Deprivation, essential and non-essential activities and SARS-CoV-2 infection following the lifting of national public health restrictions in England and Wales
Susan Hoskins, Sarah Beale, Vincent Nguyen, Yamina Boukari, Alexei Yavlinsky, Jana Kovar, Thomas Byrne, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Cyril Geismar, Parth Patel, Anne Johnson, Robert Aldridge, Andrew Hayward
{"title":"Deprivation, essential and non-essential activities and SARS-CoV-2 infection following the lifting of national public health restrictions in England and Wales","authors":"Susan Hoskins, Sarah Beale, Vincent Nguyen, Yamina Boukari, Alexei Yavlinsky, Jana Kovar, Thomas Byrne, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Cyril Geismar, Parth Patel, Anne Johnson, Robert Aldridge, Andrew Hayward","doi":"10.3310/nihropenres.13445.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<ns3:p>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.</ns3:p>","PeriodicalId":74312,"journal":{"name":"NIHR open research","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NIHR open research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13445.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.