Long-term outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 variants and other respiratory infections: evidence from the Virus Watch prospective cohort in England.

This study compared the likelihood of long-term sequelae following infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants, other acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and non-infected individuals. Participants (n=5,630) were drawn from Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort investigating SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology in England. Using logistic regression, we compared predicted probabilities of developing long-term symptoms (>2 months) during different variant dominance periods according to infection status (SARS-CoV-2, other ARI, or no infection), adjusting for confounding by demographic and clinical factors and vaccination status. SARS-CoV-2 infection during early variant periods up to Omicron BA.1 was associated with greater probability of long-term sequalae (adjusted predicted probability (PP) range 0.27, 95% CI = 0.22-0.33 to 0.34, 95% CI = 0.25-0.43) compared with later Omicron sub-variants (PP range 0.11, 95% CI 0.08-0.15 to 0.14, 95% CI 0.10-0.18). While differences between SARS-CoV-2 and other ARIs (PP range 0.08, 95% CI 0.04-0.11 to 0.23, 95% CI 0.18-0.28) varied by period, all post-infection estimates substantially exceeded those for non-infected participants (PP range 0.01, 95% CI 0.00, 0.02 to 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06). Variant was an important predictor of SARS-CoV-2 post-infection sequalae, with recent Omicron sub-variants demonstrating similar probabilities to other contemporaneous ARIs. Further aetiological investigation including between-pathogen comparison is recommended.

Point Protection with Transfluthrin against Musca domestica L. in a Semi-Field Enclosure.

House flies are notoriously difficult to control, owing to their tendency to live in close relationships with humans and their livestock, and their rapid development of resistance to chemical controls. With this in mind, we explored an alternative chemical control, a spatial repellent to deter Musca domestica L. from points we wanted to protect (i.e., a baited trap). Our results demonstrated that the synthetic spatial repellent, transfluthrin, is effective in preventing M. domestica adults from entering protected traps for both a susceptible strain (CAR21) and a field-acquired permethrin-resistant strain (WHF; 24 h LD50 resistance ratio of 150), comprising 22% and 28% of the total number of flies collected, respectively. These results are promising and demonstrate that transfluthrin can be an effective spatial repellent to protect points of interest where needed.

The incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalisation in migrants in the UK: Findings from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study.

Background: Migrants in the United Kingdom (UK) may be at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, little is known about their risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation during waves 1-3 of the pandemic. Methods: We analysed secondary care data linked to Virus Watch study data for adults and estimated COVID-19-related hospitalisation incidence rates by migration status. To estimate the total effect of migration status on COVID-19 hospitalisation rates, we ran mixed-effect Poisson regression for wave 1 (01/03/2020-31/08/2020; wildtype), and mixed-effect negative binomial regressions for waves 2 (01/09/2020-31/05/2021; Alpha) and 3 (01/06/2020-31/11/2021; Delta). Results of all models were then meta-analysed. Results: Of 30,276 adults in the analyses, 26,492 (87.5 %) were UK-born and 3,784 (12.5 %) were migrants. COVID-19-related hospitalisation incidence rates for UK-born and migrant individuals across waves 1-3 were 2.7 [95 % CI 2.2-3.2], and 4.6 [3.1-6.7] per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Pooled incidence rate ratios across waves suggested increased rate of COVID-19-related hospitalisation in migrants compared to UK-born individuals in unadjusted 1.68 [1.08-2.60] and adjusted analyses 1.35 [0.71-2.60]. Conclusion: Our findings suggest migration populations in the UK have excess risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisations and underscore the need for more equitable interventions particularly aimed at COVID-19 vaccination uptake among migrants.

Linking migration and hospital data in England: linkage process and evaluation of bias.

