Associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent economic inactivity and employment status: pooled analyses of five linked longitudinal surveys (preprint)

Background Following the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, record numbers of people became economically inactive (i.e., neither working nor looking for work, e.g., retired), or non-employed (including unemployed job seekers and economically inactive people). A possible explanation is people leaving the workforce after contracting COVID-19. We aim to investigate whether testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 is related to subsequent economic inactivity and non-employment, among people who were in employment prior to the pandemic. Methods The primary source of data are UK longitudinal population studies linked to English NHS digital data, held by the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration (UK LLC). We pooled data from five studies (1970 British Cohort Study, English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, 1958 National Child Development Study, Next Steps, and Understanding Society), established long before the pandemic with between two and eight follow up surveys during the pandemic. The study population comprised people aged 25-65 years during the study period (March 2020 to March 2021) who were employed pre-pandemic. Outcomes were economic inactivity and non-employment status measured at the time of the last follow-up survey (November 2020 to March 2021, depending on study). For participants who could be linked to NHS England data (n=8,174), COVID-19 infection was indicated by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. For sensitivity analyses, we used a self-reported measure of COVID-19 infection from participants (n=13,881) in the public use files of the five studies. Potential confounders included sociodemographic variables, pre-pandemic self-rated health and occupational class. Logistic regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Results In adjusted analyses, testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was very weakly associated with economic inactivity (OR 1.08 95%CI 0.68-1.73) and non-employment status (OR 1.09. 95%CI 0.77-1.55). In sensitivity analyses, self-reported test-confirmed COVID-19 was not associated with either economic inactivity (OR 1.01: 95%CI 0.70 to 1.44) or non-employment status (OR1.03 95%CI 0.79-1.35). Conclusions Among people employed pre-pandemic, testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was either weakly or not associated with increased economic inactivity or exiting employment. Wide confidence intervals limit the ability to make definitive conclusions, but it appears unlikely that COVID-19 disease explains the increase in economic inactivity among working-age people.

Living alone and mental health: parallel analyses in longitudinal population surveys and electronic health records prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic (preprint)

Objectives: To describe the mental health gap between those who live alone and those who live with others, and to examine whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on this gap. Design: Ten population based prospective cohort studies, and a retrospective descriptive cohort study based on electronic health records (EHRs). Setting: UK Longitudinal population-based surveys (LPS), and primary and secondary care records within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. Participants: Participants from the LPS were included if they had information on living status in early 2020, valid data on mental ill-health at the closest pre-pandemic assessment and at least once during the pandemic, and valid data on a key minimum set of covariates. The EHR dataset included 16 million adults registered with primary care practices in England using TPP SystmOne software on 1st February 2020, with at least three months of registration, valid address data, and living in households of <16 people. Main outcome measures: In the LPS, self-reported survey measures of psychological distress and life satisfaction were assessed in the nearest pre-pandemic sweep and three periods during the pandemic: April-June 2020, July-October 2020, and November 2020-March 2021. In the EHR analyses, outcomes were morbidity codes recorded in primary or secondary care between March 2018 and January 2022 reflecting the diagnoses of depression, self-harm, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, and severe mental illnesses. Results: The LPS consisted of 37,544 participants (15.2% living alone) and we found greater psychological distress (SMD: 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.14) and lower life satisfaction (SMD: -0.22 (95% CI: -0.30, -0.15) in those living alone pre-pandemic, and the gap between the two groups stayed similar after the onset of the pandemic. In the EHR analysis of almost 16 million records (21.4% living alone), codes indicating mental health conditions were more common in those who lived alone compared to those who lived with others (e.g., depression 26 and severe mental illness 58 cases more per 100,000). Recording of mental health conditions fell during the pandemic for common mental health disorders and the gap between the two groups narrowed. Conclusions: Multiple sources of data indicate that those who live alone experience greater levels of common and severe mental illnesses, and lower life satisfaction. During the pandemic this gap in need remained, however, there was a narrowing of the gap in service use, suggesting greater barriers to healthcare access for those who live alone.

