Effect of trade unions on the mental health of UK workers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis using Understanding Society data.

BACKGROUND: Although trade union membership rates have continuously decreased over the past 30 years, about 50% of UK employees are still represented by a union. Yet, studies on the association between collective bargaining and workers' mental health are sparse, especially in the pandemic context. This study examines differences on UK workers' mental health due to trade union presence and membership between pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. METHODS: In this longitudinal study, we analysed Understanding Society panel data in which the same participants are followed over time. The data concerned individuals aged 16 years and older and were collected biannually before COVID-19 pandemic (Waves 8-10: 2017-2020) and on a more frequent basis during pandemic (all COVID-19 surveys from 2020 [April, May, June, July, September, November] to 2021 [January, March, September] periods). The primary outcome was General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) caseness (GHQ-12 score ≥4: probability of caseness). Two exposures were used separately: trade union presence and trade union membership, interacting with a binary variable splitting time periods between before and during the pandemic. Our analytical sample included 49 915 observations from 5988 individuals. 3341 (56%) individuals worked in unionised workplaces. We fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, UK residence, educational level, financial situation, workplace size, and survey interview date. We then replicated the analyses including a 3-way interaction with industry. All Understanding Society participants gave written informed consent. Ethics approval was not required. FINDINGS: In our sample, approximately 41% were male and 59% were female, and the mean age was 47·2 years (SD 11·4). Comparing pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, we found that the odds of GHQ-12 caseness for those in non-unionised workplaces increased by 45% (odds ratio 1·45, 95% CI 1·17-1·80), whereas in unionised workplaces odds increased by 28% (1·28, 1·05-1·57). When analysis was confined to unionised workplaces, the odds of GHQ-12 caseness for non-union members increased more (1·40, 1·07-1·83) compared with members (1·18, 0·91-1·53); however, with wide CIs. Overall, industry had no modification effect in both exposures. Sensitivity analysis using GHQ-36 as a continuous outcome demonstrated no real change in the patterns of the results. INTERPRETATION: The mental health of workers in unionised workplaces appears to have worsened less than the mental health of those in non-unionised workplaces; however, there is insufficient evidence of effect differential by type of industrial sector. Designing policies that encourage and facilitate trade union presence in workplaces should be promoted, as they are likely to mitigate adverse mental health effects in times of extreme uncertainty. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office, Belgian National Scientific Fund.

Estimation and probabilistic projection of age- and sex-specific mortality rates across Brazilian municipalities between 2010 and 2030.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rate estimation in small areas can be difficult due the low number of events/exposure (i.e. stochastic error). If the death records are not completed, it adds a systematic uncertainty on the mortality estimates. Previous studies in Brazil have combined demographic and statistical methods to partially overcome these issues. We estimated age- and sex-specific mortality rates for all 5,565 Brazilian municipalities in 2010 and forecasted probabilistic mortality rates and life expectancy between 2010 and 2030. METHODS: We used a combination of the Tool for Projecting Age-Specific Rates Using Linear Splines (TOPALS), Bayesian Model, Spatial Smoothing Model and an ad-hoc procedure to estimate age- and sex-specific mortality rates for all Brazilian municipalities for 2010. Then we adapted the Lee-Carter model to forecast mortality rates by age and sex in all municipalities between 2010 and 2030. RESULTS: The adjusted sex- and age-specific mortality rates for all Brazilian municipalities in 2010 reveal a distinct regional pattern, showcasing a decrease in life expectancy in less socioeconomically developed municipalities when compared to estimates without adjustments. The forecasted mortality rates indicate varying regional improvements, leading to a convergence in life expectancy at birth among small areas in Brazil. Consequently, a reduction in the variability of age at death across Brazil's municipalities was observed, with a persistent sex differential. CONCLUSION: Mortality rates at a small-area level were successfully estimated and forecasted, with associated uncertainty estimates also generated for future life tables. Our approach could be applied across countries with data quality issues to improve public policy planning.

Quality of ethnicity data within Scottish health records and implications of misclassification for ethnic inequalities in severe COVID-19: a national linked data study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the quality of ethnicity coding within the Public Health Scotland Ethnicity Look-up (PHS-EL) dataset, and other National Health Service datasets, with the 2011 Scottish Census. METHODS: Measures of quality included the level of missingness and misclassification. We examined the impact of misclassification using Cox proportional hazards to compare the risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (hospitalization & death) by ethnic group. RESULTS: Misclassification within PHS-EL was higher for all minority ethnic groups [12.5 to 69.1%] compared with the White Scottish majority [5.1%] and highest in the White Gypsy/Traveller group [69.1%]. Missingness in PHS-EL was highest among the White Other British group [39%] and lowest among the Pakistani group [17%]. PHS-EL data often underestimated severe COVID-19 risk compared with Census data. e.g. in the White Gypsy/Traveller group the Hazard Ratio (HR) was 1.68 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 1.03, 2.74] compared with the White Scottish majority using Census ethnicity data and 0.73 [95% CI: 0.10, 5.15] using PHS-EL data; and HR was 2.03 [95% CI: 1.20, 3.44] in the Census for the Bangladeshi group versus 1.45 [95% CI: 0.75, 2.78] in PHS-EL. CONCLUSIONS: Poor quality ethnicity coding in health records can bias estimates, thereby threatening monitoring and understanding ethnic inequalities in health.

Estimating the causal effects of income on health: how researchers' definitions of "income" matter.

BACKGROUND: There is a well-established cross-sectional association between income and health, but estimates of the causal effects of income vary substantially. Different definitions of income may lead to substantially different empirical results, yet research is often framed as investigating "the effect of income" as if it were a single, easily definable construct. METHODS/RESULTS: The aim of this paper is to introduce a taxonomy for definitional and conceptual issues in studying individual- or household-level income for health research. We focus on (1) the definition of the income measure (earned and unearned; net, gross, and disposable; real and nominal; individual and household; relative and absolute income) and (2) the definition of the causal contrast (amount, functional form assumptions/transformations, direction, duration of change, and timing of exposure and follow-up). We illustrate the application of the taxonomy to four examples from the published literature. CONCLUSIONS: Quantified estimates of causal effects of income on health and wellbeing have crucial relevance for policymakers to anticipate the consequences of policies targeting the social determinants of health. However, much prior evidence has been limited by lack of clarity in distinguishing between different causal questions. The present framework can help researchers explicitly and precisely articulate income-related exposures and causal questions.

The intersection of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status: inequalities in breast and cervical cancer mortality in 20,665,005 adult women from the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited evidence regarding the impact of race/racism and its intersection with socioeconomic status (SES) on breast and cervical cancer, the two most common female cancers globally. We investigated racial inequalities in breast and cervical cancer mortality and whether SES (education and household conditions) interacted with race/ethnicity. DESIGN: The 100 Million Brazilian Cohort data were linked to the Brazilian Mortality Database, 2004-2015 (n = 20,665,005 adult women). We analysed the association between self-reported race/ethnicity (White/'Parda'(Brown)/Black/Asian/Indigenous) and cancer mortality using Poisson regression, adjusting for age, calendar year, education, household conditions and area of residence. Additive and multiplicative interactions were assessed. RESULTS: Cervical cancer mortality rates were higher among Indigenous (adjusted Mortality rate ratio = 1.80, 95%CI 1.39-2.33), Asian (1.63, 1.20-2.22), 'Parda'(Brown) (1.27, 1.21-1.33) and Black (1.18, 1.09-1.28) women vs White women. Breast cancer mortality rates were higher among Black (1.10, 1.04-1.17) vs White women. Racial inequalities in cervical cancer mortality were larger among women of poor household conditions, and low education (P for multiplicative interaction <0.001, and 0.02, respectively). Compared to White women living in completely adequate (3-4) household conditions, the risk of cervical cancer mortality in Black women with 3-4, 1-2, and none adequate conditions was 1.10 (1.01-1.21), 1.48 (1.28-1.71), and 2.03 (1.56-2.63), respectively (Relative excess risk due to interaction-RERI = 0.78, 0.18-1.38). Among 'Parda'(Brown) women the risk was 1.18 (1.11-1.25), 1.68 (1.56-1.81), and 1.84 (1.63-2.08), respectively (RERI = 0.52, 0.16-0.87). Compared to high-educated White women, the risk in high-, middle- and low-educated Black women was 1.14 (0.83-1.55), 1.93 (1.57-2.38) and 2.75 (2.33-3.25), respectively (RERI = 0.36, -0.05-0.77). Among 'Parda'(Brown) women the risk was 1.09 (0.91-1.31), 1.99 (1.70-2.33) and 3.03 (2.61-3.52), respectively (RERI = 0.68, 0.48-0.88). No interactions were found for breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Low SES magnified racial inequalities in cervical cancer mortality. The intersection between race/ethnicity, SES and gender needs to be addressed to reduce racial health inequalities.