Introduction: Difficulties ascertaining migrant status in national data sources such as hospital records have limited large-scale evaluation of migrant healthcare needs in many countries, including England. Linkage of immigration data for migrants and refugees, with National Health Service (NHS) hospital care data enables research into the relationship between migration and health for a large cohort of international migrants. Objectives: We aimed to describe the linkage process and compare linkage rates between migrant sub-groups to evaluate for potential bias for data on non-EU migrants and resettled refugees linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England. Methods: We used stepwise deterministic linkage to match records from migrants and refugees to a unique healthcare identifier indicating interaction with the NHS (linkage stage 1 to NHS Personal Demographic Services, PDS), and then to hospital records (linkage stage 2 to HES). We calculated linkage rates and compared linked and unlinked migrant characteristics for each linkage stage. Results: Of the 1,799,307 unique migrant records, 1,134,007 (63%) linked to PDS and 451,689 (25%) linked to at least one hospital record between 01/01/2005 and 23/03/2020. Individuals on work, student, or working holiday visas were less likely to link to a hospital record than those on settlement and dependent visas and refugees. Migrants from the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia were four times more likely to link to at least one hospital record, compared to those from East Asia and the Pacific. Differences in age, sex, visa type, and region of origin between linked and unlinked samples were small to moderate. Conclusion: This linked dataset represents a unique opportunity to explore healthcare use in migrants. However, lower linkage rates disproportionately affected individuals on shorter-term visas so future studies of these groups may be more biased as a result. Increasing the quality and completeness of identifiers recorded in administrative data could improve data linkage quality.

Aedes aegypti Controls AE. Aegypti: SIT and IIT-An Overview.

The sterile insect technique (SIT) and the incompatible insect technique (IIT) are emerging and potentially revolutionary tools for controlling Aedes aegypti (L.), a prominent worldwide mosquito vector threat to humans that is notoriously difficult to reduce or eliminate in intervention areas using traditional integrated vector management (IVM) approaches. Here we provide an overview of the discovery, development, and application of SIT and IIT to Ae. aegypti control, and innovations and advances in technology, including transgenics, that could elevate these techniques to a worldwide sustainable solution to Ae. aegypti when combined with other IVM practices.

Sexual and reproductive health and rights of migrant women attending primary care in England: A population-based cohort study of 1.2 million individuals of reproductive age (2009-2018).

Background: Evidence on the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of migrants is lacking globally. We describe SRHR healthcare resource use and long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) prescriptions for migrant versus non-migrant women attending primary care in England (2009-2018). Methods: This population-based observational cohort study, using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, included females living in England aged 15 to 49. Migration was defined using a validated codelist. Rates per 100 person years at risk (pyar) and adjusted rate ratios (RRs) were measured in migrants versus non-migrants for consultations related to all-causes, six exemplar SRHR outcomes, and LARC prescriptions. Proportions of migrants and non-migrants ever prescribed LARC were calculated. Findings: There were 25,112,116 consultations across 1,246,353 eligible individuals. 98,214 (7.9 %) individuals were migrants. All-cause consultation rates were lower in migrants versus non-migrants (509 vs 583/100pyar;RR 0.9;95 %CI 0.9-0.9), as were consultations rates for emergency contraception (RR 0.7;95 %CI 0.7-0.7) and cervical screening (RR 0.96;95 %CI 0.95-0.97). Higher rates of consultations were found in migrants for abortion (RR 1.2;95 %CI 1.1-1.2) and management of fertility problems (RR 1.39;95 %CI 1.08-1.79). No significant difference was observed for chlamydia testing and domestic violence. Of 1,205,258 individuals eligible for contraception, the proportion of non-migrants ever prescribed LARC (12.2 %;135,047/1,107,894) was almost double that of migrants (6.91 %;6,728/97,364). Higher copper intrauterine devices prescription rates were found in migrants (RR 1.53;95 %CI 1.45-1.61), whilst hormonal LARC rates were lower for migrants: levonorgestrel intrauterine device (RR 0.63;95 %CI 0.60-0.66), subdermal implant (RR 0.72;95 %CI 0.69-0.75), and progesterone-only injection (RR 0.35;95 %CI 0.34-0.36). Interpretation: Healthcare resource use differs between migrant and non-migrant women of reproductive age. Opportunities identified for tailored interventions include access to primary care, LARCs, emergency contraception and cervical screening. An inclusive approach to examining health needs is essential to actualise sexual and reproductive health as a human right.

Transfluthrin diffusers do not protect two-person US military tents from mosquitoes in open field and canopy warm-temperate habitats.

