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.

Data and protocol for the Oxford Achieving Resilience during COVID-19 (ARC) study

The Oxford Achieving Resilience during COVID-19 (ARC) study collected data from adolescents (aged 13-18), and parents of adolescents, from March 2020 to August 2021. Following a baseline survey (1274 completed baseline), participants were invited to 11 follow-up weekly surveys then 9 monthly follow-up surveys, and to an optional cognitive task. Each survey included questionnaires on mental health, resilience and wellbeing, COVID-19 related experiences and pandemic anxiety. Data is stored on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4b85w/), with comprehensive documentation on all measures. These data may be valuable to adolescent mental health researchers for further analyses and aggregation with other datasets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Does the trauma associated with out-of-home care transmit across generations? Evidence from the 1970 British Cohort Study during a major health pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Children with experience of out-of-home care (OHC) are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes in later life, including poorer levels of psycho-social adjustment. Less is known about the intergenerational transmission of the trauma associated with OHC and psychosocial outcomes in mid-adulthood, particularly during a major health pandemic. DESIGN: To examine if there is evidence of intergenerational transmission of trauma associated with OHC in mid-adulthood, we used data from the 1970 British Cohort Study 2020 COVID-19 Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Cases were defined as cohort members (CMs) who had themselves experienced OHC (OHC1) and those whose mother reported to have been in OHC (OHC2). Among the 5320 CMs who participated in the second COVID-19 Survey, we have OHC information for n=4236. Our analytical samples range from n=2472 to 3864 depending on outcome: the largest sample comprised 105 (2.5%) CMs with direct OHC experience (OHC1), 93 (2.2%) CMs with a mother who had OHC experience (OHC2) and 3666 CMs with no OHC experience (OHC0). OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported outcomes at age 50 included indicators of depression, health and psychological well-being. Multivariate logistic regression models control for socioeconomic childhood background and current circumstances. RESULTS: Compared with the majority OHC0, the OHC1 group report higher levels of depression (OR 2.18 (95% CI 1.09 to 4.36) p<.05) and are at a greater risk of poor mental (OR 2.23 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.02) p<0.01) and general health (OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.65 to 6.67) p<0.001) during the pandemic. OHC2 was more than twice as likely to report poor mental health prepandemic (OR 2.52 (95% CI 1.37 to 4.64) p<0.01), but not during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Children of care leaver mothers (OHC2) appear to be better adjusted than those who were themselves in care (OHC1), although compared with those without care experience (OHC0) both groups had an increased risk of poorer adult outcomes. However, the findings point to both continuity and discontinuity of disadvantage.

Looking Back to Move Forward: Reflections on the Strengths and Challenges of the COVID-19 UK Mental Health Research Response.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the swift response of mental health research funders and institutions, service providers, and academics enabled progress toward understanding the mental health consequences. Nevertheless, there remains an urgent need to understand the true extent of the short- and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, necessitating ongoing research. Although the speed with which mental health researchers have mobilized to respond to the pandemic so far is to be commended, there are valid concerns as to whether speed may have compromised the quality of our work. As the pandemic continues to evolve, we must take time to reflect on our initial research response and collectively consider how we can use this to strengthen ensuing COVID-19 mental health research and our response to future crises. Here, we offer our reflections as members of the UK mental health research community to discuss the continuing progress and persisting challenges of our COVID-19 response, which we hope can encourage reflection and discussion among the wider research community. We conclude that (1) Fragmentation in our infrastructure has challenged the efficient, effective and equitable deployment of resources, (2) In responding quickly, we may have overlooked the role of experts by experience, (3) Robust and open methods may have been compromised by speedy responses, and (4) This pandemic may exacerbate existing issues of inequality in our workforce.