Do social protection programmes affect the burden of breast and cervical cancer? A systematic review.

Background: Socioeconomic conditions are strongly associated with breast and cervical cancer incidence and mortality patterns; therefore, social protection programmes (SPPs) might impact these cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer outcomes and their risk/protective factors. Methods: Five databases were searched for articles that assessed participation in PPS and the incidence, survival, mortality (primary outcomes), screening, staging at diagnosis and risk/protective factors (secondary outcomes) for these cancers. Only peer-reviewed quantitative studies of women receiving SPPs compared to eligible women not receiving benefits were included. Independent reviewers selected articles, assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A harvest plot represents the included studies and shows the direction of effect, sample size and risk of bias. Findings: Of 17,080 documents retrieved, 43 studies were included in the review. No studies evaluated the primary outcomes. They all examined the relationship between SPPs and screening, as well as risk and protective factors. The harvest plot showed that in lower risk of bias studies, participants of SPPs had lower weight and fertility, were older at sexual debut, and breastfed their infants for longer. Interpretation: No studies have yet assessed the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer incidence, survival, or mortality; nevertheless, the existing evidence suggests positive impacts on risk and protective factors.

Predictors of incomplete COVID-19 vaccine schedule among adults in Scotland: Two retrospective cohort analyses of the primary schedule and third dose.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination continues to be the key public health measure for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Certain groups may be at higher risk of incomplete vaccine schedule, which may leave them vulnerable to COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. AIM: To identify the sociodemographic and clinical predictors for not receiving a scheduled COVID-19 vaccine after previously receiving one. METHODS: We conducted two retrospective cohort studies with ≥3.7 million adults aged ≥18 years in Scotland. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of not receiving a second, and separately a third dose between December 2020 and May 2022. Independent variables included sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Of 3,826,797 people in the study population who received one dose, 3,732,596 (97.5%) received two doses, and 3,263,153 (86.5%) received all doses available during the study period. The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the second dose were: being aged 18-29 (reference: 50-59 years; aOR:4.26; 95% confidence interval (CI):4.14-4.37); hospitalisation due to a potential vaccine related adverse event of special interest (AESI) (reference: not having a potential AESI, aOR:3.78; 95%CI: 3.29-4.35); and living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile, aOR:3.24; 95%CI: 3.16-3.32). The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the third dose were: being 18-29 (reference: 50-59 years aOR:4.44; 95%CI: 4.38-4.49), living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile aOR:2.56; 95%CI: 2.53-2.59), and Black, Caribbean, or African ethnicity (reference: White ethnicity aOR:2.38; 95%CI: 2.30-2.46). Pregnancy, previous vaccination with mRNA-1273, smoking history, individual and household severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity, and having an unvaccinated adult in the household were also associated with incomplete vaccine schedule. CONCLUSION: We observed several risk factors that predict incomplete COVID-19 vaccination schedule. Vaccination programmes must take immediate action to ensure maximum uptake, particularly for populations vulnerable to severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Trends in inequalities in avoidable hospitalisations across the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort study of 23.5 million people in England

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic and associated national lockdowns created unprecedented disruption to healthcare, with reduced access to services and planned clinical encounters postponed or cancelled. It was widely anticipated that failure to obtain timely treatment would cause progression of illness and increased hospital admissions. Additional concerns were that social and spatial inequalities would widen given the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 directly. The aim of our study is to determine whether this was observable in England. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we utilised individual-level electronic health records from OpenSAFELY, which covered [~]40% of general practices in England (mean monthly population size 23.5 million people). We estimated crude and directly age-standardised rates for potentially preventable unplanned hospital admissions: ambulatory care sensitive conditions and urgent emergency sensitive conditions. We considered how trends in these outcomes varied by three measures of social and spatial inequality: neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity, and geographical region. FindingsThere were large declines in avoidable hospitalisations during the first national lockdown, which then reversed post-lockdown albeit never reaching pre-pandemic levels. While trends were consistent by each measure of inequality, absolute levels of inequalities narrowed throughout 2020 (especially during the first national lockdown) and remained lower than pre-pandemic trends. While the scale of inequalities remained similar into 2021 for deprivation and ethnicity, we found evidence of widening absolute and relative inequalities by geographic region in 2021 and 2022. InterpretationThe anticipation that healthcare disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns would result in more (avoidable) hospitalisations and widening social inequalities was wrong. However, the recent growing gap between geographic regions suggests that the effects of the pandemic has reinforced spatial inequalities.