Spatial repellents are volatile or volatilized chemicals that may repel arthropod vectors in free space, preventing bites and reducing the potential for pathogen transmission. In a 21-week field study, we investigated the efficacy of passive transfluthrin-impregnated diffusers placed in two-person United States (US) military tents located in canopy and open field habitats in north Florida to prevent mosquitoes from entering. Mosquito collections with US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traps baited with light and carbon dioxide were conducted weekly for weeks 0-4, every two weeks for weeks 5-10, and monthly for weeks 11-21. Our results demonstrated that these transfluthrin-impregnated devices did not function as spatial repellents as expected and did not create a mosquito-free zone of protection. Instead, we observed consistently higher collections of mosquitoes from tents with transfluthrin-impregnated diffusers, and higher rates of mosquito mortality in collections from tents with transfluthrin diffusers, compared to untreated control tents. Based on these findings we do not recommend the use of passive transfluthrin-impregnated diffusers for mosquito protection in two-person US military tents in warm-temperate environments similar to north Florida.

COVID-19 vaccination coverage for half a million non-EU migrants and refugees in England.

Despite evidence suggesting that some migrants are at risk of under-immunization and have experienced severe health inequities during the pandemic, data are limited on migrants' COVID-19 vaccine coverage globally. Here we linked data from non-European Union migrants and resettled refugees to the national COVID-19 vaccination dataset in England. We estimated patterns in second and third dose delays and overdue doses between 12 December 2020 and 20 April 2022 by age, visa type and ethnicity. Of the 465,470 linked records, 91.8% (427,073/465,470) of migrants received a second dose and 51.3% (238,721/465,470) received a third. Refugees had the highest risk of delayed second (adjusted odds ratio 1.66; 95% confidence interval 1.55-1.79) and third dose (1.55; 1.43-1.69). Black migrants were twice as likely to have a second dose delayed (2.37; 2.23-2.54) than white migrants, but this trend reversed for the third dose. Older migrants (>65 years) were four times less likely to have received their second or third dose compared with the general population in England aged >65 or older. Policymakers, researchers and practitioners should work to understand and address personal and structural barriers to vaccination for diverse migrant populations.

Does prior exposure to larvicides influence dengue virus susceptibility in Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)?

Control of mosquito vector populations is primarily intended to reduce the transmission of pathogens they transmit. Use of chemical controls, such as larvicides, can have unforeseen consequences on adult traits if not applied properly. The consequences of under application of larvicides are little studied, specifically the impacts on pathogen infection and transmission by the vectors that survive exposure to larvicides. We compared vector susceptibility of Aedes aegypti (L.) for dengue virus, serotype 1 (DENV-1) previously exposed as larvae to an LC50 of different classes of insecticides as formulated larvicides. Larval exposure to insect growth regulators (methoprene and pyriproxyfen) significantly increased susceptibility to infection of DENV-1 in Ae. aegypti adults but did not alter disseminated infection or transmission. Larval exposure to temephos, spinosad, and Bti did not increase infection, disseminated infection, or transmission of DENV-1. Our findings describe a previously under observed phenomenon, the latent effects of select larvicides on mosquito vector susceptibility for arboviruses. These data suggest that there are unintended consequences of sublethal exposure to select larvicides that can influence susceptibility of Ae. aegypti to DENV infection, and indicates the need for further investigation of sublethal effects of insecticides on other aspects of mosquito biology, especially those parameters relevant to a mosquitoes ability to transmit arboviruses (life span, biting behavior, extrinsic incubation period).

Eyeglasses and risk of COVID-19 transmission-analysis of the Virus Watch Community Cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The importance of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the eyes is unknown, with previous studies mainly focusing on protective eyewear in healthcare settings. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that wearing eyeglasses is associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. METHODS: Participants from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study responded to a questionnaire on the use of eyeglasses and contact lenses. Infection was confirmed through data linkage, self-reported positive results, and, for a subgroup, monthly capillary antibody testing. Multivariable logistic regression models, controlling for age, sex, income, and occupation, were used to identify the odds of infection depending on frequency and purpose of eyeglasses or contact lenses use. RESULTS: A total of 19,166 participants responded to the questionnaire, with 13,681 (71.3%, CI 70.7-72.0) reporting they wore eyeglasses. Multivariable logistic regression model showed a 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported using eyeglasses always for general use (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% 0.77-0.95, P = 0.002) compared to those who never wore eyeglasses. The protective effect was reduced for those who said wearing eyeglasses interfered with mask-wearing and was absent for contact lens wearers. CONCLUSIONS: People who wear eyeglasses have a moderate reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection, highlighting that eye protection may make a valuable contribution to the reduction of transmission in community and healthcare settings.

