been disproportionately affected. Current evidence of the association between ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes in people working in healthcare settings is insufficient to inform plans to address health inequalities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study combines anonymised human resource databases with professional registration and National Health Service data sets to assess associations between ethnicity and COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalisation and death in healthcare workers in the UK. Adverse COVID-19 outcomes will be assessed between 1 February 2020 (date following first confirmed COVID-19 case in UK) and study end date (31 January 2021), allowing 1-year of follow-up. Planned analyses include multivariable Poisson, logistic and flexible parametric time-to-event regression within each country, adjusting for core predictors, followed by meta-analysis of country-specific results to produce combined effect estimates for the UK. Mediation analysis methods will be explored to examine the direct, indirect and mediated interactive effects between ethnicity, occupational group and COVID-19 outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the UK-REACH programme has been obtained via the expedited HRA COVID-19 processes (REC ref: 20/HRA/4718, IRAS ID: 288316). Research information will be anonymised via the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank before release to researchers. Study results will be submitted for publication in an open access peer-reviewed journal and made available on our dedicated website (https://uk-reach.org/). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11811602.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Health Personnel , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Retrospective Studies , Routinely Collected Health Data , SARS-CoV-2 , State Medicine , United Kingdom
15.
J Public Health (Oxf) ; 2020 Dec 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-990793

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Leicester was the first city in the UK to have 'local lockdown' measures imposed in response to high community rates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. As part of this response, a directive was issued by NHS England to offer testing of asymptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs) at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL) for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Between 20 July and 14 August 2020, we invited all HCWs at UHL to attend for SARS-CoV-2 testing by nucleic acid amplification (NAAT). We combined the result of this assay with demographic information from the electronic staff record. RESULTS: A total of 1150 staff (~8% of the workforce) volunteered. The median age was 46 years (IQR 34-55), 972 (84.5%) were female; 234 (20.4%) were of South Asian and 58 (5.0%) of Black ethnicity; 564 (49.0%) were nurses/healthcare assistants. We found no cases of asymptomatic infection. In comparison, average community test positivity rate in Leicester city was 2.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of local lockdowns due to high community transmission rates, voluntary testing of asymptomatic staff has low uptake and low yield and thus its premise and cost-effectiveness should be re-considered.

16.
J Public Health (Oxf) ; 2020 Nov 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-926296

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although evidence suggests that demographic characteristics including minority ethnicity increase the risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is unclear whether these characteristics, together with occupational factors, influence anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in hospital staff. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional surveillance examining seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG amongst staff at University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) NHS Trust. We quantified seroprevalence stratified by ethnicity, occupation and seniority of practitioner and used logistic regression to examine demographic and occupational factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: A total of 1148/10662 (10.8%) hospital staff members were seropositive. Compared to White staff (seroprevalence 9.1%), seroprevalence was higher in South Asian (12.3%) and Black (21.2%) staff. The occupations and department with the highest seroprevalence were nurses/healthcare assistants (13.7%) and the Emergency Department (ED)/Acute Medicine (17.5%), respectively. Seroprevalence decreased with seniority in medical/nursing practitioners. Minority ethnicity was associated with seropositivity on an adjusted analysis (South Asian: aOR 1.26; 95%CI: 1.07-1.49 and Black: 2.42; 1.90-3.09). Anaesthetics/ICU staff members were less likely to be seropositive than ED/Acute medicine staff (0.41; 0.27-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity and occupational factors, including specialty and seniority, are associated with seropositivity for anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG. These findings could be used to inform occupational risk assessments for front-line healthcare workers.

17.
EClinicalMedicine ; 29: 100630, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-919678

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients from ethnic minority groups are disproportionately affected by Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the relationship between ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PROSPERO, Cochrane library and MedRxiv) were searched up to 31st August 2020, for studies reporting COVID-19 data disaggregated by ethnicity. Outcomes were: risk of infection; intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission and death. PROSPERO ID: 180654. FINDINGS: 18,728,893 patients from 50 studies were included; 26 were peer-reviewed; 42 were from the United States of America and 8 from the United Kingdom. Individuals from Black and Asian ethnicities had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals. This was consistent in both the main analysis (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 2.02, 95% CI 1.67-2.44; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.83) and sensitivity analyses examining peer-reviewed studies only (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 1.85, 95%CI: 1.46-2.35; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.88). Individuals of Asian ethnicity may also be at higher risk of ITU admission (pooled adjusted RR 1.97 95% CI 1.34-2.89) (but no studies had yet been peer-reviewed) and death (pooled adjusted RR/HR 1.22 [0.99-1.50]). INTERPRETATION: Individuals of Black and Asian ethnicity are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals; Asians may be at higher risk of ITU admission and death. These findings are of critical public health importance in informing interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality amongst ethnic minority groups.

18.
EClinicalMedicine ; 25: 100466, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-650195

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence indicates that COVID-19 causes adverse outcomes in ethnic minority groups. However, little is known about the impact of ethnicity and household size on acquiring infection with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study, in Leicester (UK), of all individuals assessed for COVID-19 with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust between 1st March and 28th April 2020. We used logistic regression to identify sociodemographic, clinical and temporal factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity before/after lockdown. FINDINGS: 971/4051 (24.0%) patients with suspected COVID-19 were found to be PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. PCR positivity was more common amongst individuals from ethnic minortiy backgrounds than their White counterparts (White 20.0%, South Asian 37.5%, Black 36.1%, Other 32.2%; p<0.001 for all ethnic minority groups vs White). After adjustment, compared to White ethnicity, South Asian (aOR 2.44 95%CI 2.01, 2.97), Black (aOR 2.56 95%CI 1.71, 3.84) and Other (aOR 2.53 95%CI 1.74, 3.70) ethnicities were more likely to test positive, as were those with a larger estimated household size (aOR 1.06 95%CI 1.02, 1.11). We saw increasing proportions of positive tests in the three weeks post-lockdown amongst the ethnic minority , but not the White, cohort. Estimated household size was associated with PCR positivity after, but not before, lockdown (aOR 1.10 95%CI 1.03, 1.16). INTERPRETATION: In individuals presenting with suspected COVID-19, those from ethnic minority communities and larger households had an increased likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity. Pandemic control measures may have more rapid impact on slowing viral transmission amongst those of White ethnicity compared to ethnic minority groups, Research is urgently required to understand the mechanisms underlying these disparities and whether public health interventions have differential effects on individuals from ethnic minority groups. FUNDING: 10.13039/100006662 NIHR.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL