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

Objectives: To 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. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the UK-REACH national cohort study. Setting: HCWs across UK healthcare settings. Participants: 11,695 HCWs working between December 2020-March 2021. Main outcome measures: Anxiety 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). Results: Asian, 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. Conclusions: Ethnic 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.

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

Background Several 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. Methods We 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 don't 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. Findings Of 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. Interpretation Only 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. Funding MRC-UK Research and Innovation grant (MR/V027549/1) and the Department of Health and Social Care via the National Institute for Health Research.

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

Introduction Healthcare 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. Methods We 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. Results 2,496 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. Conclusions We 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 registration ISRCTN 11811602

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 (preprint)

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

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) (preprint)

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 (preprint)

Background In 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. Methods Nationwide 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. Findings 11,584 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. Interpretation Despite 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. Funding MRC-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.

The Stethoscope, Respiratory Examination and Lung Ultrasound in the COVID-19 Era (preprint)

The current Covid-19 pandemic has hugely disrupted the delivery of routine and established medical care. Patients can develop a wide range of clinical signs and symptoms from a cough and fever to severe respiratory failure. There is an ongoing argument on a concise investigative pathway to ensure the safety of all healthcare workers. The stethoscope can help with any clinical respiratory assessment but the risk of cross infection is high. Computer tomography should not be routinely performed. There is a potential place for lung ultrasound but outcomes are not yet determined.