Deprivation, essential and non-essential activities and SARS-CoV-2 infection following the lifting of national public health restrictions in England and Wales.

Background: Individuals living in deprived areas in England and Wales undertook essential activities more frequently and experienced higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection than less deprived communities during periods of restrictions aimed at controlling the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. We aimed to understand whether these deprivation-related differences changed once restrictions were lifted. Methods: Among 11,231 adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants multivariable logistic regressions were used to estimate the relationships between deprivation and self-reported activities and deprivation and infection (self-reported lateral flow or PCR tests and linkage to National Testing data and Second Generation Surveillance System (SGSS)) between August - December 2021, following the lifting of national public health restrictions. Results: Those living in areas of greatest deprivation were more likely to undertake essential activities (leaving home for work (aOR 1.56 (1.33 - 1.83)), using public transport (aOR 1.33 (1.13 - 1.57)) but less likely to undertake non-essential activities (indoor hospitality (aOR 0.82 (0.70 - 0.96)), outdoor hospitality (aOR 0.56 (0.48 - 0.66)), indoor leisure (aOR 0.63 (0.54 - 0.74)), outdoor leisure (aOR 0.64 (0.46 - 0.88)), or visit a hairdresser (aOR 0.72 (0.61 - 0.85))). No statistical association was observed between deprivation and infection (P=0.5745), with those living in areas of greatest deprivation no more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 (aOR 1.25 (0.87 - 1.79). Conclusion: The lack of association between deprivation and infection is likely due to the increased engagement in non-essential activities among the least deprived balancing the increased work-related exposure among the most deprived. The differences in activities highlight stark disparities in an individuals' ability to choose how to limit infection exposure.

Individuals living in deprived areas of England and Wales left home to go to work and used public transport more frequently than people living in less deprived areas of the country when under tight lockdown restrictions. They were also more likely to develop SARS-CoV-2 infection. Understanding whether these differences changed once restrictions were lifted is important to understand whether deprivation-related discrepancies in infection risk changed throughout the pandemic. We found that, after the removal of lockdown restrictions, people living in areas of the greatest deprivation continued to leave home for work or use public transport more frequently than those not living in areas of deprivation but they were less likely to visit either indoor or outdoor hospitality or leisure venues such as cafes, restaurants, bars, cinemas, theatres or visit a hairdresser or beautician than people living in areas with little deprivation. They were no longer more likely than those living in areas with little deprivation to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. This is likely because people living in areas with little deprivation were visiting hospitality and leisure venues more frequently than during lockdown and were increasing their exposure to infection in these settings, balancing out the increased infection risk posed through work and public transport to those living in deprived areas. The fact that people living in areas of deprivation were most likely exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection through essential activities like work and public transport use while people living in areas with little deprivation were most likely exposed to infection through non-essential activities such as visiting a restaurant, pub, cinema or theatre, highlights stark disparities in an individuals' ability to choose how to limit infection exposure based on their deprivation status.

