Mental health in a diverse sample of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional analysis of the UK-REACH study

ObjectivesTo investigate how ethnicity and other sociodemographic, work, and physical health factors are related to mental health in UK healthcare and ancillary workers (HCWs), and how structural inequities in these factors may contribute to differences in mental health by ethnicity. DesignCross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the UK-REACH national cohort study SettingHCWs across UK healthcare settings. Participants11,695 HCWs working between December 2020-March 2021. Main outcome measuresAnxiety or depression symptoms (4-item Patient Health Questionnaire, cut-off >3), and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms (3-item civilian PTSD Checklist, cut-off >5). ResultsAsian, Black, Mixed/multiple and Other ethnic groups had greater odds of PTSD than the White ethnic group. Differences in anxiety/depression were less pronounced. Younger, female HCWs, and those who were not doctors had increased odds of symptoms of both PTSD and anxiety/depression. Ethnic minority HCWs were more likely to experience the following work factors that were also associated with mental ill-health: workplace discrimination, feeling insecure in raising workplace concerns, seeing more patients with COVID-19, reporting lack of access to personal protective equipment (PPE), and working longer hours and night shifts. Ethnic minority HCWs were also more likely to live in a deprived area and have experienced bereavement due to COVID-19. After adjusting for sociodemographic and work factors, ethnic differences in PTSD were less pronounced and ethnic minority HCWs had lower odds of anxiety/depression compared to White HCWs. ConclusionsEthnic minority HCWs were more likely to experience PTSD and disproportionately experienced work and sociodemographic factors associated with PTSD, anxiety and depression. These findings could help inform future work to develop workplace strategies to safeguard HCWs mental health. This will only be possible with adequate investment in staff recruitment and retention, alongside concerted efforts to address inequities due to structural discrimination. Summary boxO_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABSO_LIThe pandemic is placing healthcare workers under immense pressure, and there is currently a mental health crisis amongst NHS staff C_LIO_LIEthnic inequities in health outcomes are driven by structural discrimination, which occurs inside and outside the workplace C_LIO_LIInvestigating ethnic inequities in the mental health of healthcare workers requires large diverse studies, of which few exist C_LI What this study addsO_LIIn UK-REACH (N=11,695), ethnic minority staff had higher odds of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms; we report many other factors associated with mental-ill health, including those experienced disproportionately by ethnic minority staff, such as workplace discrimination, contact with more patients with COVID-19, and bereavement due to COVID-19 C_LIO_LIThese findings underline the moral and practical need to care for staff mental health and wellbeing, which includes tackling structural inequities in the workplace; improving staff mental health may also reduce workforce understaffing due to absence and attrition C_LI

Healthcare workers' views on mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the United Kingdom: findings from the UK-REACH prospective longitudinal cohort study

BackgroundSeveral countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs views on this are largely unknown. MethodsWe administered an online questionnaire to 17891 United Kingdom (UK) HCWs in Spring 2021 as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) nationwide prospective cohort study. We categorised responses to a free-text question "What should society do if people dont get vaccinated against COVID-19?" using content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not and used logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and occupational, health and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics. FindingsOf 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the freetext question; 18% (n=578) of those favoured mandatory vaccination but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n=1047). Older HCWs, HCWs vaccinated against influenza (OR 1.48; 95%CI 1.10 - 1.99, vs none) and with more positive vaccination attitudes generally (OR 1.10; 95%CI 1.06 - 1.14) were more likely to favour mandatory vaccination (OR 1.26; 95%CI 1.17 - 1.37, per decade increase), whereas female HCWs (OR= 0.80, 95%CI 0.65 - 0.99, vs male), Black HCWs (OR= 0.48, 95%CI 0.26 - 0.87, vs White), those hesitant about COVID-19 vaccination (OR= 0.56; 95%CI 0.43 - 0.71, vs not hesitant), in an Allied Health Profession (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.51 - 0.88, vs Medical), or who trusted their organisation (OR 0.78; 95%CI 0.63 - 0.96) were less likely to. InterpretationOnly one in six of the HCWs in this large, diverse, UK-wide sample favoured mandatory vaccination. Building trust, educating and supporting HCWs who are hesitant about vaccination may be more acceptable, effective and equitable. FundingMRC-UK Research and Innovation grant (MR/V027549/1) and the Department of Health and Social Care via the National Institute for Health Research.

Vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19 explored in a phenomic study of 259 socio-cognitive-behavioural measures in the UK-REACH study of 12,431 UK healthcare workers

BackgroundVaccination is key to successful prevention of COVID-19 particularly nosocomial acquired infection in health care workers (HCWs). Vaccine hesitancy is common in the population and in HCWs, and like COVID-19 itself, hesitancy is more frequent in ethnic minority groups. UK-REACH (United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes) is a large-scale study of COVID-19 in UK HCWs from diverse ethnic backgrounds, which includes measures of vaccine hesitancy. The present study explores predictors of vaccine hesitancy using a phenomic approach, considering several hundred questionnaire-based measures. MethodsUK-REACH includes a questionnaire study encompassing 12,431 HCWs who were recruited from December 2020 to March 2021 and completed a lengthy online questionnaire (785 raw items; 392 derived measures; 260 final measures). Ethnicity was classified using the Office for National Statistics five (ONS5) and eighteen (ONS18) categories. Missing data were handled by multiple imputation. Variable selection used the islasso package in R, which provides standard errors so that results from imputations could be combined using Rubins rules. The data were modelled using path analysis, so that predictors, and predictors of predictors could be assessed. Significance testing used the Bayesian approach of Kass and Raftery, a very strong Bayes Factor of 150, N=12,431, and a Bonferroni correction giving a criterion of p<4.02 x 10-8 for the main regression, and p<3.11 x 10-10 for variables in the path analysis. ResultsAt the first step of the phenomic analysis, six variables were direct predictors of greater vaccine hesitancy: Lower pro-vaccination attitudes; no flu vaccination in 2019-20; pregnancy; higher COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs; younger age; and lower optimism the roll-out of population vaccination. Overall 44 lower variables in total were direct or indirect predictors of hesitancy, with the remaining 215 variables in the phenomic analysis not independently predicting vaccine hesitancy. Key variables for predicting hesitancy were belief in conspiracy theories of COVID-19 infection, and a low belief in vaccines in general. Conspiracy beliefs had two main sets of influences: O_LIHigher Fatalism, which was influenced a) by high external and chance locus of control and higher need for closure, which in turn were associated with neuroticism, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness; and b) by religion being important in everyday life, and being Muslim. C_LIO_LIreceiving information via social media, not having higher education, and perceiving greater risks to self, the latter being influenced by higher concerns about spreading COVID, greater exposure to COVID-19, and financial concerns. C_LI There were indirect effects of ethnicity, mediated by religion. Religion was more important for Pakistani and African HCWs, and less important for White and Chinese groups. Lower age had a direct effect on hesitancy, and age and female sex also had several indirect effects on hesitancy. ConclusionsThe phenomic approach, coupled with a path analysis revealed a complex network of social, cognitive, and behavioural influences on SARS-Cov-2 vaccine hesitancy from 44 measures, 6 direct and 38 indirect, with the remaining 215 measures not having direct or indirect effects on hesitancy. It is likely that issues of trust underpin many associations with hesitancy. Understanding such a network of influences may help in tailoring interventions to address vaccine concerns and facilitate uptake in more hesistant groups. FundingUKMRI-MRC and NIHR

Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a multi-ethnic cohort of United Kingdom healthcare workers: a prospective nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH)

IntroductionHealthcare workers (HCWs), particularly those from ethnic minority groups, have been shown to be at disproportionately higher risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to the general population. However, there is insufficient evidence on how demographic and occupational factors influence infection risk among ethnic minority HCWs. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 Outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study. We used logistic regression to examine associations of demographic, household and occupational predictor variables with SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by PCR, serology or suspected COVID-19) in a diverse group of HCWs. Results2,496 of the 10,772 HCWs (23.2%) who worked during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020 reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. In an adjusted model, demographic and household factors associated with increased odds of infection included younger age, living with other key workers and higher religiosity. Important occupational risk factors associated with increased odds of infection included attending to a higher number of COVID-19 positive patients (aOR 2.49, 95%CI 2.03-3.05 for [≥]21 patients per week vs none), working in a nursing or midwifery role (1.35, 1.15- 1.58, compared to doctors), reporting a lack of access to personal protective equipment (1.27, 1.15 - 1.41) and working in an ambulance (1.95, 1.52-2.50) or hospital inpatient setting (1.54, 1.37 - 1.74). Those who worked in Intensive Care Units were less likely to have been infected (0.76, 0.63-0.90) than those who did not. Black HCWs were more likely to have been infected than their White colleagues, an effect which attenuated after adjustment for other known predictors. ConclusionsWe identified key sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst UK HCWs, and have determined factors that might contribute to a disproportionate odds of infection in HCWs from Black ethnic groups. These findings demonstrate the importance of social and occupational factors in driving ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes, and should inform policies, including targeted vaccination strategies and risk assessments aimed at protecting HCWs in future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registrationISRCTN 11811602

Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH)

ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate personal protective equipment (aPPE) for healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) during the first UK national COVID-19 lockdown (March 2020) and at the time of questionnaire response (December 2020 - February 2021). DesignTwo cross sectional analyses using data from a questionnaire-based cohort study. SettingNationwide questionnaire from 4th December 2020 to 28th February 2021. ParticipantsA representative sample of HCWs or ancillary workers in a UK healthcare setting aged 16 or over, registered with one of seven main UK healthcare regulatory bodies. Main outcome measureBinary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). Results10,508 HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 3702 (35.2%) of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 6806 (83.9%) reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. After adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector, work region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs (per decade increase in age: aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.26, p<0.001) and those working in Intensive Care Units (1.61, 1.38 - 1.89, p<0.001) were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Those from Asian ethnic groups compared to White (0.77, 0.67-0.89, p<0.001), those in allied health professional (AHPs) and dental roles (vs those in medical roles; AHPs: 0.77, 0.68 - 0.87, p<0.001; dental: 0.63, 0.49-0.81, p<0.001), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none ([≥]21 patients 0.74, 0.61-0.90, p=0.003) were less likely to report aPPE at all times in the primary analysis. aPPE at all times was also not uniform across UK regions (reported access being better in South West and North East England than London). Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times (2.18, 1.97-2.40, p<0.001). With the exception of occupation, these factors were also significantly associated with aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. ConclusionsWe found that only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the period of the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key sociodemographic and occupational determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, the majority of which have persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important public health implications for HCWs, particularly as cases of infection and long-COVID continue to rise in the UK. Trial registrationISRCTN 11811602 What is already known on this topicAccess to personal protective equipment (PPE) is crucial to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from infection. Limited data exist concerning the prevalence of, and factors relating to, PPE access for HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) during the COVID-19 pandemic. What this study addsOnly a third of HCWs reported having access to appropriate PPE all of the time during the first UK national lockdown. Older HCWs, those working in Intensive Care Units and those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, were more likely to report access to adequate PPE. Those from Asian ethnic groups (compared to White ethnic groups) and those who saw a high number of COVID-19 were less likely to report access to adequate PPE. Our findings have important implications for the mental and physical health of HCWs working during the pandemic in the UK.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study

BackgroundIn most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs. MethodsNationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis. Findings11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks. InterpretationDespite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks. FundingMRC-UK Research and Innovation (MR/V027549/1), the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Biomedical Research Centres and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched Pubmed using the following search terms ((COVID-19).ti,ab OR (SARS-CoV-2).ti,ab) AND ((vaccine).ti,ab OR (vaccination).ti,ab OR (immunisation).ti,ab)) AND ((healthcare worker).ti,ab OR (health worker).ti,ab OR (doctor).ti,ab OR (nurse).ti,ab OR (healthcare professional).ti,ab)) AND ((hesitancy).ti,ab OR (refusal).ti,ab OR (uptake).ti,ab)). The search returned 60 results, of which 38 were excluded after title and abstract screening, 11 studies were not conducted in a population of healthcare workers, 20 did not present data on vaccine intention or uptake, 5 were related to vaccines other than the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, 1 was unrelated to vaccination and 1 had been withdrawn. The 22 remaining articles were survey studies focussed on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intention in healthcare workers. Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance varied widely from 27{middle dot}7% - 94{middle dot}5% depending on the country in which the study was performed, and the occupational group studied. Only 2 studies (both conducted in the USA) had a sample size greater than 10,000. Most studies found females, non-medical healthcare staff and those refusing influenza vaccine to be more likely to be hesitant. There was conflicting evidence about the effects of age and previous COVID-19 on hesitancy. Only 3 studies (all from the USA), presented data disaggregated by ethnicity, all finding Black ethnic HCWs were most likely to be hesitant. Common themes amongst studies that investigated reasons for vaccine hesitancy were concerns about safety of vaccines, fear of side effects and short development timeframes. We did not find any studies on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in UK healthcare workers in the published literature. Added value of this studyThis study is amongst the largest SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy studies in the literature. It is the largest study outside the USA and is the only study in UK HCWs. Our work focusses on the association of ethnicity with vaccine hesitancy, and we are the first study outside the USA to present results by ethnic group. The large number of ethnic minority HCWs in our study allows for examination of the outcome by more granular ethnicity categories than have previously been studied, allowing us to detect important differences in vaccine hesitancy levels within the broad White and Asian ethnic groupings. Our large sample size and the richness of our cohort study dataset allows us to control for many potential confounders in our multivariable analysis, and provide novel data on important potential drivers of hesitancy including discrimination, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, religion/religiosity and personality traits. Additionally, we combine quantitative with qualitative data providing a deeper understanding of the drivers of hesitancy and potential strategies to improve vaccine uptake in HCWs from ethnic minority communities. Implications of all the available evidenceAround a quarter of UK healthcare workers reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy. In accordance with previous studies in other countries, we determined that female sex and lack of influenza vaccine in the previous season were important predictors of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in UK HCWs, although in contrast to most studies in the published literature, after adjustment we do not demonstrate differences in hesitancy levels by occupational role. Importantly, previous literature provides conflicting evidence of the effects of age and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on vaccine hesitancy. In our study, younger HCWs and those with evidence of previous COVID-19 were more likely to be hesitant. This study provides novel data on increased hesitancy levels within Black Caribbean, Mixed White and Black Caribbean, Black African, Chinese, Pakistani and White Other ethnic groups. Mistrust (of vaccines in general, in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines specifically, in healthcare systems and research) and misinformation appear to be important drivers of hesitancy within HCWS in the UK. Our data indicate that despite facing an increased risk of COVID-19 compared to their White colleagues, UK HCWs from some ethnic minority groups continue to exhibit greater levels of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy. This study provides policy makers with evidence to inform strategies to improve uptake.

