Barriers to healthcare access: findings from a co-produced Long Covid case-finding study (preprint)

Background and aimLong Covid can be a stigmatising condition, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This co-produced study with a Community Advisory Board of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid. MethodsAn active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care, and the stigma faced by participants and analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE-ICP Collaboration. FindingsTwenty-three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self-doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals. Participants questioned their deservedness of seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting, and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the tellers identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources. ConclusionWe have developed recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listen to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma. Patient or Public ContributionThis study was co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up of twenty-three members including healthcare professionals, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

Natural history of long-COVID in a nationwide, population cohort study (preprint)

Previous studies on the natural history of long-COVID have been few and selective. Without comparison groups, disease progression cannot be differentiated from symptoms originating from other causes. The Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) is a Scotland-wide, general population cohort of adults who had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection matched to adults never infected. Serial, self-completed, online questionnaires collected information on pre-existing health conditions and current health: 26 symptoms and health-related quality of life, six, 12 and 18 months after the index test. Those previously infected also self-reported current recovery status (fully, partially or not recovered). Here we show that, of those with previous symptomatic infection, 35% reported persistent incomplete/no recovery, 12% improvement and 12% deterioration. At six and 12 months, one or more symptom was reported by 71.5% and 70.7% respectively of those previously infected, compared with 53.5% and 56.5% of those never infected. Altered taste, smell and confusion improved over time compared to the never infected group and adjusted for confounders. Conversely, late onset dry and productive cough, and hearing problems were more likely following SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those never infected. Whilst resolution of some symptoms of long-COVID (altered taste/smell and confusion) is reassuring, late onset cough and hearing problems in some individuals merits further investigation.

Characterising Long Covid: a living systematic review update with controlled studies (preprint)

Background: The clinical sequelae (Long Covid) of acute Covid-19 are recognised globally, yet the risk of developing them is unknown. Methods: A living systematic review (second version). Bibliographical records from the C19 Living Map Long Covid segment (22nd February 2022), Medline, CINAHL, Global Health, WHO Covid-19 database, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar (18th November 2021). We included studies with at least 100 people at 12 weeks or more post-Covid-19 onset and with a control group without confirmed Covid-19. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Symptoms are aligned with the Post Covid-19 Condition Core Outcome Set. We present descriptive statistics and use meta-analysis to estimate the relative risk of experiencing Long Covid. Results Twenty-eight studies were included: 20 cohort, five case-controls, three cross-sectional. Studies reported on 242,715 people with Covid-19 (55.6% female) and 276,317 controls (55.7% female) in 16 countries. Most were of moderate quality (71%). Only two were set in low-middle-income countries and few included children (18%). The longest mean follow-up time was 419.8 (standard deviation 49.4) days post-diagnosis. The relative risk (RR) of experiencing persistent or new symptoms in cases compared with controls was 1.53 (95% CI: 1.50 to 1.56). The core outcomes with the highest increased risk were cardiovascular (RR 2.53 95% CI: 2.16 to 2.96), cognitive (RR 1.99; 95% CI: 1.82 to 2.17), and physical functioning (RR 1.85; 95% CI: 1.75 to 1.96). Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a higher risk of new or persistent symptoms when compared with controls that can last over a year following acute Covid-19. There is still a lack of robust studies set in lower resourced settings and current studies have high heterogeneity and potential misclassifications of cases and controls. Future research should explore the role of vaccination and different variants on the risk of developing Long Covid.

Long Covid active case finding: a co-produced community-based pilot within the STIMULATE-ICP study (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways) (preprint)

Background and aim Long Covid is a significant public health concern with potentially negative implications for health inequalities. We know that those who are already socially disadvantaged in society are more exposed to COVID-19, experience the worst health outcomes and are more likely to suffer economically. We also know that these groups are more likely to experience stigma and discrimination and have negative healthcare experiences even before the pandemic. However, little is known about disadvantaged groups experiences of Long Covid and preliminary evidence suggests they may be under-represented in those who access formal care. We will conduct a pilot study in a defined geographical area (Camden, London, UK) to test the feasibility of a community-based approach of identifying Long Covid cases that have not been formally clinically diagnosed and have not been referred to Long Covid Specialist services. We will explore the barriers to accessing recognition, care and support, as well as experiences of stigma and perceived discrimination. Methods This protocol and study materials were co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up primarily of people living with Long Covid. Working with voluntary organisations, promotional material are co-developed and will be distributed in the local community with engagement from key community organisations and leaders to highlight Long Covid symptoms and invite those experiencing them to participate in the study if they are not formally diagnosed and accessing care. Awareness of Long Covid and symptoms, experiences of trying to access care, as well as stigma and discrimination will be explored through qualitative interviews with participants. Upon completion of the interviews, participants will be offered referral to the local social prescribing team to receive support that is personalised to them potentially including, but not restricted to, liaising with their primary care provider and the regional Long Covid clinic run by University College London Hospitals (UCLH). Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee and Research Integrity and Governance, University of Southampton. (reference number 72400). Findings will be reported in a report and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Definitive methods of dissemination will be decided by the CAB. Summaries of the findings will also be shared on the STIMULATE-ICP website, locally in the study area and through social media. We will specifically target policy makers and those responsible for shaping and commissioning Long Covid healthcare services and social support such as NHSE England Long Covid Group.

