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

Introduction: Following the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, record numbers of people became economically inactive (i.e., neither working nor looking for work), or non-employed (including unemployed job seekers and economically inactive people). A possible explanation is people leaving the workforce after contracting COVID-19. We investigated whether testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 is related to subsequent economic inactivity and non-employment, among people employed pre-pandemic. Methods: The data came from five UK longitudinal population studies held by both the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration (UK LLC; primary analyses) and the UK Data Service (UKDS; secondary analyses). We pooled data from five long established studies (1970 British Cohort Study, English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, 1958 National Child Development Study, Next Steps, and Understanding Society). The study population were aged 25-65 years between March 2020 to March 2021 and employed pre-pandemic. Outcomes were economic inactivity and non-employment measured at the time of the last follow-up survey (November 2020 to March 2021, depending on study). For the UK LLC sample (n=8,174), COVID-19 infection was indicated by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in NHS England records. For the UKDS sample we used self-reported measures of COVID-19 infection (n=13,881). Logistic regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) adjusting for potential confounders including sociodemographic variables, pre-pandemic health and occupational class. Results: 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 the primary analyses. In secondary analyses, self-reported test-confirmed COVID-19 was not associated with either economic inactivity (OR 1.01 95%CI 0.70-1.44) or non-employment status (OR 1.03 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 non-employment. Research on the recent increases in economic inactivity should focus on other potential causes.

Associations between self-reported healthcare disruption due to covid-19 and avoidable hospital admission: evidence from seven linked longitudinal studies for England.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether there is an association between people who experienced disrupted access to healthcare during the covid-19 pandemic and risk of an avoidable hospital admission. DESIGN: Observational analysis using evidence from seven linked longitudinal cohort studies for England. SETTING: Studies linked to electronic health records from NHS Digital from 1 March 2020 to 25 August 2022. Data were accessed using the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration trusted research environment. PARTICIPANTS: Individual level records for 29 276 people. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Avoidable hospital admissions defined as emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive and emergency urgent care sensitive conditions. RESULTS: 9742 participants (weighted percentage 35%, adjusted for sample structure of longitudinal cohorts) self-reported some form of disrupted access to healthcare during the covid-19 pandemic. People with disrupted access were at increased risk of any (odds ratio 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.34), acute (2.01, 1.39 to 2.92), and chronic (1.80, 1.31 to 2.48) ambulatory care sensitive hospital admissions. For people who experienced disrupted access to appointments (eg, visiting their doctor or an outpatient department) and procedures (eg, surgery, cancer treatment), positive associations were found with measures of avoidable hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from linked individual level data shows that people whose access to healthcare was disrupted were more likely to have a potentially preventable hospital admission. The findings highlight the need to increase healthcare investment to tackle the short and long term implications of the pandemic, and to protect treatments and procedures during future pandemics.

Home working and social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Evidence from 7 longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Home working has increased since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's onset with concerns that it may have adverse health implications. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing among the employed population aged 16 to 66 through harmonised analyses of 7 UK longitudinal studies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across 3 different stages of the pandemic (T1 = April to June 2020 -first lockdown, T2 = July to October 2020 -eased restrictions, T3 = November 2020 to March 2021 -second lockdown) using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. We successively adjusted the model for sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex), job characteristics (e.g., sector of activity, pre-pandemic home working propensities), and pre-pandemic health. Among respectively 10,367, 11,585, and 12,179 participants at T1, T2, and T3, 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 to 1.08) or T2 (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.30). Study limitations include the fact that pre-pandemic home working propensities were derived from external sources, no information was collected on home working dosage and possible reverse association between change in wellbeing and home working likelihood. CONCLUSIONS: No clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress during the second lockdown, but differences across subgroups (e.g., by sex or level of education) 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.

Association between home working and mental health by key worker status during the Covid-19 pandemic. Evidence from four British longitudinal studies.

Little is known about the relationship between homeworking and mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic and how it might differ by keyworker status. To understand this relationship, we use longitudinal data collected over three time points during the pandemic from three British cohort studies born in 1958 (National Child Development Study), 1970 (British Cohort Study) and 1989-90 (Next Step) as well as from a population-based study stratified by four age groups (Understanding Society). We estimate the association between life satisfaction, anxiety, depression, and psychological distress and homeworking by key worker status using mixed effects models with maximum likelihood estimation to account for repeated measurements across the pandemic, allowing intercepts to vary across individuals after controlling for a set of covariates including pre-pandemic home working propensities and loneliness. Results show that key workers working from home showed the greatest decline in mental health outcomes relative to other groups. Pre-pandemic homeworking did not significantly change the nature of such a relationship and loneliness slightly attenuated some of the effects. Finally, mental health outcomes varied across age-groups and time points. The discussion emphasises the need to pay attention to key workers when assessing the relationship between mental health and homeworking.

Rationale and design of a longitudinal study of cerebral small vessel diseases, clinical and imaging outcomes in patients presenting with mild ischaemic stroke: Mild Stroke Study 3.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral small vessel disease is a major cause of dementia and stroke, visible on brain magnetic resonance imaging. Recent data suggest that small vessel disease lesions may be dynamic, damage extends into normal-appearing brain and microvascular dysfunctions include abnormal blood-brain barrier leakage, vasoreactivity and pulsatility, but much remains unknown regarding underlying pathophysiology, symptoms, clinical features and risk factors of small vessel disease.Patients and Methods: The Mild Stroke Study 3 is a prospective observational cohort study to identify risk factors for and clinical implications of small vessel disease progression and regression among up to 300 adults with non-disabling stroke. We perform detailed serial clinical, cognitive, lifestyle, physiological, retinal and brain magnetic resonance imaging assessments over one year; we assess cerebrovascular reactivity, blood flow, pulsatility and blood-brain barrier leakage on magnetic resonance imaging at baseline; we follow up to four years by post and phone. The study is registered ISRCTN 12113543. SUMMARY: Factors which influence direction and rate of change of small vessel disease lesions are poorly understood. We investigate the role of small vessel dysfunction using advanced serial neuroimaging in a deeply phenotyped cohort to increase understanding of the natural history of small vessel disease, identify those at highest risk of early disease progression or regression and uncover novel targets for small vessel disease prevention and therapy.