Interventions to improve access to primary care for inclusion health groups in England: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Everyone in England has the right to primary care without financial charges. Nevertheless, evidence shows that barriers remain for inclusion health populations such as vulnerable migrants, people experiencing homelessness, Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller (GRT) communities, and people who sell sex. There is little evidence for what works to improve access. This study was a scoping review of interventions to improve access to mainstream primary care for inclusion health groups in England. METHODS: In this scoping review, we searched databases (Embase, Medline, APA PsychInfo, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, Web of Science and CINAHL) and grey literature sources, including the National Health Service and National Institute for Clinical Excellence, for articles published in English between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2020, with no limit on study design. Data were extracted according to inclusion criteria, including interventions taking place in England and targeting people with insecure immigration status, people who sell sex, people experiencing homelessness, and GRT communities. Results were presented in a narrative synthesis. FINDINGS: 39 studies describing one or more interventions were included: four peer-reviewed articles (one randomised trial, two quality improvement projects, and one mixed-methods study protocol) and 25 grey literature items (38 interventions in total). Interventions mostly targeted people with insecure immigration status (17/38, 45%), and a majority (12/38, 32%) took place in London. The most common types of intervention were training, education, and resources (such as leaflets or websites) for patients or staff (25/38, 66%), and most interventions targeted GP registration processes (28/38, 74%). Interventions commonly involved voluntary and community sector organisations (16/38, 42%). Most interventions were not evaluated to understand their effectiveness (23/38, 61%). Sources with evaluations identified staff training, direct patient advocacy, and involvement of people with lived experience as effective elements. INTERPRETATION: Interventions to improve access to primary care for inclusion health groups in England were heterogeneous, commonly undertaken at community level, and developed to serve local inclusion health groups. Considerations for policymakers and practitioners include groups and geographical areas less commonly included in interventions, the elements of positive practice identified in evaluations, and the need for evaluation of future interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR 202050).

Perspectives on registration to primary care from inclusion health groups in England: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Although everyone living in the UK is entitled to access free primary care within the National Health Service (NHS), evidence shows that people in need of health care are wrongly being refused access. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of individuals from inclusion health groups on primary care registration and accessibility. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study. From Oct 5, 2022, to Feb 20, 2023, we surveyed 49 people (36 [73%] men; 12 [24%] women) and interviewed 25 other (14 [56%] men; 11 [44%] women) who were service users of the University College London Hospital Find & Treat mobile service. This service included people with lived experience of homelessness, asylum seeking, addiction, selling sex, and irregular immigration. We recruited these participants through hostels for people with ongoing addiction and complex needs, initial asylum accommodation centres, and day shelters. Our research team included two peer researchers. FINDINGS: Of those surveyed, 25 (51%) perceived their access to primary health-care services as good, and 17 (35%) reported obstacles to going to the general practitioner (GP). Participants described multiple barriers to registering for GP surgeries, including a lack of understanding and poor communication with NHS services, a fear of discrimination, and a lack of digital access that prevents information seeking and access to services. Respondents also reported using emergency services instead of primary care because they were more immediately accessible without previous registration. Facilitators to GP registration included one-on-one support and outreach work that helps people navigate into services and know their rights, and the use of specialist GP services, which are perceived as more accepting, especially for people experiencing homelessness. INTERPRETATION: The barriers to registration identified are related to both individual and group level characteristics and produce both similar and divergent needs between different inclusion health groups. The need for additional support during registration was clear, and our work highlights the requirement for interventions to improve access to primary care for underserved groups, as well as coordinated policy action. One-on-one support in particular, either outreach or provided in services where inclusion health groups spend time, appears to be a key facilitator to ensuring comprehensive and fast access to GP services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).

Recording and analysing ethnicity in public health research: a bibliographical review and focus group discussions with young migrants and refugees in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The ethnicity data gap hinders public health research from addressing ethnic health inequity in the UK, especially for under-served young, migrant populations. We aimed to review how ethnicity was captured, reported, analysed, and theorised within policy-relevant research. METHODS: For this bibliographical review, we reviewed a selection of the 1% most highly cited population health papers reporting UK ethnicity data in MEDLINE and Web of Science databases between Jan 1, 1946, and July 31, 2022, and extracted how ethnicity was recorded and analysed. We included cross-sectional, longitudinal cohort studies, and randomised trials using only UK populations, which were peer-reviewed, were written in English, and reported ethnicity and any health-related outcomes. We held three focus groups with ten participants aged 18-25 years, from Nigeria, Turkistan, Syria, Yemen, and Iran to help us shape and interpret our findings, and asked "How should ethnicity be asked inclusively, and better recorded?" and "Does ethnicity change over time or context? If so, why?". We consolidated feedback from our focus groups into a co-created poster with recommendations for researchers studying ethnicity and health. Written informed consent was obtained for focus group participation. FINDINGS: Of 44 papers included in the review, 19 (43%) used self-reported ethnicity, but the number of ethnic categories provided varied. Of 27 papers that aggregated ethnicity, 13 (48%) provided justification. Only eight (18%) explicitly theorised how ethnicity related to health. The focus groups agreed that (1) ethnicity should not be prescribed by others (individuals could be asked to describe their ethnicity in free-text, which researchers could synthesise to extract relevant dimensions of ethnicity for their research) and (2) Ethnicity changes over time and context according to personal experience, social pressure, and nationality change. The lived experience of ethnicity of migrants and non-migrants is not fully interchangeable, even if they share the same ethnic category. INTERPRETATION: Researchers should communicate clearly how ethnicity is operationalised in their studies, with appropriate justification for clustering and analysis that is meaningfully theorised. Our study was limited by its non-systematic nature. Implementing the recommendation to capture ethnicity via free text remains challenging in administrative data systems. FUNDING: UCL Engagement Beacon Bursary.