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

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic increased psychiatric distress and impacts differed by family structure. We aimed to identify mechanisms contributing to these inequalities. MethodsSurvey 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). ResultsIn 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. ConclusionsAccess to childcare/schooling, financial security and social connection are important mechanisms that need addressing to avoid widening mental health inequalities during public health crises. Key MessagesO_LICouples with young children compared to those without, had raised risk of psychiatric distress during UK lockdowns. Effect decompositions suggested this was largely due to a combination of differential exposure and vulnerability to childcare and home-schooling. C_LIO_LIAmong those without young children, being single compared to in a couple was associated with raised risk of psychiatric distress during UK lockdowns, with differential exposure to financial strain and loneliness both contributing to this inequality. C_LIO_LIThere was not sufficient evidence to indicate that being single with young children increased risk of psychiatric distress relative to couples with young children or singles without. C_LI

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.

BackgroundHome working rates have increased since the COVID-19 pandemics 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. MethodsWe 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. FindingsAmong 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. InterpretationNo 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. FundingNational Core Studies, funded by UKRI, NIHR and the Health and Safety Executive.

Antibody levels following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: associations with post-vaccination infection and risk factors

SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels can be used to assess humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and may predict risk of future infection. From cross-sectional antibody testing of 9,361 individuals from TwinsUK and ALSPAC UK population-based longitudinal studies (jointly in April-May 2021, and TwinsUK only in November 2021-January 2022), we tested associations between antibody levels following vaccination and: (1) SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination(s); (2) health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables. Within TwinsUK, single-vaccinated individuals with the lowest 20% of anti-Spike antibody levels at initial testing had 3-fold greater odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next six to nine months, compared to the top 20%. In TwinsUK and ALSPAC, individuals identified as at increased risk of COVID-19 complication through the UK "Shielded Patient List" had consistently greater odds (2 to 4-fold) of having antibody levels in the lowest 10%. Third vaccination increased absolute antibody levels for almost all individuals, and reduced relative disparities compared with earlier vaccinations. These findings quantify the association between antibody level and risk of subsequent infection, and support a policy of triple vaccination for the generation of protective antibodies. Lay summaryIn this study, we analysed blood samples from 9,361 participants from two studies in the UK: an adult twin registry, TwinsUK (4,739 individuals); and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC (4,622 individuals). We did this work as part of the UK Government National Core Studies initiative researching COVID-19. We measured blood antibodies which are specific to SARS-CoV-2 (which causes COVID-19). Having a third COVID-19 vaccination boosted antibody levels. More than 90% of people from TwinsUK had levels after third vaccination that were greater than the average level after second vaccination. Importantly, this was the case even in individuals on the UK "Shielded Patient List". We found that people with lower antibody levels after first vaccination were more likely to report having COVID-19 later on, compared to people with higher antibody levels. People on the UK "Shielded Patient List", and individuals who reported that they had poorer general health, were more likely to have lower antibody levels after vaccination. In contrast, people who had had a previous COVID-19 infection were more likely to have higher antibody levels following vaccination compared to people without infection. People receiving the Oxford/AstraZeneca rather than the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine had lower antibody levels after one or two vaccinations. However, after a third vaccination, there was no difference in antibody levels between those who had Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer BioNTech vaccines for their first two doses. These findings support having a third COVID-19 vaccination to boost antibodies.

Mental health outcomes following COVID-19 infection: Evidence from 11 UK longitudinal population studies