Understanding Inequalities in Mental Health by Family Structure during COVID-19 Lockdowns: Evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (preprint)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic increased psychiatric distress and impacts differed by family structure. We aimed to identify mechanisms contributing to these inequalities. Methods: Survey data were from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Psychiatric distress (GHQ-12) was measured in April 2020 (first UK lockdown; n=10,516), and January 2021 (lockdown re-introduced following eased restrictions; n=6,893). Pre-lockdown family structure comprised partner status and presence of children (<16 years). Mediating mechanisms included: active employment, financial strain, childcare/home-schooling, caring, and loneliness. Monte Carlo g-computation simulations were used to adjust for confounding and estimate total effects and decompositions into: controlled direct effects (effects if the mediator was absent), and portions eliminated (PE; representing differential exposure and vulnerability to the mediator). Results: In January 2021, after adjustment, we estimated increased risk of distress among couples with children compared to couples with no children (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.15-1.82), largely because of childcare/home-schooling (PE RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.00-1.64). Single respondents without children also had increased risk of distress compared to couples with no children (RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.27-1.83), and the largest PE was for loneliness (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05-1.27), though financial strain contributed (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.99-1.12). Single parents demonstrated the highest levels of distress, but confounder adjustment suggested uncertain effects with wide confidence intervals. Findings were similar in April 2020 and when stratified by sex. Conclusions: Access to childcare/schooling, financial security and social connection are important mechanisms that need addressing to avoid widening mental health inequalities during public health crises.

Home working and its association with social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from seven UK longitudinal population surveys. (preprint)

Background: Home working rates have increased since the COVID-19 pandemic's onset, but the health implications of this transformation are unclear. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing through harmonised analyses of seven UK longitudinal studies. Methods: We estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across three different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (T1= Apr-Jun 2020 - first lockdown, T2=Jul-Oct 2020 - eased restrictions, T3=Nov 2020-Mar 2021 - second lockdown), in seven population-based cohort studies using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. Findings: Among 34,131 observations spread over three time points, 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=0.79-1.08) or T2 (RR=0.99, 95%CI=0.88-1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR=1.17, 95%CI=1.05-1.30). Poorer psychological distress associated with home working was observed for those educated to below degree level at T2 and T3. Men working from home reported poorer self-reported health at T2. Interpretation: No clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress associated with home working during the second lockdown, but differences across sub-groups 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.

Population-level changes in the mental health of UK workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study using Understanding Society (preprint)

Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected workers mental health. We investigated changes in UK workers mental health by industry, social class, and occupation and differential effects by UK country of residence, gender and age. Methods We used representative Understanding Society data from 6,474 adults (41,207 observations) in paid employment who participated in pre-pandemic (2017-2020) and at least one COVID-19 survey. The outcome was psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12; score[≥]4). Exposures were industry, social class and occupation and are examined separately. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate relative (OR) and absolute (%) increases in distress before and during pandemic. Differential effects were investigated for UK countries of residence (Non-England/England), gender (Male/female), and age (Younger/Older) using 3-way interaction effects. Results Psychological distress increased in relative terms most for professional, scientific and technical (OR:3.15, 95% CI 2.17-4.59) industry in the pandemic versus pre-pandemic period. Absolute risk increased most in hospitality (+11.4%). For social class, small employers/self-employed were most affected in relative and absolute terms (OR:3.24, 95% CI 2.28- 4.63; +10.3%). Across occupations Sales and customer service (OR:3.01, 95% CI 1.61- 5.62; +10.7%) had the greatest increase. Analysis with 3-way interactions showed considerable gender differences, while for UK country of residence and age results are mixed. Conclusions Psychological distress increases during the COVID-19 pandemic were concentrated among professional and technical and hospitality industries, small employers/self-employed and sales and customers service workers. Female workers often exhibited greater differences in risk by industry and occupation. Policies supporting these industries and groups are needed.

Association of COVID-19 employment disruption with mental and social wellbeing: evidence from nine UK longitudinal studies (preprint)

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 from 25,670 respondents, aged 16 to 66, from nine UK longitudinal studies were analysed. Changes in employment (including being furloughed) were defined by comparing employment status pre-pandemic and during the first lockdown. 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 outcome measures, were pooled using meta-analysis. 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 fair/poor self-rated health (ARR=1.26; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.50), but risk ratios appear less pronounced compared to those no longer employed (e.g., psychological distress, ARR=1.39; 95% CI: 1.21, 1.59) or stable unemployed (e.g., psychological distress, ARR=1.33; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.62). Conclusions: During the early stages of the pandemic those furloughed had increased risk for poor mental and social wellbeing. However, their excess risk was lower in magnitude than those who became or remained unemployed, suggesting that furlough partly mitigated poorer outcomes.