Effectiveness of mRNA boosters after homologous primary series with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 against symptomatic infection and severe COVID-19 in Brazil and Scotland: A test-negative design case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Brazil and Scotland have used mRNA boosters in their respective populations since September 2021, with Omicron's emergence accelerating their booster program. Despite this, both countries have reported substantial recent increases in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. The duration of the protection conferred by the booster dose against symptomatic Omicron cases and severe outcomes is unclear. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a test-negative design, we analyzed national databases to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a primary series (with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) plus an mRNA vaccine booster (with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) against symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death) during the period of Omicron dominance in Brazil and Scotland compared to unvaccinated individuals. Additional analyses included stratification by age group (18 to 49, 50 to 64, ≥65). All individuals aged 18 years or older who reported acute respiratory illness symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022, and April 23, 2022, in Brazil and Scotland were eligible for the study. At 14 to 29 days after the mRNA booster, the VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection of ChAdOx1 plus BNT162b2 booster was 51.6%, (95% confidence interval (CI): [51.0, 52.2], p < 0.001) in Brazil and 67.1% (95% CI [65.5, 68.5], p < 0.001) in Scotland. At ≥4 months, protection against symptomatic infection waned to 4.2% (95% CI [0.7, 7.6], p = 0.02) in Brazil and 37.4% (95% CI [33.8, 40.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland. VE against severe outcomes in Brazil was 93.5% (95% CI [93.0, 94.0], p < 0.001) at 14 to 29 days post-booster, decreasing to 82.3% (95% CI [79.7, 84.7], p < 0.001) and 98.3% (95% CI [87.3, 99.8], p < 0.001) to 77.8% (95% CI [51.4, 89.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland for the same periods. Similar results were obtained with the primary series of BNT162b2 plus homologous booster. Potential limitations of this study were that we assumed that all cases included in the analysis were due to the Omicron variant based on the period of dominance and the limited follow-up time since the booster dose. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that mRNA boosters after a primary vaccination course with either mRNA or viral-vector vaccines provided modest, short-lived protection against symptomatic infection with Omicron but substantial and more sustained protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 3 months.

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.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes after full vaccination of primary schedule and initial boosters: pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies of 30 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Current UK vaccination policy is to offer future COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, but it is still uncertain which groups of the population could benefit most. In response to an urgent request from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we aimed to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death) in individuals who had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule and had received the first booster vaccine. METHODS: We constructed prospective cohorts across all four UK nations through linkages of primary care, RT-PCR testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and mortality data on 30 million people. We included individuals who received primary vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our initial analyses. We then restricted analyses to those given a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (elasomeran; Moderna) booster and had a severe COVID-19 outcome between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022 (when the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was dominant). We fitted time-dependent Poisson regression models and calculated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for the associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death. We adjusted for a range of potential covariates, including age, sex, comorbidities, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then did pooled analyses across UK nations using fixed-effect meta-analyses. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 16 208 600 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule and 13 836 390 individuals received a booster dose. Between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 59 510 (0·4%) of the primary vaccine group and 26 100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster had severe COVID-19 outcomes. The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes reduced after receiving the booster (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years). Older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45-3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07-9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20-1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions-in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53-6·09])-and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90-4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29-0·58]). INTERPRETATION: Older people, those with multimorbidity, and those with specific underlying health conditions remain at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the initial vaccine booster and should, therefore, be prioritised for additional boosters, including novel optimised versions, and the increasing array of COVID-19 therapeutics. FUNDING: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Two-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine protection against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths over time: a retrospective, population-based cohort study in Scotland and Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants-especially delta (B.1.617.2)-is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon). METHODS: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2-3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54-2·62) at 10-11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26-3·99) at 14-15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00-7·38) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01-2·61) at 10-11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63-3·64) at 14-15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83-5·78) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7-87·0) at 2-3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9-78·6) at 14-15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6-67·4) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4-87·3) at 2-3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6-64·2) at 14-15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4-50·6) at 18-19 weeks. INTERPRETATION: We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Occupational differences in the prevalence and severity of long-COVID: analysis of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To establish whether prevalence and severity of long-COVID symptoms vary by industry and occupation. METHODS: We used Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS) data (February 2021-April 2022) of working-age participants (16-65 years). Exposures were industry, occupation and major Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) group. Outcomes were self-reported: (1) long-COVID symptoms and (2) reduced function due to long-COVID. Binary (outcome 1) and ordered (outcome 2) logistic regression were used to estimate odds ratios (OR)and prevalence (marginal means). RESULTS: Public facing industries, including teaching and education, social care, healthcare, civil service, retail and transport industries and occupations, had the highest likelihood of long-COVID. By major SOC group, those in caring, leisure and other services (OR 1.44, 95% CIs 1.38 to 1.52) had substantially elevated odds than average. For almost all exposures, the pattern of ORs for long-COVID symptoms followed SARS-CoV-2 infections, except for professional occupations (eg, some healthcare, education, scientific occupations) (infection: OR<1 ; long-COVID: OR>1). The probability of reporting long-COVID for industry ranged from 7.7% (financial services) to 11.6% (teaching and education); whereas the prevalence of reduced function by 'a lot' ranged from 17.1% (arts, entertainment and recreation) to 22%-23% (teaching and education and armed forces) and to 27% (not working). CONCLUSIONS: The risk and prevalence of long-COVID differs across industries and occupations. Generally, it appears that likelihood of developing long-COVID symptoms follows likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, except for professional occupations. These findings highlight sectors and occupations where further research is needed to understand the occupational factors resulting in long-COVID.

Potential contribution of vaccination uptake to occupational differences in risk of SARS-CoV-2: analysis of the ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess variation in vaccination uptake across occupational groups as a potential explanation for variation in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: We analysed data from the UK Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey linked to vaccination data from the National Immunisation Management System in England from 1 December 2020 to 11 May 2022. We analysed vaccination uptake and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk by occupational group and assessed whether adjustment for vaccination reduced the variation in risk between occupational groups. RESULTS: Estimated rates of triple vaccination were high across all occupational groups (80% or above), but were lowest for food processing (80%), personal care (82%), hospitality (83%), manual occupations (84%) and retail (85%). High rates were observed for individuals working in health (95% for office based, 92% for those in patient-facing roles) and education (91%) and office-based workers not included in other categories (90%). The impact of adjusting for vaccination when estimating relative risks of infection was generally modest (ratio of hazard ratios across all occupational groups reduced from 1.37 to 1.32), but was consistent with the hypothesis that low vaccination rates contribute to elevated risk in some groups. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in vaccination coverage might account for a modest proportion of occupational differences in infection risk. Vaccination rates were uniformly very high in this cohort, which may suggest that the participants are not representative of the general population. Accordingly, these results should be considered tentative pending the accumulation of additional evidence.

Exploring the health and sociodemographic characteristics of people seeking advice with claiming universal credit: a cross-sectional analysis of UK citizens advice data, 2017-2021.

BACKGROUND: The UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) administers Universal Credit (UC) - the main UK benefit for people in- and out-of-work. UC is being rolled out nationally from 2013 to 2024. Citizens Advice (CA) is an independent charity that provides advice and support to people making a claim for UC. The aim of this study is to understand who is seeking advice from CA when making a UC claim and how the types of people seeking advice are changing as the rollout of UC continues. METHODS: Co-developed with Citizens Advice Newcastle and Citizens Advice Northumberland we performed longitudinal analysis of national data from Citizens Advice for England and Wales on the health (mental health and limiting long term conditions) and socio-demographic of 1,003,411 observations for people seeking advice with claiming UC over four financial years (2017/18 to 2020/21). We summarised population characteristics and estimated the differences between the four financial years using population-weighted t-tests. Findings were discussed with three people with lived experience of seeking advice to claim UC to help frame our interpretation and policy recommendations. RESULTS: When comparing 2017/18 to 2018/19, there was a significantly higher proportion of people with limiting long term conditions seeking advice with claiming UC than those without (+ 2.40%, 95%CI: 1.31-3.50%). However, as the rollout continued between 2018/29 and 2019/20 (-6.75%, 95%CI: -9.62%--3.88%) and between 2019/20 and 2020/21 (-2.09%, 95%CI: -2.54%--1.64%), there were significantly higher proportions of those without a limiting long term condition seeking advice than with. When comparing 2018/19 to 2019/20 and 2019/20 to 2020/21, there was a significant increase in the proportion of self-employed compared to unemployed people seeking advice with claiming UC (5.64%, 95%CI: 3.79-7.49%) and (2.26%, 95%CI: 1.29-3.23%) respectively. CONCLUSION: As the rollout for UC continues, it is important to understand how changes in eligibility for UC may impact on those who need help with applying for UC. Ensuring that the advice process and application process is responsive to a range of people with different needs can help to reduce the likelihood that the process of claiming UC will exacerbate health inequalities.