Long Covid stigma: estimating burden and validating scale in a UK-based sample (preprint)

Background: Stigma can be experienced as perceived or actual disqualification from social and institutional acceptance on the basis of one or more physical, behavioural or other attributes deemed to be undesirable. Long Covid is a predominantly multisystem condition that occurs in people with a history of SARSCoV2 infection, often resulting in functional disability. Aim: To develop and validate a Long Covid Stigma Scale (LCSS); and to quantify the burden of Long Covid stigma. Design and Setting: Follow-up of a co-produced community-based Long Covid online survey using convenience non-probability sampling. Method: Thirteen questions on stigma were designed to develop the LCSS capturing three domains: enacted (overt experiences of discrimination), internalised (internalising negative associations with Long Covid and accepting them as self-applicable) and anticipated (expectation of bias/poor treatment by others) stigma. Confirmatory factor analysis tested whether LCSS consisted of the three hypothesised domains. Model fit was assessed and prevalence was calculated. Results: 966 UK-based participants responded (888 for stigma questions), with mean age 48 years (SD: 10.7) and 85% female. Factor loadings for enacted stigma were 0.70-0.86, internalised 0.75-0.84, anticipated 0.58-0.87, and model fit was good. The prevalence of experiencing stigma at least 'sometimes' and 'often/always' was 95% and 76% respectively. Anticipated and internalised stigma were more frequently experienced than enacted stigma. Those who reported having a clinical diagnosis of Long Covid had higher stigma prevalence than those without. Conclusion: This study establishes a scale to measure Long Covid stigma and highlights common experiences of stigma in people living with Long Covid.

Long-COVID in Scotland Study: a nationwide, population cohort study (preprint)

BACKGROUNDWith increasing numbers of people infected with SARS-CoV-2, a better understanding of long-COVID is required to inform health and social care support.METHODSA nationwide, ambidirectional, population cohort was constructed of adults in Scotland with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test from April 2020 to May 2021 and a matched, never infected comparison group. Recovery status, symptoms, quality of life, impaired daily activities, hospitalization and death were ascertained via repeated self-completed questionnaires, at 6, 12 and 18-months follow-up, and linkage to hospitalization and death records.RESULTSThe cohort comprised 31,486 symptomatic and 1,795 asymptomatic infected individuals, and 62,957 never infected individuals. Of the former, 1,856 (6%) had not recovered and 13,350 (42%) only partially. Lack of recovery was associated with severe (hospitalized) infection, older age, female sex, deprivation, respiratory disease, depression and multimorbidity. Twenty-four persistent symptoms were independently associated with previous infection including breathlessness (OR 3.44, 95% CI 3.29–3.59), palpitations (OR 2.51, OR 2.37–2.67), chest pain (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.97–2.24), and confusion (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.78–3.08). Pre-infection vaccination was associated with reduced risk of seven symptoms. Previous symptomatic infection was also associated with poorer quality of life (EQ-5D median 75 vs 80, p < 0.001) and impairment across all daily activities. Asymptomatic infection was not associated with adverse outcomes.CONCLUSIONSThe sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection are wide-ranging and not explained by confounding. The risk of long-COVID is greater following severe infections requiring hospitalization and absent following asymptomatic infection, whilst pre-infection vaccination may be protective.

Characteristics of Long Covid: findings from a social media surve (preprint)