The UK COVID-19 furlough scheme and associations with smoking, alcohol consumption and vaping: evidence from 8 UK longitudinal population surveys. (preprint)

BackgroundDisruptions to employment status can impact smoking and alcohol consumption. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK implemented a furlough scheme to prevent job loss. We examine how furlough was associated with participants smoking, vaping and alcohol consumption behaviours in the early stages of the pandemic. MethodsData were from 27,841 participants in eight UK adult longitudinal surveys. Participants self-reported employment status and current smoking, current vaping and drinking alcohol (>4 days/week or 5+ drinks per typical occasion) both before and during 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. Sub-group analyses were used to identify whether associations differed by gender, age or education. ResultsCompared to stable employment, neither furlough, no longer being employed, nor stable unemployment were associated with smoking, vaping or drinking, following adjustment for pre-pandemic characteristics. However, some sex differences in these associations were observed, with stable unemployment 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%). There was little indication of associations with drinking differing by age, gender or education. ConclusionsWe 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, with differences in risk compared to those who remained employed largely explained by pre-pandemic characteristics.

Psychological Distress Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Sociodemographic Inequalities in 11 UK Longitudinal Studies (preprint)

Background: How population mental health has evolved across the COVID-19 pandemic under varied lockdown measures is poorly understood, with impacts on health inequalities unclear. We investigated changes in mental health and sociodemographic inequalities from before and across the first year of the pandemic in 11 longitudinal studies. Methods: Data from 11 UK longitudinal population-based studies with pre-pandemic measures of psychological distress were analysed and estimates pooled. Trends in the prevalence of poor mental health were assessed across the pandemic at three time periods: initial lockdown (TP1, Mar-June 20); easing of restrictions (TP2, July-Oct 20); and a subsequent lockdown (TP3, Nov 20-Mar 21). Multi-level regression was used to examine changes in psychological distress compared to pre-pandemic; with stratified analyses by sex, ethnicity, education, age, and UK country. Results: Across the 11 studies (n=54,609), mental health had deteriorated from pre-pandemic scores across all three pandemic time periods (TP1 Standardised Mean Difference (SMD): 0.13 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.23); TP2 SMD: 0.18 (0.09, 0.27); TP3 SMD: 0.20 (0.09, 0.31)). Changes in psychological distress across the pandemic were higher in females (TP3 SMD: 0.23 (0.11, 0.35)) than males (TP3 SMD: 0.16 (0.06, 0.26)), and slightly lower in below-degree level educated persons at some time periods (TP3 SMD: 0.18 (0.06, 0.30)) compared to those who held degrees (TP3 SMD: 0.26 (0.14, 0.38)). Increased distress was most prominent amongst adults aged 35-44 years (TP3 SMD: 0.49 (0.15, 0.84)). We did not find evidence of changes in distress differing by ethnicity or UK country. Conclusions: The substantial deterioration in mental health seen in the UK during the first lockdown did not reverse when lockdown lifted, and a sustained worsening is observed across the pandemic. Mental health declines have not been equal across the population, with females, those with higher degrees, and younger adults more affected.

Risk factors for long COVID: analyses of 10 longitudinal studies and electronic health records in the UK (preprint)

