Association between ethnicity and migration status with the prevalence of single and multiple long-term conditions in UK healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers' (HCW) well-being has a direct effect on patient care. However, little is known about the prevalence and patterns of long-term medical conditions in HCWs, especially those from ethnic minorities. This study evaluated the burden of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs), i.e. the presence of two or more single long-term conditions (LTCs), among HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) and variation by ethnicity and migration status. METHODS: We used baseline data from the UK-REACH cohort study collected December 2020-March 2021. We used multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for demographic, occupational and lifestyle factors to examine the relationship between self-reported LTCs/MLTCs and ethnicity, migration status and time since migration to the UK. RESULTS: Of 12,100 included HCWs, with a median age of 45 years (IQR: 34-54), 27% were overseas-born, and 30% were from non-White ethnic groups (19% Asian, 4% Black, 4% Mixed, 2% Other). The most common self-reported LTCs were anxiety (14.9%), asthma (12.2%), depression (10.7%), hypertension (8.7%) and diabetes (4.0%). Mental health conditions were more prevalent among UK-born than overseas-born HCWs for all ethnic groups (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) using White UK-born as the reference group each time: White overseas-born 0.77, 95%CI 0.66-0.95 for anxiety). Diabetes and hypertension were more common among Asian (e.g. Asian overseas, diabetes aOR 2.97, 95%CI 2.30-3.83) and Black (e.g. Black UK-born, hypertension aOR 1.77, 95%CI 1.05-2.99) groups than White UK-born. After adjustment for age, sex and deprivation, the odds of reporting MLTCs were lower in most ethnic minority groups and lowest for those born overseas, compared to White UK-born (e.g. White overseas-born, aOR 0.68, 95%CI 0.55-0.83; Asian overseas-born aOR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.90; Black overseas-born aOR 0.52, 95%CI 0.36-0.74). The odds of MLTCs in overseas-born HCWs were equivalent to the UK-born population in those who had settled in the UK for ≥ 20 years (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 0.94-1.37). CONCLUSIONS: Among UK HCWs, the prevalence of common LTCs and odds of reporting MLTCs varied by ethnicity and migrant status. The lower odds of MLTCs in migrant HCWs reverted to the odds of MLTCs in UK-born HCWs over time. Further research on this population should include longitudinal studies with linkage to healthcare records. Interventions should be co-developed with HCWs from different ethnic and migrant groups focussed upon patterns of conditions prevalent in specific HCW subgroups to reduce the overall burden of LTCs/MLTCs.

Investigating the impact of financial concerns on symptoms of depression in UK healthcare workers: data from the UK-REACH nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Exploration of the association between financial concerns and depression in UK healthcare workers (HCWs) is paramount given the current 'cost of living crisis', ongoing strike action and recruitment/retention problems in the National Health Service. AIMS: To assess the impact of financial concerns on the risk of depression in HCWs, how these concerns have changed over time and what factors might predict financial concerns. METHOD: We used longitudinal survey data from a UK-wide cohort of HCWs to determine whether financial concerns at baseline (December 2020 to March 2021) were associated with depression (measured with the Public Health Questionnaire-2) at follow-up (June to October 2022). We used logistic regression to examine the association between financial concerns and depression, and ordinal logistic regression to establish predictors of developing financial concerns. RESULTS: A total of 3521 HCWs were included. Those concerned about their financial situation at baseline had higher odds of developing depressive symptoms at follow-up. Financial concerns increased in 43.8% of HCWs and decreased in 9%. Those in nursing, midwifery and other nursing roles had over twice the odds of developing financial concerns compared with those in medical roles. CONCLUSIONS: Financial concerns are increasing in prevalence and predict the later development of depressive symptoms in UK HCWs. Those in nursing, midwifery and other allied nursing roles may have been disproportionately affected. Our results are concerning given the potential effects on sickness absence and staff retention. Policy makers should act to alleviate financial concerns to reduce the impact this may have on a discontent workforce plagued by understaffing.

Coverage, completion and outcomes of COVID-19 risk assessments in a multi-ethnic nationwide cohort of UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis from the UK-REACH Study.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on the outcomes of COVID-19 risk assessment in healthcare workers (HCWs) or the association of ethnicity, other sociodemographic and occupational factors with risk assessment outcomes. METHODS: We used questionnaire data from UK-REACH (UK Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers), an ethnically diverse, nationwide cohort of UK HCWs. We derived four binary outcomes: (1) offered a risk assessment; (2) completed a risk assessment; (3) working practices changed as a result of the risk assessment; (4) wanted changes to working practices after risk assessment but working practices did not change.We examined the association of ethnicity, other sociodemographic/occupational factors and actual/perceived COVID-19 risk variables on our outcomes using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 8649 HCWs were included in total. HCWs from ethnic minority groups were more likely to report being offered a risk assessment than white HCWs, and those from Asian and black ethnic groups were more likely to report having completed an assessment if offered. Ethnic minority HCWs had lower odds of reporting having their work change as a result of risk assessment. Those from Asian and black ethnic groups were more likely to report no changes to their working practices despite wanting them.Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with lower odds of being offered a risk assessment and having adjustments made to working practices. DISCUSSION: We found differences in risk assessment outcomes by ethnicity, other sociodemographic/occupational factors and actual/perceived COVID-19 risk factors. These findings are concerning and warrant further research using actual (rather than reported) risk assessment outcomes in an unselected cohort.

Hesitancy for receiving regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis from the UK-REACH study.

BACKGROUND: Regular vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may be needed to maintain immunity in 'at-risk' populations, which include healthcare workers (HCWs). However, little is known about the proportion of HCWs who might be hesitant about receiving a hypothetical regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or the factors associated with this hesitancy. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of questionnaire data collected as part of UK-REACH, a nationwide, longitudinal cohort study of HCWs. The outcome measure was binary, either a participant indicated they would definitely accept regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination if recommended or they indicated some degree of hesitancy regarding acceptance (probably accept or less likely). We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with hesitancy for receiving regular vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 5454 HCWs were included in the analysed cohort, 23.5% of whom were hesitant about regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Black HCWs were more likely to be hesitant than White HCWs (aOR 2.60, 95%CI 1.80-3.72) as were those who reported a previous episode of COVID-19 (1.33, 1.13-1.57 [vs those who tested negative]). Those who received influenza vaccination in the previous two seasons were over five times less likely to report hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination than those not vaccinated against influenza in either season (0.18, 0.14-0.21). HCWs who trusted official sources of vaccine information (such as NHS or government adverts or websites) were less likely to report hesitancy for a regular vaccination programme. Those who had been exposed to information advocating against vaccination from friends and family were more likely to be hesitant. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, nearly a quarter of UK HCWs were hesitant about receiving a regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We have identified key factors associated with hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which can be used to identify groups of HCWs at the highest risk of vaccine hesitancy and tailor interventions accordingly. Family and friends of HCWs may influence decisions about regular vaccination. This implies that working with HCWs and their social networks to allay concerns about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could improve uptake in a regular vaccination programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN11811602.

'I'd have to fight for my life there': a multicentre qualitative interview study of how socioeconomic background influences medical school choice.

Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds who were educated in state funded schools are underrepresented in medicine in the UK. Widening access to medical students from these backgrounds has become a key political and research priority. It is known that medical schools vary in the number of applicants attracted and accepted from non-traditional backgrounds but the reasons for this are poorly understood. This study aims to explore what applicants value when choosing medical schools to apply to and how this relates to their socioeconomic background. We conducted a multicentre qualitative interview study, purposively sampling applicants and recent entrants based on socioeconomic background, stage of application and medical school of application. We recruited participants from eight UK medical schools. Participants attended semi-structured interviews. We performed a framework analysis, identifying codes inductively from the data. Sixty-six individuals participated: 35 applicants and 31 first year medical students. Seven main themes were identified; course style, proximity to home, prestige, medical school culture, geographical area, university resources, and fitting in. These were prioritised differently depending on participants' background. Participants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds described proximity to home as a higher priority. This was typically as they intended to be living at home for at least part of the course. Those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more concerned with the perceived prestige of medical schools. Since medicine is a highly selective course, only offered at a minority of UK higher education institutions, these differences in priorities may help explain observed differential patterns of medical school applications and success rates by applicant social background.

Institutional choice among medical applicants: a profile paper for The United Kingdom Medical Applicant Cohort Study (UKMACS) prospective longitudinal cohort study.

PURPOSE: To generate a large cohort of those in 2019 seriously considering applying to study Medicine, collecting data on a range of socioeconomic and other demographic factors that influence choice of medical schools and to link to other datasets to form a longitudinal study of progress through medical school and careers in medicine. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire studies, part of the longitudinal UK Medical Applicant Cohort Study (UKMACS). SETTING: UK medical school admissions in 2020. PARTICIPANTS: UK residents aged 16+ and seriously considering applying to study Medicine. The cohort was primarily drawn from those registering in 2019 for the U(K)CAT (University Clinical Aptitude Test (formerly the UK Clinical Aptitude Test)) with additional potential applicants responding to an open call. Participants consented to their data being linked within the UK Medical Education Database. FINDINGS TO DATE: UKMACS Wave 1 questionnaire respondents consisted of 6391 consenting respondents from across the UK. In 2019, 14 980 of the 17 470 UK-domiciled medicine applicants were first-time applicants. The questionnaires show that many of these applicants have a need for more help and guidance to make informed choices, with less advantaged groups reporting themselves as being at a disadvantage when applying due to limited understanding of information and limited access to guidance to enable informed and effective decision-making. FUTURE PLANS: To link the cohort with successive Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and other datasets to analyse outcomes of applications and establish national longitudinal evidence to understand how medical choices are made and how they impact on educational, career and workforce outcomes.