Many people are not recovering for months after being infected with SARS-CoV-2. Long Covid has emerged as a major public health concern that needs defining, quantifying, and describing. We aimed to explore the initial and ongoing symptoms of Long Covid following SARS-CoV-2 infection and describe its impact on daily life in people who were not admitted to hospital during the first two weeks of the illness. We co-produced a survey with people living with Long Covid. We collected the data through an online survey using convenience non-probability sampling, with the survey posted both specifically on Long Covid support groups and generally on social media. The criteria for inclusion were adults with lab-confirmed (PCR or antibody) or suspected COVID-19 managed in the community (non-hospitalised) in the first two weeks of illness. We used agglomerative hierarchical clustering to identify specific symptom clusters, and their demographic and functional correlates. We analysed data from 2550 participants with a median duration of illness of 7.7 months (interquartile range (IQR) 7.4-8.0). The mean age was 46.5 years (standard deviation 11 years) with 82.8% females and 79.9% of participants based in the UK. 89.5% described their health as good, very good or excellent before COVID-19. The most common initial symptoms that persisted were exhaustion, chest pressure/tightness, shortness of breath and headache. Cough, fever, and chills were common initial symptoms that became less prevalent later in the illness, whereas cognitive dysfunction and palpitations became more prevalent later in the illness. 26.5% reported lab-confirmation of infection. The biggest difference in ongoing symptoms between those who reported testing positive and those who did not was loss of smell/taste. Ongoing symptoms affected at least 3 organ systems in 83.5% of participants. Most participants described fluctuating (57.7%) or relapsing symptoms (17.6%). Physical activity, stress and sleep disturbance commonly triggered symptoms. A third (32%) reported they were unable to live alone without any assistance at six weeks from start of illness. 16.9% reported being unable to work solely due to COVID-19 illness. 66.4% reported taking time off sick (median of 60 days, IQR 20, 129). 37.0% reported loss of income due to illness, and 64.4% said they were unable to perform usual activities/duties. Acute systems clustered broadly into two groups: a majority cluster (n=2235, 88%) with cardiopulmonary predominant symptoms, and a minority cluster (n=305, 12%) with multisystem symptoms. Similarly, ongoing symptoms broadly clustered in two groups; a majority cluster (n=2243, 88.8%) exhibiting mainly cardiopulmonary, cognitive symptoms and exhaustion, and a minority cluster (n=283, 11.2%) exhibited more multisystem symptoms. Belonging to the more severe multisystem cluster was associated with more severe functional impact, lower income, younger age, being female, worse baseline health, and inadequate rest in the first two weeks of the illness, with no major differences in the cluster patterns when restricting analysis to the lab-confirmed subgroup. This is an exploratory survey of Long Covid characteristics. Whilst it is important to acknowledge that it is a non-representative population sample, it highlights the heterogeneity of persistent symptoms, and the significant functional impact of prolonged illness following confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. To study prevalence, predictors and prognosis, research is needed in a representative population sample using standardised case definitions (to include those not lab-confirmed in the first pandemic wave).

Long Covid in adults discharged from UK hospitals after Covid-19: A prospective, multicentre cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol. (preprint)

Structured Abstract Objectives: The long-term consequences of severe Covid-19 requiring hospital admission are not well characterised. The objective of this study was to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation and the impact these may have on patient reported outcome measures. Design: A multicentre, prospective cohort study with at least 3 months follow-up of participants admitted to hospital between 5th February 2020 and 5th October 2020. Setting: 31 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants: 327 hospitalised participants discharged alive from hospital with confirmed/high likelihood SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main outcome measures and comparisons: The primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, new or increased disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). We compared these outcome measures across age, comorbidity status and in-hospital Covid-19 severity to identify groups at highest risk of developing long-term difficulties. Multilevel logistic and linear regression models were built to adjust for the effects of patient and centre level risk factors on these outcomes. Results: In total 53.7% (443/824) contacted participants responded, yielding 73.8% (327/443) responses with follow-up of 90 days or more from symptom onset. The median time between symptom onset of initial illness and completing the participant questionnaire was 222 days (Interquartile range (IQR) 189 to 269 days). In total, 54.7% (179/327) of participants reported they did not feel fully recovered. Persistent symptoms were reported by 93.3% (305/325) of participants, with fatigue the most common (82.8%, 255/308), followed by breathlessness (53.5%, 175/327). 46.8% (153/327) reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24.2% (79/327) of participants. Overall (EQ5D-5L) summary index was significantly worse at the time of follow-up (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. Conclusions: Survivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present even in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females. Policymakers should fund further research to identify effective treatments for long-Covid and ensure healthcare, social care and welfare support is available for individuals with long-Covid.

Characterising long-term covid-19: a rapid living systematic review (preprint)

