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

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

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

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

Exploring the impact of selection bias in observational studies of COVID-19: a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Non-random selection of analytic subsamples could introduce selection bias in observational studies. We explored the potential presence and impact of selection in studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 prognosis. METHODS: We tested the association of a broad range of characteristics with selection into COVID-19 analytic subsamples in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) and UK Biobank (UKB). We then conducted empirical analyses and simulations to explore the potential presence, direction and magnitude of bias due to this selection (relative to our defined UK-based adult target populations) when estimating the association of body mass index (BMI) with SARS-CoV-2 infection and death-with-COVID-19. RESULTS: In both cohorts, a broad range of characteristics was related to selection, sometimes in opposite directions (e.g. more-educated people were more likely to have data on SARS-CoV-2 infection in ALSPAC, but less likely in UKB). Higher BMI was associated with higher odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death-with-COVID-19. We found non-negligible bias in many simulated scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses using COVID-19 self-reported or national registry data may be biased due to selection. The magnitude and direction of this bias depend on the outcome definition, the true effect of the risk factor and the assumed selection mechanism; these are likely to differ between studies with different target populations. Bias due to sample selection is a key concern in COVID-19 research based on national registry data, especially as countries end free mass testing. The framework we have used can be applied by other researchers assessing the extent to which their results may be biased for their research question of interest.

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.

Mental-health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in adults with neurodevelopmental disorders.

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted mental health globally. Individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), including autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), are at elevated risk of mental health difficulties. We investigated the impact of the pandemic on anxiety, depression and mental wellbeing in adults with NDDs using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (n = 3058). Mental health data were collected pre-pandemic (age 21-25) and at three timepoints during the pandemic (ages 27-28) using the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7, and Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. ADHD and ASD were defined using validated cut-points of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and Autism Spectrum Quotient, self-reported at age 25. We used multi-level mixed-effects models to investigate changes in mental health in those with elevated ADHD/ASD traits compared to those without. Prevalences of depression, anxiety and poor mental wellbeing were higher at all timepoints (pre-pandemic and during pandemic) in those with ADHD and ASD compared to those without. Anxiety increased to a greater extent in those with ADHD (ß = 0.8 [0.2,1.4], p = 0.01) and ASD (ß = 1.2 [-0.1,2.5], p = 0.07), while depression symptoms decreased, particularly in females with ASD (ß = -3.1 [-4.6,-1.5], p = 0.0001). On average, mental wellbeing decreased in all, but to a lesser extent in those with ADHD (ß = 1.3 [0.2,2.5], p = 0.03) and females with ASD (ß = 3.0 [0.2,5.9], p = 0.04). To conclude, anxiety disproportionately increased in adults with NDDs during the pandemic, however, the related lockdowns may have provided a protective environment for depressive symptoms in the same individuals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disordered eating and self-harm as risk factors for poorer mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK-based birth cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Young adults and especially those with pre-existing mental health conditions, such as disordered eating and self-harm, appear to be at greater risk of developing metal health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unclear whether this increased risk is affected by any changes in lockdown restrictions, and whether any lifestyle changes could moderate this increased risk. METHODS: In a longitudinal UK-based birth cohort (The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC) we assessed the relationship between pre-pandemic measures of disordered eating and self-harm and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2657 young adults. Regression models examined the relationship between self-reported disordered eating, self-harm, and both disordered eating and self-harm at age 25 years and depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and mental wellbeing during a period of eased restrictions in the COVID-19 pandemic (May-July 2020) when participants were aged 27-29 years. Analyses were adjusted for sex, questionnaire completion date, pre-pandemic socioeconomic disadvantage and pre-pandemic mental health and wellbeing. We also examined whether lifestyle changes (sleep, exercise, alcohol, visiting green space, eating, talking with family/friends, hobbies, relaxation) in the initial UK lockdown (April-May 2020) moderated these associations. RESULTS: Pre-existing disordered eating, self-harm and comorbid disordered eating and self-harm were all associated with the reporting of a higher frequency of depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms, and poorer mental wellbeing during the pandemic compared to individuals without disordered eating and self-harm. Associations remained when adjusting for pre-pandemic mental health measures. There was little evidence that interactions between disordered eating and self-harm exposures and lifestyle change moderators affected pandemic mental health and wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with pre-pandemic disordered eating, self-harm and comorbid disordered eating and self-harm were at increased risk for developing symptoms of depression, anxiety and poor mental wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic, even when accounting for pre-pandemic mental health. Lifestyle changes during the pandemic do not appear to alter this risk. A greater focus on rapid and responsive service provision is essential to reduce the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of these already vulnerable individuals. The aim of this project was to explore the mental health of young adults with disordered eating behaviours (such as fasting, vomiting/taking laxatives, binge-eating and excessive exercise) and self-harm during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analysed data from an established study that has followed children from birth (in 1991 and 1992) up to present day, including during the pandemic when participants were 28 years old. We looked at the relationship between disordered eating and/or self-harm behaviours from before the pandemic and mental health problems (symptoms of depression and anxiety) and mental wellbeing during the pandemic. We also explored whether there were any lifestyle changes (such as changes in sleep, exercise, visiting green space) that might be linked to better mental health and wellbeing in young adults with disordered eating and self-harm. We found that young adults with prior disordered eating and/or self-harm had more symptoms of depression and anxiety, and worse mental wellbeing than individuals without prior disordered eating or self-harm. However, lifestyle changes did not appear to affect mental health and wellbeing in these young adults. Our findings suggest that people with a history of disordered eating and/or self-harm were at high risk for developing mental health problems during the pandemic, and they will need help from mental health services.

