RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: People with mental disorders have worse physical health compared with the general population, which could be attributable to receiving poorer quality healthcare. AIMS: To examine the relationship between severe and common mental disorders and risk of emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs), and factors associated with increased risk. METHOD: Baseline data for England (N = 445 814) were taken from UK Biobank, which recruited participants aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and linked to hospital admission records up to 31 December 2019. Participants were grouped into those with a history of either schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression or anxiety, or no mental disorder. Survival analysis was used to assess the risk of hospital admission for ACSCs among those with mental disorders compared with those without, adjusting for factors in different domains (sociodemographic, socioeconomic, health and biomarkers, health-related behaviours, social isolation and psychological). RESULTS: People with schizophrenia had the highest (unadjusted) risk of hospital admission for ACSCs compared with those with no mental disorder (hazard ratio 4.40, 95% CI 4.04-4.80). People with bipolar disorder (hazard ratio 2.48, 95% CI 2.28-2.69) and depression or anxiety (hazard ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.73-1.80) also had higher risk. Associations were more conservative when including all admissions, as opposed to first admissions only. The observed associations persisted after adjusting for a range of factors. CONCLUSIONS: People with severe mental disorders have the highest risk of preventable hospital admissions. Ensuring people with mental disorders receive adequate ambulatory care is essential to reduce the large health inequalities they experience.
RESUMEN
Happiness is a fundamental human affective trait, but its biological basis is not well understood. Using a novel approach, we construct LDpred-inf polygenic scores of a general happiness measure in 2 cohorts: the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) cohort (N = 15,924, age range 9.23-11.8 years), the Add Health cohort (N = 9129, age range 24.5-34.7) to determine associations with several well-being and happiness measures. Additionally, we investigated associations between genetic scores for happiness and brain structure in ABCD (N = 9626, age range (8.9-11) and UK Biobank (N = 16,957, age range 45-83). We detected significant (p.FDR < 0.05) associations between higher genetic scores vs. several well-being measures (best r2 = 0.019) in children of multiple ancestries in ABCD and small yet significant correlations with a happiness measure in European participants in Add Health (r2 = 0.004). Additionally, we show significant associations between lower genetic scores for happiness with smaller structural brain phenotypes in a white British subsample of UK Biobank and a white sub-sample group of ABCD. We demonstrate that the genetic basis for general happiness level appears to have a consistent effect on happiness and wellbeing measures throughout the lifespan, across multiple ancestral backgrounds, and multiple brain structures.
Asunto(s)
Felicidad , Longevidad , Niño , Adolescente , Humanos , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Longevidad/genéticaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Waves 1 to 3 (March 2020 to May 2020) of the UK COVID-19 Mental Health and Wellbeing study suggested an improvement in some indicators of mental health across the first 6 weeks of the UK lockdown; however, suicidal ideation increased. AIMS: To report the prevalence of mental health and well-being of adults in the UK from March/April 2020 to February 2021. METHOD: Quota sampling was employed at wave 1 (March/April 2020), and online surveys were conducted at seven time points. Primary analyses cover waves 4 (May/June 2020), 5 (July/August 2020), 6 (October 2020) and 7 (February 2021), including a period of increased restrictions in the UK. Mental health indicators were suicidal ideation, self-harm, suicide attempt, depression, anxiety, defeat, entrapment, loneliness and well-being. RESULTS: A total of 2691 (87.5% of wave 1) individuals participated in at least one survey between waves 4 and 7. Depressive symptoms and loneliness increased from October 2020 to February 2021. Defeat and entrapment increased from July/August 2020 to October 2020, and remained elevated in February 2021. Well-being decreased from July/August 2020 to October 2020. Anxiety symptoms and suicidal ideation did not change. Young adults, women, those who were socially disadvantaged and those with a pre-existing mental health condition reported worse mental health. CONCLUSIONS: The mental health and well-being of the UK population deteriorated from July/August 2020 to October 2020 and February 2021, which coincided with the second wave of COVID-19. Suicidal thoughts did not decrease significantly, suggesting a need for continued vigilance as we recover from the pandemic.