ObjectiveTo understand the frequency, profile, and duration of persistent symptoms of covid-19 and to update this understanding as new evidence emerges. DesignA living systematic review produced in response to the rapidly evolving evidence base for long covid. Data sourcesMedline and CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), WHO Global Research Database on covid-19, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar to 28th September 2020. Study selectionStudies reporting long-term symptoms and complications among people with confirmed or suspected covid-19, both in those previously hospitalised and those never hospitalised. Only studies incorporating over 100 participants qualified for data extraction and were assessed for risk of bias. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics. Quality assessmentRisk of bias was assessed using a quality assessment checklist for prevalence studies. ResultsTwenty-eight studies qualified for data extraction; 16 of these were cohort studies, ten cross-sectional, and two large case series. The analysis included 9,442 adults with covid-19 from 13 countries. The longest mean follow-up period was 111 (SD: 11) days post-hospital discharge. A wide range of systemic, cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, neurological, and psychosocial symptoms was reported, of which the most common were breathlessness, fatigue, smell and taste disturbance, and anxiety. Persistent symptoms were described across both previously hospitalised and non-hospitalised populations. The quality of evidence was low, with a high risk of bias and heterogeneity in prevalence. The incorporated studies demonstrated limited external validity, a lack of control subjects, and inconsistent data collection methods. Few studies were conducted in primary care, no studies focused solely on children, and no studies were set in low- and middle-income countries. ConclusionOur findings suggest that long covid is a complex, heterogeneous condition; however, the limited evidence base currently precludes a precise definition of its symptoms and prevalence. There is a clear need for robust, controlled, prospective cohort studies, including different at-risk populations and settings, incorporating appropriate investigations, collected and recorded in a standardised way. Systematic review registrationThe protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020211131). Readers noteThis living systematic review will be updated regularly as new evidence emerges. The search terms and inclusion criteria will be updated in line with new evidence, research priorities and policy needs. This version is the original publication. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. O_TEXTBOXSection 1: What is already known on this topic? O_LIA significant number of people continue to describe symptoms long after the acute phase of covid-19 is over, so called long covid. C_LIO_LIThere is no case definition for long covid, which appears to be a heterogeneous condition with an uncertain prevalence. C_LI Section 2: What this study adds O_LIThis living systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of the published evidence on persistent symptoms of covid-19 and will be regularly updated. C_LIO_LIThe breadth of reported symptoms suggests a complex, heterogeneous condition affecting both hospitalised patients and those managed in the community. C_LIO_LIHowever, the current evidence base of the clinical spectrum of long covid is of limited quality and is vulnerable to biases. C_LIO_LIOur review identifies those areas where further long covid research is critically needed. C_LI C_TEXTBOX

Occupation and risk of COVID-19: prospective cohort study of 120,621 UK Biobank participants (preprint)

Objectives: To investigate COVID-19 risk by occupational group. Design: Prospective study of linked population-based and administrative data. Setting: UK Biobank data linked to SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England from 16 March to 3 May 2020. Participants: 120,621 UK Biobank participants who were employed or self-employed at baseline (2006-2010) and were 65 years or younger in March 2020. Overall, 29% (n=37,890) were employed in essential occupational groups, which included healthcare workers, social and education workers, and other essential workers comprising of police and protective service, food, and transport workers. Poisson regression models, adjusted for baseline sociodemographic, work-related, health, and lifestyle-related risk factors were used to assess risk ratios (RRs) of testing positive in hospital by occupational group as reported at baseline relative to non-essential workers. Main outcome measures: Positive SARS-CoV-2 test within a hospital setting (i.e. as an inpatient or in an Emergency Department). Results: 817 participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and of these, 206 (0.2%) individuals had a positive test in a hospital setting. Relative to non-essential workers, healthcare workers (RR 7.59, 95% CI: 5.43 to 10.62) and social and education workers (RR 2.17, 95% CI: 1.37 to 3.46) had a higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in hospital. Using more detailed groupings, medical support staff (RR 8.57, 95% CI: 4.35 to 16.87) and social care workers (RR 2.99, 95% CI: 1.71 to 5.24) had highest risk within the healthcare worker and social and education worker categories, respectively. In general, adjustment for covariates did not substantially change the pattern of occupational differences in risk. Conclusions: Essential workers in health and social care have a higher risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings underscore the need for national and organisational policies and practices that protect and support workers with elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for COVID-19: results from UK Biobank (preprint)

Background Information on risk factors for COVID-19 is sub-optimal. We investigated demographic, lifestyle, socioeconomic, and clinical risk factors, and compared them to risk factors for pneumonia and influenza in UK Biobank. Methods UK Biobank recruited 37-70 year olds in 2006-2010 from the general population. The outcome of confirmed COVID-19 infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test) was linked to baseline UK Biobank data. Incident influenza and pneumonia were obtained from primary care data. Poisson regression was used to study the association of exposure variables with outcomes. Findings Among 428,225 participants, 340 had confirmed COVID-19. After multivariable adjustment, modifiable risk factors were higher body mass index (RR 1.24 per SD increase), smoking (RR 1.38), slow walking pace as a proxy for physical fitness (RR 1.66) and use of blood pressure medications as a proxy for hypertension (RR 1.40). Non-modifiable risk factors included older age (RR 1.10 per 5 years), male sex (RR 1.64), black ethnicity (RR 1.86), socioeconomic deprivation (RR 1.26 per SD increase in Townsend Index), longstanding illness (RR 1.38) and high cystatin C (RR 1.24 per 1 SD increase). The risk factors overlapped with pneumonia somewhat; less so for influenza. The associations with modifiable risk factors were generally stronger for COVID-19, than pneumonia or influenza. Interpretation These findings suggest that modification of lifestyle may help to reduce the risk of COVID-19 and could be a useful adjunct to other interventions, such as social distancing and shielding of high risk. Funding British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office.