Contextual influences on the role of evidence in e-cigarette recommendations: a multi-method analysis of international and national jurisdictions.

Background: E-cigarette policy has varied across jurisdictions, contrasting with the previous coordinated approach of international tobacco control communities. Aims and objectives: A multi-method case study approach was used to understand the role of evidence and external and internal contextual factors in the development of public health recommendations across four purposively selected jurisdictions (WHO, UK, Australia and USA). Methods: Informed by Dobrow et al.'s (2004) conceptual framework for context-based evidencebased decision-making, four data sources were drawn upon: 1) 15 public health bodies' e-cigarette recommendation documents, 2) seven development documents produced by the public health bodies, 3) sources of evidence cited in the public health bodies' recommendation documents and 4) 15 qualitative interviews with experts. Thematic analysis and citation analysis were conducted to aid triangulation of evidence. Findings: We found a complex interplay between internal and external factors which influence the role and use of evidence in the development of e-cigarette recommendations. For example, recommendation documents' remit (internal factor) was influenced by various external factors such as epidemiology and policy history, with decisions made over time having reshaped the external context. Considering the findings with respect to evidence utilisation, we propose a modified version of Dobrow et al.'s (2004) framework, highlighting the important interplay between internal and external contextual factors. Discussion and conclusion: This research suggest internal and external contextual factors mutually interact and influence how evidence is incorporated into recommendations. This dynamic interplay of contextual factors may help explain the why different policy approaches are pursued concerning public health topics, particularly e-cigarettes.

First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Several countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk-benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.

Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: a national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19-EAVE II-database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1-adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85-94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28-34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75-94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72-89 at 28-34 days post-vaccination). INTERPRETATION: Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK.

The UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and diet, physical activity, and sleep during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from eight longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the UK implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough) to minimise 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. METHODS: We analysed data on 25,092 participants aged 16-66 years from eight UK longitudinal studies. Changes in employment, including being furloughed, were based on employment status before and during the first lockdown. Health behaviours included fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, and sleep. 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. RESULTS: Across 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; [95% CI 0.75-0.97]; I 2 = 59%) and did not differ overall with respect to low fruit and vegetable consumption or atypical sleep, although findings for sleep were heterogenous (I 2 = 85%). In stratified analyses, furlough was associated with lower fruit and vegetable consumption among males (RR = 1.11; [1.01-1.22]; I 2 = 0%) but not females (RR = 0.84; [0.68-1.04]; I 2 = 65%). Considering changes in quantity, furloughed workers were more likely than those who remained working to report increases in fruit and vegetable consumption, exercise, and hours of sleep. CONCLUSIONS: Those furloughed exhibited similar health behaviours to those who remained in employment during the initial stages of the pandemic. There was little evidence to suggest that adoption of such social protection policies in the post-pandemic recovery period and during future economic crises had adverse effects on population health behaviours.

The UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and smoking, alcohol consumption and vaping during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from eight longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Employment disruptions can impact smoking and alcohol consumption. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented furlough schemes to prevent job loss. We examine how furlough was associated with smoking, vaping and alcohol consumption in the UK. METHODS: Data from 27,841 participants in eight UK adult longitudinal surveys were analysed. Participants self-reported employment status and current smoking, current vaping and alcohol consumption (>4 days/week or 5+ drinks per typical occasion) both before and during the early stages of 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. RESULTS: Compared to stable employment and after adjustment for pre-pandemic characteristics, furlough was not associated with smoking (ARR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.95-1.16; I2: 10%), vaping (ARR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74-1.08; I2: 0%) or drinking (ARR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.94-1.13; I2: 48%). There were similar findings for no longer being employed, and stable unemployment, though this varied by sex: stable unemployment was 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%). CONCLUSIONS: We 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. Differences in risk compared to those who remained employed were largely explained by pre-pandemic characteristics.