RESUMEN
The frequency of, and risk factors for, long COVID are unclear among community-based individuals with a history of COVID-19. To elucidate the burden and possible causes of long COVID in the community, we coordinated analyses of survey data from 6907 individuals with self-reported COVID-19 from 10 UK longitudinal study (LS) samples and 1.1 million individuals with COVID-19 diagnostic codes in electronic healthcare records (EHR) collected by spring 2021. Proportions of presumed COVID-19 cases in LS reporting any symptoms for 12+ weeks ranged from 7.8% and 17% (with 1.2 to 4.8% reporting debilitating symptoms). Increasing age, female sex, white ethnicity, poor pre-pandemic general and mental health, overweight/obesity, and asthma were associated with prolonged symptoms in both LS and EHR data, but findings for other factors, such as cardio-metabolic parameters, were inconclusive.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Factores de Riesgo , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Síndrome Post Agudo de COVID-19RESUMEN
Importance: How population mental health has evolved across the COVID-19 pandemic under varied lockdown measures is poorly understood, and the consequences for health inequalities are unclear. Objective: To investigate changes in mental health and sociodemographic inequalities from before and across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 longitudinal studies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adult participants from 11 UK longitudinal population-based studies with prepandemic measures of psychological distress. Analyses were coordinated across these studies, and estimates were pooled. Data were collected from 2006 to 2021. Exposures: Trends in the prevalence of poor mental health were assessed in the prepandemic period (time period 0 [TP 0]) and at 3 pandemic TPs: 1, initial lockdown (March to June 2020); 2, easing of restrictions (July to October 2020); and 3, a subsequent lockdown (November 2020 to March 2021). Analyses were stratified by sex, race and ethnicity, education, age, and UK country. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel regression was used to examine changes in psychological distress from the prepandemic period across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological distress was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire, the Kessler 6, the 9-item Malaise Inventory, the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, the 8-item or 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression across different studies. Results: In total, 49â¯993 adult participants (12â¯323 [24.6%] aged 55-64 years; 32â¯741 [61.2%] women; 4960 [8.7%] racial and ethnic minority) were analyzed. Across the 11 studies, mental health deteriorated from prepandemic scores across all 3 pandemic periods, but there was considerable heterogeneity across the study-specific estimated effect sizes (pooled estimate for TP 1: standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06-0.25; TP 2: SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.27; TP 3: SMD, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.32). Changes in psychological distress across the pandemic were higher in women (TP 3: SMD, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11, 0.35) than men (TP 3: SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.26) and lower in individuals with below-degree level education at TP 3 (SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.30) compared with those who held degrees (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.38). Increased psychological distress was most prominent among adults aged 25 to 34 years (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.14-0.84) and 35 to 44 years (SMD, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.10-0.60) compared with other age groups. No evidence of changes in distress differing by race and ethnicity or UK country were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the substantial deterioration in mental health seen in the UK during the first lockdown did not reverse when lockdown lifted, and a sustained worsening was observed across the pandemic period. Mental health declines have been unequal across the population, with women, those with higher degrees, and those aged 25 to 44 years more affected than other groups.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Distrés Psicológico , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Depresión/epidemiología , Etnicidad , Femenino , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Grupos Minoritarios , Pandemias , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected workers' mental health. We investigated changes in UK workers' mental health by industry, socioeconomic class and occupation and differential effects by UK country of residence, gender and age. METHODS: We used representative Understanding Society data from 6474 adults (41 207 observations) in paid employment who participated in pre-pandemic (2017-2020) and at least one COVID-19 survey. The outcome was General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) caseness (score: ≥4). Exposures were industry, socioeconomic class and occupation and are examined separately. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate relative (OR) and absolute (%) increases in distress before and during pandemic. Differential effects were investigated for UK countries of residence (non-England/England), gender (male/female) and age (younger/older) using three-way interaction effects. RESULTS: GHQ-12 caseness increased in relative terms most for 'professional, scientific and technical' (OR: 3.15, 95% CI 2.17 to 4.59) industry in the pandemic versus pre-pandemic period. Absolute risk increased most in 'hospitality' (+11.4%). For socioeconomic class, 'small employers/self-employed' were most affected in relative and absolute terms (OR: 3.24, 95% CI 2.28 to 4.63; +10.3%). Across occupations, 'sales and customer service' (OR: 3.01, 95% CI 1.61 to 5.62; +10.7%) had the greatest increase. Analysis with three-way interactions showed considerable gender differences, while for UK country of residence and age results are mixed. CONCLUSIONS: GHQ-12 caseness increases during the pandemic were concentrated among 'professional and technical' and 'hospitality' industries and 'small employers/self-employed' and 'sales and customers service' workers. Female workers often exhibited greater differences in risk by industry and occupation. Policies supporting these industries and groups are needed.