The sociodemographic patterning of sick leave and determinants of longer sick leave after mild and severe COVID-19: a nationwide register-based study in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Studies on sociodemographic differences in sick leave after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited and research on COVID-19 long-term health consequences has mainly addressed hospitalized individuals. The aim of this study was to investigate the social patterning of sick leave and determinants of longer sick leave after COVID-19 among mild and severe cases. METHODS: The study population, from the Swedish multi-register observational study SCIFI-PEARL, included individuals aged 18-64 years in the Swedish population, gainfully employed, with a first positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from 1 January 2020 until 31 August 2021 (n = 661 780). Using logistic regression models, analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, vaccination, prior sick leave, comorbidities and stratified by hospitalization. RESULTS: In total, 37 420 (5.7%) individuals were on sick leave due to COVID-19 in connection with their first positive COVID-19 test. Individuals on sick leave were more often women, older, had lower income and/or were born outside Sweden. These differences were similar across COVID-19 pandemic phases. The highest proportion of sick leave was seen in the oldest age group (10.3%) with an odds ratio of 4.32 (95% confidence interval 4.18-4.47) compared with the youngest individuals. Among individuals hospitalized due to COVID-19, the sociodemographic pattern was less pronounced, and in some models, even reversed. The intersectional analysis revealed considerable variability in sick leave between sociodemographic groups (range: 1.5-17.0%). CONCLUSION: In the entire Swedish population of gainfully employed individuals, our findings demonstrated evident sociodemographic differences in sick leave due to COVID-19. In the hospitalized group, the social patterning was different and less pronounced.

The social patterning of Covid-19 vaccine uptake in older adults: A register-based cross-sectional study in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: A broad vaccination coverage is crucial for preventing the spread of Covid-19 and reduce serious illness or death. The aim of this study was to examine social inequalities in Covid-19 vaccination uptake as of 17th May 2021 among Swedish adults aged ≥ 60 years. METHODS: The study population comprised a general population cohort aged 60 years or older (n = 350,805), representative of the Swedish population. Data were collected through the nationwide linked multi-register observational study SCIFI-PEARL, and associations between sociodemographic determinants and Covid-19 vaccination uptake were analysed using logistic regression. Intersectional analyses of sociodemographic heterogeneity were performed by taking several overlapping social dimensions into account. Data availability extended to 17 May 2021. FINDINGS: The overall vaccination coverage was 87·2% by 17th May 2021. Younger age, male sex, lower income, living alone, and being born outside Sweden, were all associated with a lower uptake of vaccination. The lowest Covid-19 vaccination uptake was seen in individuals born in low-or middle-income countries, of which only 60% had received vaccination, with an odds ratio (OR) of not being vaccinated of 6·05 (95% CI: 5·85-6·26) compared to individuals born in Sweden. These associations persisted after adjustments for possible confounding factors. The intersectional analyses showed even larger variations in vaccination in cross-classified sociodemographic subgroups (ranging from 44% to 97%) with marked differences in uptake of vaccination within sociodemographic groups. INTERPRETATION: The uptake of Covid-19 vaccine during the spring of 2021 in Sweden varied substantially both between and within sociodemographic groups. The use of an intersectional approach, taking several overlapping social dimensions into account at the same time rather than only using one-dimensional measures, contributes to a better understanding of the complexity in the uptake of vaccination. FUNDING: SciLifeLab / Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Swedish government ALF-agreement, FORMAS.

Use of and attitudes towards the prescribing guidelines booklet in primary health care doctors.

BACKGROUND: In the region of Västra Götaland in Sweden, prescribing guidelines, drawn up by 24 expert groups and determined by the regional board for drugs, are since 2006 available in the form of an annually published booklet. This study investigates, for the first time, the use of and attitudes towards this publication. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to doctors working in primary health care in the region of Västra Götaland in Sweden. Questions included characteristics of the responding doctor and use of the prescribing guidelines booklet, as well as attitude questions constructed as statements to which the responder should grade his level of agreement from 1 (total disagreement) to 6 (total agreement). RESULTS: Totally 603 filled-in questionnaires were returned (estimated response rate 60%). The majority of the doctors (n = 571, 97%) responded that they use the prescribing guidelines booklet, and when prescribing a drug for a new diagnosis, a drug from the booklet is chosen in most cases [median (25th - 75th percentile) 80 (75-90)]. However, at renewal of a drug prescription, active change to a drug from the prescribing guidelines booklet occurs less often [median (25th - 75th percentile) 50 (20-70)]. The booklet also includes short therapy advice sections, which 231 doctors (42%) use every day and 191 (34%) use every week. The attitudes towards the prescribing guidelines booklet were generally positive. Doctors in privately run primary health care units and doctors running their own business were generally more negative and judged themselves to be less adherent to the prescribing guidelines booklet compared with doctors in publicly run primary health care units. CONCLUSION: The prescribing guidelines booklet is frequently used and is generally appreciated, though differences exist between subgroups of users.