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

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

Maternal thoughts of self-harm and their association with future offspring mental health problems.

INTRODUCTION: Depression and self-harm are leading causes of disability in young people, but prospective data on how maternal depression and self-harm thoughts contribute to these outcomes, and how they may interact is lacking. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 8,425 mothers and offspring from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing birth cohort study. Exposures were maternal self-harm ideation and depression measured using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, collected at eleven time points over the period 18 weeks' gestation to 18 years post-partum. Outcomes were offspring past-year major depressive disorder and lifetime self-harm assessed at age 24. RESULTS: Nearly one-fifth (16.7%) of mothers reported thoughts of self-harm on at least one of the eleven assessment points. The frequency of maternal self-harm ideation was related to both outcomes in a dose-response manner. Young adults whose mothers had self-harm ideation on 5-11 occasions were over three times more likely (Odds ratio (OR), 3.32; 95% CI, 1.63-6.76) to be depressed and over 1.5 times as likely (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.73, 3.29) to have self-harmed than their peers whose mothers had never reported self-harm thoughts. Maternal self-harm thoughts remained associated with both offspring outcomes independent of maternal depression, and no evidence was found for an interaction between the two exposures. DISCUSSION: Clinicians collecting data on maternal depression may consider paying attention to questions about self-harm ideation in assessments. Examining accumulated maternal self-harm ideation over time may provide insights into which children are most at risk for later self-harm and depression.

Gambling by Young Adults in the UK During COVID-19 Lockdown.

Gambling is a common activity amongst young adults in the UK, and was a behavior of interest during the early mitigation against COVID-19 (first lockdown). The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) was used to investigate attitudes, moods and behavior during lockdown in England. ALSPAC participants were invited to complete online questionnaires in May 2020, including a set of questions about frequency of gambling and gambling activities which had been asked three years previously. Mental health and wellbeing data and alcohol use were also collected as part of lockdown questionnaires. Gambling questions were completed by 2632 young adults, 71% female, with a mean age of 27.8 years. Overall, gambling frequency reduced during lockdown for both males and females, but more males engaged in regular (weekly) gambling. Gambling activities became more restricted compared to previous reports, but online gambling (e.g. online poker, bingo, casino games) was more frequent. Previous gambling behaviour predicted gambling frequency during lockdown. No associations were apparent between gambling frequency and measures of mental health and well-being. Heavy alcohol use was strongly linked with regular gambling during lockdown. Gamblers were more than twice as likely as non-gamblers to have experienced financial difficulties pre-COVID, but gambling frequency was not related to employment status during lockdown. Online gambling increased during lockdown, whilst offline gambling activities decreased in frequency. A small minority of regular weekly gamblers, who tended to be male and heavy users of alcohol, participated in a wide range of online and offline gambling activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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