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Salud Mental , Pandemias , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Bancos de Muestras Biológicas , COVID-19 , Adulto , Anciano , COVID-19/epidemiología , Humanos , Estilo de Vida , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2 , Clase Social , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Atención a la Salud , Vivienda , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Salud Mental , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Anxiety and stress-related disorders are both common and disabling psychiatric conditions. There are a number of hypotheses suggesting the underlying pathophysiology of these disorders, however, the exact mechanism is unknown. Inflammation has previously been linked with depression and has more recently been suggested as a possible link to anxiety aetiology. The objectives of this study are to assess the relationship between different anxiety/stress-related disorders and inflammation (measured by C-reactive protein) using the UK Biobank, and also determine whether any relationship between anxiety/stress disorders and inflammation is explained by depressive symptoms and other social and health-related factors. We utilised the UK Biobank for the sample of this study. Our sample included 353,136 participants of which 12,759 (3.61%) had a history of an anxiety (phobic, obsessive-compulsive, or other anxiety disorder including generalised anxiety and panic disorders) or stress-related disorder (including acute stress reaction, post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorders). Four logistic regression models were calculated in which we tested the association between anxiety/stress disorders and C-reactive protein (CRP) >3 âmg/L, adjusting for covariates (including age, sex, ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic deprivation, depressive symptoms, body mass index (BMI) and multimorbidity). An association was observed between other anxiety disorders (including panic and generalised anxiety disorders) and CRP (OR: 1.164 [95% CI: 1.096-1.236]). This was attenuated in models after the addition of BMI, multimorbidity and depressive symptoms. Stress/adjustment disorders followed a similar pattern of results (OR: 1.107 [95% CI: 1.040, 1.178]), with the association attenuated with the addition of BMI and multimorbidity). Phobic anxiety disorders (OR: 1.059 [95% CI: 0.896, 1.251]) and obsessive-compulsive disorders (OR: 1.299 [95% CI: 0.973, 1.733]) both showed no statistically significant results in any of the models. Our results support the hypothesis that some anxiety and stress-related disorders may be associated with high levels of inflammatory markers, as measured by CRP. Further studies are required to untangle the potential causal relationships involved.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common, life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 risk-prediction models include a history of VTE. However, it is unclear whether remote history (>9 years previously) of VTE also confers increased risk of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To investigate possible association between VTE and COVID-19 severity, independent of other risk factors. METHODS: Cohort study of UK Biobank participants recruited between 2006 and 2010. Baseline data, including history of VTE, were linked to COVID-19 test results, COVID-19-related hospital admissions, and COVID-19 deaths. The risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death was compared for participants with a remote history VTE versus without. Poisson regression models were run univariately then adjusted stepwise for sociodemographic, lifestyle, and comorbid covariates. RESULTS: After adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle confounders and comorbid conditions, remote history of VTE was associated with nonfatal community (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.02-2.54, p = .039), nonfatal hospitalized (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06-2.17, p = .024) and severe (hospitalized or fatal) (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.89, p = .025) COVID-19. Associations with remote history of VTE were stronger among men (severe COVID-19: RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.14-2.42, p = .009) than for women (severe COVID-19: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.66-1.74, p = .786). CONCLUSION: Our findings support inclusion of remote history of VTE in COVID-19 risk-prediction scores, and consideration of sex-specific risk scores.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Tromboembolia Venosa , Trombosis de la Vena , Anciano , Bancos de Muestras Biológicas , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Factores de Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Tromboembolia Venosa/diagnóstico , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Advances in the early detection of cancer and its treatment have resulted in an increasing number of people living with and beyond breast cancer. Multimorbidity is also becoming more common in this population as more people live longer with breast cancer and experience late effects of cancer treatment. Breast cancer survivors have heightened risk of depression, but to what extent multimorbidity affects the mental health of this population is less clear. This study aims to investigate the association between multimorbidity and depression among women living with and beyond breast cancer in the UK Biobank cohort. METHODS: Data from UK Biobank (recruitment during 2006 to 2010, aged 40-70 years) were used to identify 8438 women with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer via linked cancer registries in England, Scotland and Wales. The lifetime number of chronic conditions was self-reported and multimorbidity defined as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5+. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) was used to define participants that were likely to have depression based on their symptom reporting at baseline. Logistic regression models were used to analyse the associations between multimorbidity and depression, accounting for a number of potential sociodemographic confounding variables (including age, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, education level and marital status) and characteristics related to the cancer (number of years since diagnosis and recurrence/secondary cancer). RESULTS: Multimorbidity was common among breast cancer survivors, with 32.9% of women experiencing one and 30.1% experiencing two or more chronic health conditions. Hypertension (25.8%), painful conditions (18.3%), and asthma (11.6%) were the three most common co-morbid conditions. 5.3% of participants had current depression. A strong, dose-response relationship was found between multimorbidity and the likelihood of depression (OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.56-2.79 for two conditions and OR = 6.06, 95% CI: 3.63-10.14 for five or more conditions). CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity and depression were strongly associated among female UK Biobank participants with a previous breast cancer diagnosis. This association became increasingly pronounced as the number of chronic comorbid conditions increased. As more people survive cancer for longer, increasing recognition and support for multimorbidity and its impact on mental health is needed.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/psicología , Supervivientes de Cáncer/psicología , Depresión/epidemiología , Multimorbilidad , Adulto , Anciano , Asma/complicaciones , Asma/epidemiología , Asma/psicología , Neoplasias de la Mama/complicaciones , Neoplasias de la Mama/mortalidad , Supervivientes de Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Transversales , Depresión/diagnóstico , Depresión/etiología , Depresión/psicología , Femenino , Humanos , Hipertensión/complicaciones , Hipertensión/epidemiología , Hipertensión/psicología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor/complicaciones , Dolor/epidemiología , Dolor/psicología , Sistema de Registros/estadística & datos numéricos , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Studies exploring the longer-term effects of experiencing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on mental health are lacking. We explored the relationship between reporting probable COVID-19 symptoms in April 2020 and psychological distress (measured using the General Health Questionnaire) 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 months later. Data were taken from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, a nationally representative household panel survey of UK adults. Elevated levels of psychological distress were found up to 7 months after probable COVID-19, compared with participants with no likely infection. Associations were stronger among younger age groups and men. Further research into the psychological sequalae of COVID-19 is urgently needed.
RESUMEN
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238091.].
RESUMEN
Minority ethnic groups have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. While the exact reasons for this remain unclear, they are likely due to a complex interplay of factors rather than a single cause. Reducing these inequalities requires a greater understanding of the causes. Research to date, however, has been hampered by a lack of theoretical understanding of the meaning of 'ethnicity' (or race) and the potential pathways leading to inequalities. In particular, quantitative analyses have often adjusted away the pathways through which inequalities actually arise (ie, mediators for the effect of interest), leading to the effects of social processes, and particularly structural racism, becoming hidden. In this paper, we describe a framework for understanding the pathways that have generated ethnic (and racial) inequalities in COVID-19. We suggest that differences in health outcomes due to the pandemic could arise through six pathways: (1) differential exposure to the virus; (2) differential vulnerability to infection/disease; (3) differential health consequences of the disease; (4) differential social consequences of the disease; (5) differential effectiveness of pandemic control measures and (6) differential adverse consequences of control measures. Current research provides only a partial understanding of some of these pathways. Future research and action will require a clearer understanding of the multiple dimensions of ethnicity and an appreciation of the complex interplay of social and biological pathways through which ethnic inequalities arise. Our framework highlights the gaps in the current evidence and pathways that need further investigation in research that aims to address these inequalities.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Etnicidad , Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Grupos Minoritarios , Pandemias , COVID-19/etnología , Etnicidad/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Grupos Minoritarios/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
Vaccine hesitancy could undermine efforts to control COVID-19. We investigated the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK and identified vaccine hesitant subgroups. The 'Understanding Society' COVID-19 survey asked participants (n = 12,035) their likelihood of vaccine uptake and reason for hesitancy. Cross-sectional analysis assessed vaccine hesitancy prevalence and logistic regression calculated odds ratios. Overall vaccine hesitancy was low (18% unlikely/very unlikely). Vaccine hesitancy was higher in women (21.0% vs 14.7%), younger age groups (26.5% in 16-24 year olds vs 4.5% in 75 + ) and those with lower education levels (18.6% no qualifications vs 13.2% degree qualified). Vaccine hesitancy was high in Black (71.8%) and Pakistani/Bangladeshi (42.3%) ethnic groups. Odds ratios for vaccine hesitancy were 13.42 (95% CI:6.86, 26.24) in Black and 2.54 (95% CI:1.19, 5.44) in Pakistani/Bangladeshi groups (compared to White British/Irish) and 3.54 (95% CI:2.06, 6.09) for people with no qualifications versus degree. Urgent action to address hesitancy is needed for some but not all ethnic minority groups.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Estudios Transversales , Etnicidad , Femenino , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Grupos Minoritarios , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Social contact, including remote contact (by telephone, email, letter or text), could help reduce social inequalities in depressive symptoms and loneliness among older adults. METHODS: Data were from the 8th wave of the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (2016/17), stratified by age (n = 1578 aged <65; n = 4026 aged 65+). Inverse probability weighting was used to estimate average effects of weekly in-person and remote social contact on depressive symptoms (score of 3+ on 8-item CES-D scale) and two measures of loneliness (sometimes/often feels lonely vs hardly ever/never; and top quintile of UCLA loneliness scale vs all others). We also estimated controlled direct effects of education, partner status, and wealth on loneliness and depressive symptoms under two scenarios: 1) universal infrequent (