The impact of long COVID is increasingly recognised, but risk factors are poorly characterised. We analysed questionnaire data on symptom duration from 10 longitudinal study (LS) samples and electronic healthcare records (EHR) to investigate sociodemographic and health risk factors associated with long COVID, as part of the UK National Core Study for Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing. Methods Analysis was conducted on 6,899 adults self-reporting COVID-19 from 45,096 participants of the UK LS, and on 3,327 cases assigned a long COVID code in primary care EHR out of 1,199,812 adults diagnosed with acute COVID-19. In LS, we derived two outcomes: symptoms lasting 4+ weeks and symptoms lasting 12+ weeks. Associations of potential risk factors (age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, smoking, general and mental health, overweight/obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and asthma) with these two outcomes were assessed, using logistic regression, with meta-analyses of findings presented alongside equivalent results from EHR analyses. Results Functionally limiting long COVID for 12+ weeks affected between 1.2% (age 20), and 4.8% (age 63) of people reporting COVID-19 in LS. The proportion reporting symptoms overall for 12+ weeks ranged from 7.8 (mean age 28) to 17% (mean age 58) and for 4+ weeks 4.2% (age 20) to 33.1% (age 56). Age was associated with a linear increase in long COVID between age 20-70. Being female (LS: OR=1.49; 95%CI:1.24-1.79; EHR: OR=1.51 [1.41-1.61]), poor pre-pandemic mental health (LS: OR=1.46 [1.17-1.83]; EHR: OR=1.57 [1.47-1.68]) and poor general health (LS: OR=1.62 [1.25-2.09]; EHR: OR=1.26; [1.18-1.35]) were associated with higher risk of long COVID. Individuals with asthma also had higher risk (LS: OR=1.32 [1.07-1.62]; EHR: OR=1.56 [1.46-1.67]), as did those categorised as overweight or obese (LS: OR=1.25 [1.01-1.55]; EHR: OR=1.31 [1.21-1.42]) though associations for symptoms lasting 12+ weeks were less pronounced. Non-white ethnic minority groups had lower 4+ week symptom risk (LS: OR=0.32 [0.22-0.47]), a finding consistent in EHR. Associations were not observed for other risk factors. Few participants in the studies had been admitted to hospital (0.8-5.2%). Conclusions Long COVID is clearly distributed differentially according to several sociodemographic and pre-existing health factors. Establishing which of these risk factors are causal and predisposing is necessary to further inform strategies for preventing and treating long COVID.

Inequalities in healthcare disruptions during the Covid-19 pandemic: Evidence from 12 UK population-based longitudinal studies (preprint)

Background: Health systems worldwide have faced major disruptions due to COVID-19 which could exacerbate health inequalities. The UK National Health Service (NHS) provides free healthcare and prioritises equity of delivery, but the pandemic may be hindering the achievement of these goals. We investigated associations between multiple social characteristics (sex, age, occupational social class, education and ethnicity) and self-reported healthcare disruptions in over 65,000 participants across twelve UK longitudinal studies. Methods: Participants reported disruptions from March 2020 up to late January 2021. Associations between social characteristics and three types of self-reported healthcare disruption (medication access, procedures, appointments) and a composite of any of these were assessed in logistic regression models, adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity where relevant. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to obtain pooled estimates. Results: Prevalence of disruption varied across studies; between 6.4% (TwinsUK) and 31.8 % (Understanding Society) of study participants reported any disruption. Females (Odd Ratio (OR): 1.27 [95%CI: 1.15,1.40]; I2=53%), older persons (e.g. OR: 1.39 [1.13,1.72]; I2=77% for 65-75y vs 45-54y), and Ethnic minorities (excluding White minorities) (OR: 1.19 [1.05,1.35]; I2=0% vs White) were more likely to report healthcare disruptions. Those in a more disadvantaged social class (e.g. OR: 1.17 [1.08, 1.27]; I2=0% for manual/routine vs managerial/professional) were also more likely to report healthcare disruptions, but no clear differences were observed by education levels. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unequal healthcare disruptions, which, if unaddressed, could contribute to the maintenance or widening of existing health inequalities.

The UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and changes in diet, physical activity and sleep during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from eight longitudinal studies (preprint)

BackgroundIn March 2020 the UK implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough) to minimize 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. MethodsWe analysed data from 25,092 participants aged 16 to 66 years from eight UK longitudinal studies. Changes in employment (including being furloughed) were defined by comparing employment status pre- and during the first lockdown. Health behaviours included fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, and sleeping patterns. 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. ResultsAcross 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, [0.75-0.97], I2=59%) and did not differ in diet and sleep behaviours, although findings for sleep were heterogenous (I2=85%). In stratified analyses, furlough was associated with low fruit and vegetable consumption among males (RR=1.11; 95%CI: 1.01-1.22; I2: 0%) but not females (RR=0.84; 95%CI: 0.68-1.04; I2: 65%). Considering change in these health behaviours, furloughed workers were more likely than those who remained working to report increased fruit and vegetable consumption, exercise, and hours of sleep. ConclusionsThose furloughed exhibited broadly similar levels of health behaviours to those who remained in employment during the initial stages of the pandemic. There was little evidence to suggest that such social protection policies if used in the post-pandemic recovery period and during future economic crises would have adverse impacts on population health behaviours.

Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK Household Longitudinal Study (preprint)

BackgroundVaccination is crucial to address the COVID-19 pandemic but vaccine hesitancy could undermine control efforts. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK population, identify which population subgroups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant, and report stated reasons for vaccine hesitancy. MethodsNationally representative survey data from 12,035 participants were collected from 24th November to 1st December 2020 for wave 6 of the Understanding Society COVID-19 web survey. Participants were asked how likely or unlikely they would be to have a vaccine if offered and their main reason for hesitancy. Cross-sectional analysis assessed prevalence of vaccine hesitancy and logistic regression models conducted. FindingsOverall intention to be vaccinated was high (82% likely/very likely). Vaccine hesitancy was higher in women (21.0% vs 14.7%), younger age groups (26.5% in 16-24 year olds vs 4.5% in 75+) and less educated (18.6% no qualifications vs 13.2% degree qualified). Vaccine hesitancy was particularly high in Black (71.8%), Pakistani/Bangladeshi (42.3%), Mixed (32.4%) and non-UK/Irish White (26.4%) ethnic groups. Fully adjusted models showed gender, education and ethnicity were independently associated with vaccine hesitancy. Odds ratios for vaccine hesitancy were 12.96 (95% CI:7.34, 22.89) in the Black/Black British and 2.31 (95% CI:1.55, 3.44) in Pakistani/Bangladeshi ethnic groups (compared to White British/Irish ethnicity) and 3.24 (95%CI:1.93, 5.45) for people with no qualifications compared to degree educated. The main reason for hesitancy was fears over unknown future effects. InterpretationOlder people at greatest COVID-19 mortality risk expressed the greatest willingness to be vaccinated but Black and Pakistani/Bangladeshi ethnic groups had greater vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine programmes should prioritise measures to improve uptake in specific minority ethnic groups. FundingMedical Research Council Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched Embase and Medline up to November 16, 2020, using key words "vaccine hesitancy" and "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2". Vaccine hesitancy is complex but also context specific. Previous research about vaccine hesitancy relates to existing adult and childhood vaccines, with limited evidence currently available on willingness to be vaccinated for newly available COVID-19 vaccines. Existing vaccination programmes often have lower uptake among more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Uptake of vaccines has often varied across ethnic groups, but patterns have often varied across different vaccine programmes. Added value of this studyOur study describes the sub-groups of the UK population who are more likely to be hesitant about a COVID-19 vaccine and examines possible explanations for this. We used nationally representative data from the COVID-19 survey element of the UKs largest household panel study. We asked specifically about vaccine hesitancy in relation to a COVID-19 vaccine at a time when initial results of vaccine trials were being reported in the media. We found willingness to be vaccinated is generally high across the UK population but marked differences exist across population subgroups. Willingness to be vaccinated was greater in older age groups and in men. However, some minority ethnic groups, particularly Black/Black British and Pakistani/Bangladeshi, had high levels of vaccine hesitancy but this was not seen across all minority ethnic groups. People with lower education levels were also more likely to be vaccine hesitant. Implications of all the available evidenceThe current evidence base on vaccine hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 is rapidly emerging but remains limited. Polling data has also found relatively high levels of willingness to take up a COVID-19 vaccine and suggested greater risks of vaccine hesitancy among Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people. Our study suggests that the risk of vaccine hesitancy differs across minority ethnic groups considerably, with Black ethnic groups particularly likely to be vaccine hesitant within the UK. Some White minority ethnic groups are also more likely to be vaccine hesitant than White British/Irish people. Herd immunity may be achievable through vaccination in the UK but a focus on specific ethnic minority and socioeconomic groups is needed to ensure an equitable vaccination programme.