Lessons learned from co-production in public health research: the MAMAH case study involving underserved migrant mothers in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests some migrant women are at increased risk of mortality and morbidity in the perinatal period; however, there is a gap in co-produced research to improve care. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) defines co-production as "an approach in which researchers, practitioners, and members of the public work together, sharing power and responsibility". We summarise learnings from our study, which aimed to co-produce solutions to improve maternity care for migrant women in the UK, by working with women to identify the most important research priorities. METHODS: We recruited 18 underserved migrant women living in the UK who had given birth in the UK within the past 15 years to create a patient advisory panel. They were recruited via national and local non-governmental organisations and snowball sampling using purposive methods to ensure representation from a range of backgrounds, including those who were refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented. Underserved was defined as asylum seeking, refugee, undocumented, or low-income mothers (those who were experiencing homelessness or in receipt of welfare support). The women are involved in conceptualisation, analysis, and dissemination of the project. The project is a UK National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Doctoral Fellowship project lasting 3 years with a variety of research workstreams. FINDINGS: The research funding application process began in January, 2021, and the project was funded and began in November, 2022. The research team struggled to access comprehensive training on co-production, particularly in how to counter power dynamics. We appointed a Lead Patient Advisor who manages the relationship between the academics and the patient advisors. Additionally, we reimburse women's time, childcare, and travel. We have found that online meetings are preferable, as women do not need to travel or arrange childcare. We meet our patient advisory panel four times per year. Some women have been directly involved in research such as systematic review screening and qualitative interviewing and have been given research training. Our initial research priorities did not align with those of the women, and this helped us to reshape our work. Women said that having a Lead Patient Advisor made it easier to participate, particularly as some issues are traumatic. To mitigate this, we have offered support resources and debriefing. Using online interpreters has been challenging, and we have recently split into different language groups to maximise engagement. INTERPRETATION: Overall, as researchers, we have learned that taking a truly co-produced approach is time-consuming but has ensured our research prioritises the views of migrant women giving birth in the UK. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).

Elevated mortality among the second-generation (children of migrants) in Europe: what is going wrong? A review.

INTRODUCTION: The 'second-generation' (i.e. the children of migrants) represent one of the fastest growing subpopulations of the child and young adult populations in Europe today. The research so far appears to indicate that their mortality risk is elevated relative to people with non-migrant backgrounds. SOURCES OF DATA: Peer-reviewed publications. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Second-generation status is a clear marker of elevated mortality risk in Europe in early life (including stillbirth, perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality) and adulthood, particularly if the parent(s) were born outside of Europe. Socioeconomic inequality plays an important, albeit rarely defining, role in these elevated risks. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: It remains unclear what causes-of-death are driving these elevated mortality risks. The exact influence of (non-socioeconomic) explanatory factors (e.g. health care, racism & discrimination, and factors related to integration) on the elevated mortality risks of the second-generation also remains unclear. GROWING POINTS: The second-generation will continue to grow and diversify in Europe; we must intervene to address these inequalities now. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Place more emphasis on the complexity of migration background, specific causes-of-death, and understanding the roles of explanatory factors beyond socioeconomic background.

How is ethnicity reported, described, and analysed in health research in the UK? A bibliographical review and focus group discussions with young refugees.