Cross-Sectional Study of University Students' Attitudes to 'On Campus' Delivery of COVID-19, MenACWY and MMR Vaccines and Future-Proofing Vaccine Roll-Out Strategies.

University students are a critical group for vaccination programmes against COVID-19, meningococcal disease (MenACWY) and measles, mumps and rubella (MMR). We aimed to evaluate risk factors for vaccine hesitancy and views about on-campus vaccine delivery among university students. Data were obtained through a cross-sectional anonymous online questionnaire study of undergraduate students in June 2021 and analysed by univariate and multivariate tests to detect associations. Complete data were obtained from 827 participants (7.6% response-rate). Self-reporting of COVID-19 vaccine status indicated uptake by two-thirds (64%; 527/827), willing for 23% (194/827), refusal by 5% (40/827) and uncertain results for 8% (66/827). Hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccines was 5% (40/761). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with Black ethnicity (aOR, 7.01, 95% CI, 1.8-27.3) and concerns about vaccine side-effects (aOR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23-2.39). Uncertainty about vaccine status was frequently observed for MMR (11%) and MenACWY (26%) vaccines. Campus-associated COVID-19 vaccine campaigns were favoured by UK-based students (definitely, 45%; somewhat, 16%) and UK-based international students (definitely, 62%; somewhat, 12%). Limitations of this study were use of use of a cross-sectional approach, self-selection of the response cohort, slight biases in the demographics and a strict definition of vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy and uncertainty about vaccine status are concerns for effective vaccine programmes. Extending capabilities of digital platforms for accessing vaccine information and sector-wide implementation of on-campus vaccine delivery are strategies for improving vaccine uptake among students. Future studies of vaccine hesitancy among students should aim to extend our observations to student populations in a wider range of university settings and with broader definitions of vaccine hesitancy.

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).

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces this risk. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate PPE (aPPE) for HCWs in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted cross sectional analyses using data from a nationwide questionnaire-based cohort study administered between December 2020-February 2021. The outcome was a binary 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 in March 2020 (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). RESULTS: Ten thousand five hundred eight HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 35.2% of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 83.9% reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. In the primary analysis, after adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector and region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs and those working in Intensive Care Units were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Asian HCWs (aOR:0.77, 95%CI 0.67-0.89 [vs White]), those in allied health professional and dental roles (vs those in medical roles), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none (≥ 21 patients/week 0.74, 0.61-0.90) were less likely to report aPPE at all times. 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. Significant predictors were largely unchanged in the secondary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, which have mostly persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important implications for the safe delivery of healthcare during the pandemic.

Risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a multiethnic cohort of United Kingdom healthcare workers (UK-REACH): A cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: 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 AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the baseline questionnaire of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study, administered between December 2020 and March 2021. We used logistic regression to examine associations of demographic, household, and occupational risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serology, or suspected COVID-19) in a diverse group of HCWs. The primary exposure of interest was self-reported ethnicity. Among 10,772 HCWs who worked during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020, the median age was 45 (interquartile range [IQR] 35 to 54), 75.1% were female and 29.6% were from ethnic minority groups. A total of 2,496 (23.2%) reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fully adjusted model contained the following dependent variables: demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, deprivation, religiosity), household factors (living with key workers, shared spaces in accommodation, number of people in household), health factors (presence/absence of diabetes or immunosuppression, smoking history, shielding status, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status), the extent of social mixing outside of the household, and occupational factors (job role, the area in which a participant worked, use of public transport to work, exposure to confirmed suspected COVID-19 patients, personal protective equipment [PPE] access, aerosol generating procedure exposure, night shift pattern, and the UK region of workplace). After adjustment, 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 2.59, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.18 for ≥21 patients per week versus none), working in a nursing or midwifery role (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53, compared to doctors), reporting a lack of access to PPE (1.29, 1.17 to 1.43), and working in an ambulance (2.00, 1.56 to 2.58) or hospital inpatient setting (1.55, 1.38 to 1.75). Those who worked in intensive care units were less likely to have been infected (0.76, 0.64 to 0.92) 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 risk factors. This study is limited by self-selection bias and the cross sectional nature of the study means we cannot infer the direction of causality. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among 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: The study was prospectively registered at ISRCTN (reference number: ISRCTN11811602).