BackgroundEvidence on associations between COVID-19 illness and mental health is mixed. We examined longitudinal associations between COVID-19 and mental health while considering: 1) pre-pandemic mental health, 2) time since infection; 3) subgroup differences; and 4) confirmation of infection via self-reported test, and serology data. MethodsUsing data from 11 UK longitudinal studies, involving 54,442 participants, with 2 to 8 repeated measures of mental health and COVID-19 between April 2020 and April 2021, we standardised continuous mental health scales within each study across time. We investigated associations between COVID-19 (self-report, test-confirmed, serology-confirmed) and mental health using multilevel generalised estimating equations. We examined whether associations varied by age, sex, ethnicity, education and pre-pandemic mental health. Effect-sizes were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. OutcomesPooled estimates of the standardized difference in outcome between those with and without self-reported COVID-19 suggested associations with subsequent psychological distress (0.10 [95%CI: 0.06; 0.13], I2=42.8%), depression (0.08 [0.05; 0.10], I2=20.8%), anxiety (0.08 [0.05; 0.10], I2=0%), and lower life satisfaction (-0.06 [-0.08; -0.04], I2=29.2%). Associations did not vary by time since infection until 3+ months and were present in all age groups, with some evidence of stronger effects in those aged 50+. Self-reported COVID-19, whether suspected or test-confirmed and irrespective of serology status, was associated with poorer mental health. InterpretationSelf-reporting COVID-19 was longitudinally associated with deterioration in mental health and life satisfaction. Our findings have important implications for mental health service provision, given the substantial prevalence of COVID-19 in the UK and worldwide. FundingMRC and NIHR

Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection: Analysis of the UK ONS Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey

BackgroundConsiderable concern remains about how occupational SARS-CoV-2 risk has evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to ascertain which occupations had the greatest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and explore how relative differences varied over the pandemic. MethodsAnalysis of cohort data from the UK Office of National Statistics Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey from April 2020 to November 2021. This survey is designed to be representative of the UK population and uses regular PCR testing. Cox and multilevel logistic regression to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection between occupational/sector groups, overall and by four time periods with interactions, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, region, household size, urban/rural neighbourhood and current health conditions. ResultsBased on 3,910,311 observations from 312,304 working age adults, elevated risks of infection can be seen overall for social care (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24), education (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.39), bus and coach drivers (1.43; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97) and police and protective services (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62) when compared to non-essential workers. By time period, relative differences were more pronounced early in the pandemic. For healthcare elevated odds in the early waves switched to a reduction in the later stages. Education saw raises after the initial lockdown and this has persisted. Adjustment for covariates made very little difference to effect estimates. ConclusionsElevated risks among healthcare workers have diminished over time but education workers have had persistently higher risks. Long-term mitigation measures in certain workplaces may be warranted. What is already known on this topicSome occupational groups have observed increased rates of disease and mortality relating to COVID-19. What this study addsRelative differences between occupational groups have varied during different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic with risks for healthcare workers diminishing over time and workers in the education sector seeing persistent elevated risks. How this study might affect research, practice or policyIncreased long term mitigation such as ventilation should be considered in sectors with a persistent elevated risk. It is important for workplace policy to be responsive to evolving pandemic risks.

Health care use attributable to COVID-19: A propensity matched national electronic health records cohort study of 249,390 people in Wales, UK.

BackgroundTo determine the extent and nature of changes in infected patients healthcare utilization, we studied healthcare contact in the 1-4 weeks and 5-24 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis compared to propensity matched controls. MethodsSurvival analysis was used for time to death and first clinical outcomes including clinical terminology concepts for post-viral illness, fatigue, embolism, respiratory conditions, mental and developmental conditions, fit note, or hospital attendance. Increased instantaneous risk for the occurrence of an outcome for positive individuals was quantified using hazard ratios (HR) from Cox Regression and absolute risk was quantified using relative risk (RR) from life table analysis. ResultsCompared to matched individuals testing negative, surviving positive community-tested patients had a higher risk of post-viral illness (HR: 4.57, 95%CI: 1.77-11.80, p=0.002), fatigue (HR: 1.47, 95%CI: 1.24-1.75, p<0.001) and embolism (HR: 1.51, 95%CI: 1.13-2.02, p=0.005) at 5-24 weeks post-diagnosis. In the four weeks after COVID-19 higher rates of sick notes were being issued for community-tested (HR: 3.04, 95%CI: 0.88 to 10.50, p<0.079); the risk was reduced after four weeks, compared to controls. Overall healthcare attendance for anxiety, depression was less likely in those with COVID-19 in the first four weeks (HR: 0.83, 95%CI: 0.73-1.06, p=0.007). After four weeks, anxiety, depression is less likely to occur for the positive community-tested individuals (HR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.77-1.00, p=0.048), but more likely for positive hospital-tested individuals (HR: 1.16, 95%CI: 1.00-1.45, p=0.053). Although statistical associations between positive infection and post-infection healthcare use are clear, the absolute use of healthcare is very. ConclusionsCommunity COVID-19 disease is associated with increased risks of post-viral illness, fatigue, embolism, depression, anxiety and respiratory conditions. Despite these elevated risks, the absolute healthcare burden is low. Either very small proportions of people experience adverse outcomes following COVID-19 or they are not presenting to healthcare. Trial registrationData held in SAIL databank are anonymised and therefore, no ethical approval is required. All data in SAIL has the permission from the relevant Caldicott Guardian or Data Protection Officer and SAIL-related projects are required to obtain Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP) approval. The IGRP approval number for this study is 1259.