The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH): Protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of healthcare and ancillary workers in UK healthcare settings

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality, and has devastated economies in many countries. Amongst the groups identified as being at increased risk from COVID-19 are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related physical and mental health outcomes. To date there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK healthcare workers or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation type, and adjusted for potential confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers). Methods and analysisA baseline questionnaire with follow-up questionnaires at 4 and 8 months will be administered to a national cohort of UK healthcare workers and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators. With consent, data will be linked to health records, and participants followed up for 25 years. Univariate associations between ethnicity and primary outcome measures (clinical COVID-19 outcomes, and physical and mental health) and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested, followed by multivariable analyses to test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables, with interactions included as appropriate. Using follow-up data, multilevel models will be used to model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings. Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk to participants. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress due to being asked questions on sensitive topics by clearly indicating on the participant information sheet that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and that participants are under no obligation to answer these, or indeed any other, questions, and by providing links to support organisations. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers uploaded to pre-print servers and submitted to peer reviewed journals. Registration detailsTrial ID: ISRCTN11811602 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDYO_LINational, UK-wide, study, aiming to capture variety of healthcare worker job roles including ancillary workers in healthcare settings. C_LIO_LILongitudinal study including three waves of questionnaire data collection, and linkage to administrative data over 25 years, with consent. C_LIO_LIUnique support from all major UK healthcare worker regulators, relevant healthcare worker organisations, and a Professional Expert Panel to increase participant uptake and the validity of findings. C_LIO_LIPotential for self-selection bias and low response rates, and the use of electronic invitations and online data collection makes it harder to reach ancillary workers without regular access to work email addresses. C_LI

Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ImportanceThe association of ethnicity with outcomes in patients with COVID-19 is unclear. ObjectiveTo determine whether the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality are associated with ethnicity. Data SourcesWe searched all English language articles published 1st December 2019 - 30th June 2020 within MEDLINE, EMBASE, PROSPERO and the Cochrane library using indexing terms for COVID-19 and ethnicity, as well as manuscripts awaiting peer review on MedRxiv during the same period. Study SelectionIncluded studies reported original clinical data, disaggregated by ethnicity, on patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. We excluded correspondence, area level, modelling and basic science articles. Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion. Of 926 identified articles, 35 were included in the meta-analyses. Data Extraction and SynthesisThe review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Reviewers independently extracted data using a piloted form on: (1) rates of infection, ICU admission and mortality by ethnicity; and (2) unadjusted and adjusted data comparing ethnic minority and White groups. Data were pooled using random effects models. Main Outcomes and MeasuresOutcomes were: (1) infection with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed on molecular testing; (2) ICU admission; and (3) mortality in COVID-19 confirmed and suspected cases. Results13,535,562 patients from 35 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Black, Asian and Hispanic individuals had a greater risk of infection compared to White individuals (Black: pooled adjusted RR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.59-2.67; Asian: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.15-1.59; Hispanic: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.39-2.25). Black individuals were significantly more likely to be admitted to ICU than White individuals (pooled adjusted RR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.02-2.55). Risk of mortality was similar across ethnicities among hospitalised patients, but increased among Asian and Mixed ethnic groups in the general population. ConclusionsBlack, Asian and Hispanic ethnic groups are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Black individuals may be more likely to require ICU admission for COVID-19. There may also be disparities in risk of death from COVID-19 at a population level. Our findings are of critical public health importance and should inform policy on minimising SARS-CoV-2 exposure in ethnic minority groups. KEY POINTSO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSIs ethnicity associated with vulnerability to, and outcomes from, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? FindingsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, rates of infection and outcomes from COVID-19 were compared between ethnic groups. Individuals from Black, Asian and Hispanic ethnicity were significantly more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection than those of White ethnicity. Black individuals were more likely to need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for COVID-19 than White individuals. Risk of mortality was similar across ethnicities among hospitalised patients, but increased among Asian and Mixed ethnic groups in the general population. MeaningThere is strong evidence for an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst ethnic minorities, and targeted public health policies are required to reduce this risk.