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There are concerns that COVID-19 mitigation measures, including the 'lockdown', may have unintended health consequences. We examined trends in mental health and health behaviours in the UK before and during the initial phase of the COVID-19 lockdown and differences across population subgroups. METHODS: Repeated cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Study, including representative samples of over 27,000 adults (aged 18+) interviewed in four survey waves between 2015 and 2020. A total of 9748 adults had complete data for longitudinal analyses. Outcomes included psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12), loneliness, current cigarette smoking, use of e-cigarettes and alcohol consumption. Cross-sectional prevalence estimates were calculated and multilevel Poisson regression assessed associations between time period and the outcomes of interest, as well as differential associations by age, gender, education level and ethnicity. RESULTS: Psychological distress increased 1 month into lockdown with the prevalence rising from 19.4% (95% CI 18.7% to 20.1%) in 2017-2019 to 30.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 32.3%) in April 2020 (RR=1.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.4). Groups most adversely affected included women, young adults, people from an Asian background and those who were degree educated. Loneliness remained stable overall (RR=0.9, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.5). Smoking declined (RR=0.9, 95% CI=0.8,1.0) and the proportion of people drinking four or more times per week increased (RR=1.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.5), as did binge drinking (RR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress increased 1 month into lockdown, particularly among women and young adults. Smoking declined, but adverse alcohol use generally increased. Effective measures are required to mitigate negative impacts on health.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/psicología , Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina/estadística & datos numéricos , Soledad/psicología , Salud Mental/estadística & datos numéricos , Fumar/psicología , Aislamiento Social/psicología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/epidemiología , COVID-19/epidemiología , Niño , Preescolar , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Conductas Relacionadas con la Salud , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prevalencia , Cuarentena/psicología , SARS-CoV-2 , Fumar/epidemiología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the population's mental health and well-being are likely to be profound and long lasting. AIMS: To investigate the trajectory of mental health and well-being during the first 6 weeks of lockdown in adults in the UK. METHOD: A quota survey design and a sampling frame that permitted recruitment of a national sample was employed. Findings for waves 1 (31 March to 9 April 2020), 2 (10 April to 27 April 2020) and 3 (28 April to 11 May 2020) are reported here. A range of mental health factors was assessed: pre-existing mental health problems, suicide attempts and self-harm, suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, defeat, entrapment, mental well-being and loneliness. RESULTS: A total of 3077 adults in the UK completed the survey at wave 1. Suicidal ideation increased over time. Symptoms of anxiety, and levels of defeat and entrapment decreased across waves whereas levels of depressive symptoms did not change significantly. Positive well-being also increased. Levels of loneliness did not change significantly over waves. Subgroup analyses showed that women, young people (18-29 years), those from more socially disadvantaged backgrounds and those with pre-existing mental health problems have worse mental health outcomes during the pandemic across most factors. CONCLUSIONS: The mental health and well-being of the UK adult population appears to have been affected in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The increasing rates of suicidal thoughts across waves, especially among young adults, are concerning.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescente , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Femenino , Humanos , Salud Mental , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Older people have been reported to be at higher risk of COVID-19 mortality. This study explored the factors mediating this association and whether older age was associated with increased mortality risk in the absence of other risk factors. METHODS: In UK Biobank, a population cohort study, baseline data were linked to COVID-19 deaths. Poisson regression was used to study the association between current age and COVID-19 mortality. RESULTS: Among eligible participants, 438 (0.09%) died of COVID-19. Current age was associated exponentially with COVID-19 mortality. Overall, participants aged ≥75 years were at 13-fold (95% CI 9.13-17.85) mortality risk compared with those <65 years. Low forced expiratory volume in 1 second, high systolic blood pressure, low handgrip strength, and multiple long-term conditions were significant mediators, and collectively explained 39.3% of their excess risk. The associations between these risk factors and COVID-19 mortality were stronger among older participants. Participants aged ≥75 without additional risk factors were at 4-fold risk (95% CI 1.57-9.96, P = 0.004) compared with all participants aged <65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Higher COVID-19 mortality among older adults was partially explained by other risk factors. 'Healthy' older adults were at much lower risk. Nonetheless, older age was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 mortality.