Healthcare workers' views on mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the UK: A cross-sectional, mixed-methods analysis from the UK-REACH study.

Background: Several countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs' views on this are largely unknown. Using data from the nationwide UK-REACH study we aimed to understand UK HCW's views on improving SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage, including mandatory vaccination. Methods: Between 21st April and 26th June 2021, we administered an online questionnaire via email to 17 891 UK HCWs recruited as part of a longitudinal cohort from across the UK who had previously responded to a baseline questionnaire (primarily recruited through email) 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 do not get vaccinated against COVID-19?" using qualitative content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not, using logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and its occupational, health, and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics. Findings: Of 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the free text question. Median age of free text responders was 47 years (IQR 36-56) and 2705 (74.3%) were female. 18% (n = 578) favoured mandatory vaccination (201 [6%] participants for HCWs and others working with vulnerable populations; 377 [12%] for the general population), but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n = 1047). Older HCWs (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.44-2.34 [≥55 years vs 16 years to <40 years]), HCWs vaccinated against influenza (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.11-2.01 [2 vaccines vs none]), and with more positive vaccination attitudes generally (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.15) were more likely to favour mandatory vaccination, whereas female HCWs (OR= 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.96, vs male HCWs) and Black HCWs (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.85, vs white HCWs) 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 (DHSC) via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Core funding was also provided by NIHR Biomedical Research Centres.

Prevalence of long COVID-19 among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A proportion of those who survive the acute phase of COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms, commonly known as long COVID-19. Given that healthcare workers (HCWs) face an elevated risk of acute COVID-19 compared with the general population, the global burden of long COVID-19 in HCWs is likely to be large; however, there is limited understanding of the prevalence of long COVID-19 in HCWs, or its symptoms and their clustering. This review will aim to estimate the pooled prevalence and the symptoms of long COVID-19 among HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2 globally, and investigate differences by country, age, sex, ethnicity, vaccination status and occupation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. Medline (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), Embase (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via EBSCO), OpenGrey (grey literature) and medRxiv (preprint server) will be searched from the 31 December 2019 onward. All research studies and preprint articles reporting any primary data on the prevalence and/or the symptoms of long COVID-19 among adult HCWs will be included. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. Outcomes are anticipated to be the prevalence of long COVID-19 among HCWs around the world and trajectory of symptoms. Data synthesis will include random-effect meta-analysis for studies reporting prevalence data of long COVID-19 following SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. The results will be presented with a 95% CI as an estimated effect across studies. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I² statistic. Where meta-analysis is inappropriate, a narrative synthesis of the evidence will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not needed as data will be obtained from published articles. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminate the results of our review at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022312781.

Predictive validity of A-level grades and teacher-predicted grades in UK medical school applicants: a retrospective analysis of administrative data in a time of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To compare in UK medical students the predictive validity of attained A-level grades and teacher-predicted A levels for undergraduate and postgraduate outcomes. Teacher-predicted A-level grades are a plausible proxy for the teacher-estimated grades that replaced UK examinations in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also models the likely future consequences for UK medical schools of replacing public A-level examination grades with teacher-predicted grades. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study using UK Medical Education Database data. SETTING: UK medical education and training. PARTICIPANTS: Dataset 1: 81 202 medical school applicants in 2010-2018 with predicted and attained A-level grades. Dataset 2: 22 150 18-year-old medical school applicants in 2010-2014 with predicted and attained A-level grades, of whom 12 600 had medical school assessment outcomes and 1340 had postgraduate outcomes available. OUTCOME MEASURES: Undergraduate and postgraduate medical examination results in relation to attained and teacher-predicted A-level results. RESULTS: Dataset 1: teacher-predicted grades were accurate for 48.8% of A levels, overpredicted in 44.7% of cases and underpredicted in 6.5% of cases. Dataset 2: undergraduate and postgraduate outcomes correlated significantly better with attained than with teacher-predicted A-level grades. Modelling suggests that using teacher-estimated grades instead of attained grades will mean that 2020 entrants are more likely to underattain compared with previous years, 13% more gaining the equivalent of the lowest performance decile and 16% fewer reaching the equivalent of the current top decile, with knock-on effects for postgraduate training. CONCLUSIONS: The replacement of attained A-level examination grades with teacher-estimated grades as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may result in 2020 medical school entrants having somewhat lower academic performance compared with previous years. Medical schools may need to consider additional teaching for entrants who are struggling or who might need extra support for missed aspects of A-level teaching.