Variations in COVID-19 vaccination uptake among people in receipt of psychotropic drugs: cross-sectional analysis of a national population-based prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected people with mental health conditions. AIMS: We investigated the association between receiving psychotropic drugs, as an indicator of mental health conditions, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort of the Northern Ireland adult population using national linked primary care registration, vaccination, secondary care and pharmacy dispensing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated the association between anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and hypnotic use and COVID-19 vaccination status, accounting for age, gender, deprivation and comorbidities. Receiving any COVID-19 vaccine was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 1 433 814 individuals, of whom 1 166 917 received a COVID-19 vaccination. Psychotropic medications were dispensed to 267 049 people. In univariable analysis, people who received any psychotropic medication had greater odds of receiving COVID-19 vaccination: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI 1.41-1.44). However, after adjustment, psychotropic medication use was associated with reduced odds of vaccination (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91). People who received anxiolytics (ORadj = 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65), antipsychotics (ORadj = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) and hypnotics (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) had reduced odds of being vaccinated. Antidepressant use was not associated with vaccination (ORadj = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly lower odds of vaccination in people who were receiving treatment with anxiolytic and antipsychotic medications. There is an urgent need for evidence-based, tailored vaccine support for people with mental health conditions.

Pre-pandemic mental health and disruptions to healthcare, economic and housing outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from 12 UK longitudinal studies.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and livelihoods, and people already experiencing mental ill health may have been especially vulnerable. AIMS: Quantify mental health inequalities in disruptions to healthcare, economic activity and housing. METHOD: We examined data from 59 482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal studies with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within each study, we estimated the association between psychological distress assessed pre-pandemic and disruptions since the start of the pandemic to healthcare (medication access, procedures or appointments), economic activity (employment, income or working hours) and housing (change of address or household composition). Estimates were pooled across studies. RESULTS: Across the analysed data-sets, 28% to 77% of participants experienced at least one disruption, with 2.3-33.2% experiencing disruptions in two or more domains. We found 1 s.d. higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with (a) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.20-1.40), with fully adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.24 (95% CI 1.09-1.41) for disruption to procedures to 1.33 (95% CI 1.20-1.49) for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access; (b) loss of employment (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.21) and income (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 -1.19), and reductions in working hours/furlough (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00-1.09) and (c) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18-1.32) or in one domain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07-1.16), relative to no disruption. There were no associations with housing disruptions (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: People experiencing psychological distress pre-pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare and economic disruptions, and clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Failing to address these disruptions risks further widening mental health inequalities.

The association between a lifestyle score, socioeconomic status, and COVID-19 outcomes within the UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) impacts disadvantaged groups most. Lifestyle factors are also associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. To inform COVID-19 policy and interventions, we explored effect modification of socioeconomic-status (SES) on associations between lifestyle and COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using data from UK-Biobank, a large prospective cohort of 502,536 participants aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010, we assigned participants a lifestyle score comprising nine factors. Poisson regression models with penalised splines were used to analyse associations between lifestyle score, deprivation (Townsend), and COVID-19 mortality and severe COVID-19. Associations between each exposure and outcome were examined independently before participants were dichotomised by deprivation to examine exposures jointly. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic/health factors. RESULTS: Of 343,850 participants (mean age > 60 years) with complete data, 707 (0.21%) died from COVID-19 and 2506 (0.76%) had severe COVID-19. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between lifestyle score and COVID-19 mortality but limited evidence for nonlinearity between lifestyle score and severe COVID-19 and between deprivation and COVID-19 outcomes. Compared with low deprivation, participants in the high deprivation group had higher risk of COVID-19 outcomes across the lifestyle score. There was evidence for an additive interaction between lifestyle score and deprivation. Compared with participants with the healthiest lifestyle score in the low deprivation group, COVID-19 mortality risk ratios (95% CIs) for those with less healthy scores in low versus high deprivation groups were 5.09 (1.39-25.20) and 9.60 (4.70-21.44), respectively. Equivalent figures for severe COVID-19 were 5.17 (2.46-12.01) and 6.02 (4.72-7.71). Alternative SES measures produced similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Unhealthy lifestyles are associated with higher risk of adverse COVID-19, but risks are highest in the most disadvantaged, suggesting an additive influence between SES and lifestyle. COVID-19 policy and interventions should consider both lifestyle and SES. The greatest public health benefit from lifestyle focussed COVID-19 policy and interventions is likely to be seen when greatest support for healthy living is provided to the most disadvantaged groups.