Migrants' primary care utilisation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: An interrupted time series

BackgroundHow international migrants access and use primary care in England is poorly understood. We aimed to compare primary care consultation rates between international migrants and non-migrants in England before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2015- 2020). MethodsUsing linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and the Office for National Statistics, we identified migrants using country-of-birth, visa-status or other codes indicating international migration. We ran a controlled interrupted time series (ITS) using negative binomial regression to compare rates before and during the pandemic. FindingsIn 262,644 individuals, pre-pandemic consultation rates per person-year were 4.35 (4.34-4.36) for migrants and 4.6 (4.59-4.6) for non-migrants (RR:0.94 [0.92-0.96]). Between 29 March and 26 December 2020, rates reduced to 3.54 (3.52-3.57) for migrants and 4.2 (4.17-4.23) for non-migrants (RR:0.84 [0.8-0.88]). Overall, this represents an 11% widening of the pre-pandemic difference in consultation rates between migrants and non-migrants during the first year of the pandemic (RR:0.89, 95%CI:0.84-0.94). This widening was greater for children, individuals whose first language was not English, and individuals of White British, White non-British and Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicities. InterpretationMigrants were less likely to use primary care before the pandemic and the first year of the pandemic exacerbated this difference. As GP practices retain remote and hybrid models of service delivery, they must improve services and ensure they are accessible and responsive to migrants healthcare needs. FundingThis study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/V028375/1) and Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (206602).

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

ObjectivesThe 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsPsychological 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. ConclusionsPsychological 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. O_TEXTBOXWhat is already known about this subject?Employment has been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. national and regional lockdowns) introduced to control the pandemic. The pandemic has impacted on different occupational groups in different ways and has been linked to substantial deteriorations in mental health. What are the new findings?The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health has been particularly pronounced for those working in professional and technical industries, hospitality, customer service occupations, small employers and the self-employed as well as female workers. How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?Policies should prioritise support to certain industries, occupations, the self-employed/small business owners, and particular demographic groups (e.g., women in sales and customer service occupations, younger construction or non-England workers in Public Administration and Defence) with high risk. C_TEXTBOX

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

BackgroundThe 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. MethodsData were from 25,670 respondents, aged 17 to 66, across nine UK longitudinal studies. Furlough and other employment changes were defined using employment status pre-pandemic and during the first lockdown (April-June 2020). 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 mental and social wellbeing measures, were pooled using meta-analysis. ResultsCompared 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 poor self-rated health (ARR=1.26; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.50), but excess risk was less pronounced than that of those no longer employed (e.g., ARR for psychological distress=1.39; 95% CI: 1.21, 1.59) or in stable unemployment (ARR=1.33; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.62). ConclusionsDuring 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 that of those who became or remained unemployed, suggesting that furlough may have 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.