BACKGROUND: The ethnicity data gap pertains to 3 major challenges to address ethnic health inequality: 1) Under-representation of ethnic minorities in research; 2) Poor data quality on ethnicity; 3) Ethnicity data not being meaningfully analysed. These challenges are especially relevant for research involving under-served migrant populations in the UK. We aimed to review how ethnicity is captured, reported, analysed and theorised within policy-relevant research on ethnic health inequities. METHODS: We reviewed a selection of the 1% most highly cited population health papers that reported UK data on ethnicity, and extracted how ethnicity was recorded and analysed in relation to health outcomes. We focused on how ethnicity was obtained (i.e. self reported or not), how ethnic groups were categorised, whether justification was provided for any categorisation, and how ethnicity was theorised to be related to health. We held three 1-h-long guided focus groups with 10 young people from Nigeria, Turkistan, Syria, Yemen and Iran. This engagement helped us shape and interpret our findings, and reflect on. 1) How should ethnicity be asked inclusively, and better recorded? 2) Does self-defined ethnicity change over time or context? If so, why? RESULTS: Of the 44 included papers, most (19; 43%) used self-reported ethnicity, categorised in a variety of ways. Of the 27 papers that aggregated ethnicity, 13 (48%) provided justification. Only 8 of 33 papers explicitly theorised how ethnicity related to health. The focus groups agreed that 1) Ethnicity should not be prescribed by others; individuals could be asked to describe their ethnicity in free-text which researchers could synthesise to extract relevant dimensions of ethnicity for their research; 2) Ethnicity changes over time and context according to personal experience, social pressure, and nationality change; 3) Migrants and non-migrants' lived experience of ethnicity is not fully inter-changeable, even if they share the same ethnic category. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity is a multi-dimensional construct, but this is not currently reflected in UK health research studies, where ethnicity is often aggregated and analysed without justification. Researchers should communicate clearly how ethnicity is operationalised for their study, with appropriate justification for clustering and analysis that is meaningfully theorised. We can only start to tackle ethnic health inequity by treating ethnicity as rigorously as any other variables in our research.

Small numbers, big impact: making a utilitarian case for the contribution of inclusion health to population health in England.

Inclusion health groups make up a small proportion of the general population, so despite the extreme social exclusion and poor health outcomes that these groups experience, they are often overlooked in public health investment and policy development. In this paper, we demonstrate that a utilitarian argument can be made for investment in better support for inclusion health groups despite their small size. That is, by preventing social exclusion, there is the potential for large aggregate health benefits to the whole population. We illustrate this by reframing existing published mortality estimates into population attributable fractions to show that 12% of all-cause premature deaths (95% CI 10.03% to 14.29%) are attributable to the circumstances of people who experience homelessness, use drugs and/or have been in prison. We also show that a large proportion of cause-specific premature deaths in the general population can be attributed to specific inclusion health groups, such as 43% of deaths due to viral hepatitis (95% CI 30.35% to 56.61%) and nearly 4000 deaths due to cancer (3844, 95% CI 3438 to 4285) between 2013 and 2021 attributed to individuals who use illicit opioids. Considering the complexity of the inclusion health policy context and the sparseness of evidence, we discuss how a shift in policy framing from 'inclusion health vs the rest of the population' to 'the impact of social exclusion on broader population health' makes a better case for increased policy attention and investment in inclusion health. We discuss the strengths and limitations of this approach and how it can be applied to public health policy, resource prioritisation and future research.

Symptom profiles of community cases infected by influenza, RSV, rhinovirus, seasonal coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

Respiratory viruses that were suppressed through previous lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic have recently started to co-circulate with SARS-CoV-2. Understanding the clinical characteristics and symptomatology of different respiratory viral infections can help address the challenges related to the identification of cases and the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 variants' evolutionary patterns. Flu Watch (2006-2011) and Virus Watch (2020-2022) are household community cohort studies monitoring the epidemiology of influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus, seasonal coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2, in England and Wales. This study describes and compares the proportion of symptoms reported during illnesses infected by common respiratory viruses. The SARS-CoV-2 symptom profile increasingly resembles that of other respiratory viruses as new strains emerge. Increased cough, sore throat, runny nose, and sneezing are associated with the emergence of the Omicron strains. As SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic, monitoring the evolution of its symptomatology associated with new variants will be critical for clinical surveillance.