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

ImportanceHow population mental health has evolved across the COVID-19 pandemic under varied lockdown measures is poorly understood, with impacts on health inequalities unclear. ObjectiveWe investigated changes in mental health and sociodemographic inequalities from before and across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 longitudinal studies. Design, Setting and ParticipantsData from 11 UK longitudinal population-based studies with pre-pandemic measures of psychological distress were jointly analysed and estimates pooled. Multi-level regression was used to examine changes in psychological distress from pre-pandemic to during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. ExposuresTrends in the prevalence of poor mental health were assessed pre-pandemic (TP0) and at three pandemic time periods: initial lockdown (TP1, Mar-June 20); easing of restrictions (TP2, July-Oct 20); and a subsequent lockdown (TP3, Nov 20-Mar 21). We stratified analyses by sex, ethnicity, education, age, and UK country. Main Outcomes and MeasuresPsychological distress was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire 12 (GHQ-12), Kessler-6, 9-item Malaise Inventory, Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ), Patient Health Questionnaire-8 and 9 (PHQ-8/9), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Centre for Epidemiological Studies - Depression (CES-D), across different studies. ResultsIn total, 49,993 adult participants (61.2% female; 8.7% Non-White) were analysed. Across the 11 studies, mental health deteriorated from pre-pandemic scores across all three pandemic time periods, but with considerable heterogeneity across the study-specific effect sizes estimated (pooled estimate TP1 Standardised Mean Difference (SMD): 0.15 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.25); TP2 SMD: 0.18 (0.09, 0.27); TP3 SMD: 0.21 (0.10, 0.32)). 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 lower in below-degree level educated persons at TP3 (SMD: 0.18 (0.06, 0.30)) compared to those who held degrees (SMD: 0.26 (0.14, 0.38)). Increased psychological distress was most prominent amongst adults aged 25-34 and 35-44 years compared to other age groups. We did not find evidence of changes in distress differing by ethnicity or UK country. Conclusions and RelevanceThe substantial deterioration in mental health seen in the UK during the first lockdown did not reverse when lockdown lifted, and a sustained worsening was observed across the pandemic. Mental health declines have been unequal across the population, with females, those with higher degrees, and those aged 25-44 years more affected.

An approach to quantifying the potential importance of residual confounding in systematic reviews of observational studies: A GRADE concept paper.

Small relative effect sizes are common in observational studies of exposure in environmental and public health. However, such effects can still have considerable policy importance when the baseline rate of the health outcome is high, and many persons are exposed. Assessing the certainty of the evidence based on these effect sizes is challenging because they can be prone to residual confounding due to the non-randomized nature of the evidence. When applying GRADE, a precise relative risk >2.0 increases the certainty in an existing effect because residual confounding is unlikely to explain the association. GRADE also suggests rating up when opposing plausible residual confounding exists for other effect sizes. In this concept paper, we propose using the E-value, defined as the smallest effect size of a confounder that still can reduce an observed RR to the null value, and a reference confounder to assess the likelihood of residual confounding. We propose a 4-step approach. 1. Assess the association of interest for relevant exposure levels. 2. Calculate the E-value for this observed association. 3. Choose a reference confounder with sufficient strength and information and assess its effect on the observed association using the E-value. 4. Assess how likely it is that residual confounding will still bias the observed RR. We present three case studies and discuss the feasibility of the approach.

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

BackgroundThe impact of long COVID is considerable, but risk factors are poorly characterised. We analysed symptom duration and risk factor from 10 longitudinal study (LS) samples and electronic healthcare records (EHR). MethodsSamples: 6907 adults self-reporting COVID-19 infection from 48,901 participants in the UK LS, and 3,327 adults with COVID-19, were assigned a long COVID code from 1,199,812 individuals in primary care EHR. Outcomes for LS included symptom duration lasting 4+ weeks (long COVID) and 12+ weeks. Association with of age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, smoking, general and mental health, overweight/obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and asthma was assessed. ResultsIn LS, symptoms impacted normal functioning for 12+ weeks in 1.2% (mean age 20 years) to 4.8% (mean age 63 y) of COVID-19 cases. Between 7.8% (mean age 28 y) and 17% (mean age 58 y) reported any symptoms for 12+ weeks, and greater proportions for 4+ weeks. Age was associated with a linear increased risk in long COVID between 20 and 70 years. Being female (LS: OR=1.49; 95%CI:1.24-1.79; EHR: OR=1.51 [1.41-1.61]), having 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 (LS: OR=1.32 [1.07-1.62]; EHR: OR=1.56 [1.46-1.67]), and overweight or obesity (LS: OR=1.25 [1.01-1.55]; EHR: OR=1.31 [1.21-1.42]) also had higher risk. Non-white ethnic minority groups had lower risk (LS: OR=0.32 [0.22-0.47]), a finding consistent in EHR. . Few participants had been hospitalised (0.8-5.2%). ConclusionLong COVID is associated with sociodemographic and pre-existing health factors. Further investigations into causality should inform strategies to address long COVID in the population.

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

BackgroundHealth 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. MethodsParticipants 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. ResultsPrevalence 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. ConclusionThe 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

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.