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.
英格兰和威尔士取消国家公共卫生限制后的贫困、必要和非必要活动以及SARS-CoV-2感染
背景:在旨在控制Alpha (B.1.1.7)变异的限制期间,生活在英格兰和威尔士贫困地区的个人比贫困地区的人更频繁地进行基本活动,并且经历了更高的SARS-CoV-2感染率。我们的目的是了解一旦限制解除,这些与剥夺相关的差异是否会发生变化。方法:在解除国家公共卫生限制后的2021年8月至12月期间,对11,231名成年病毒监测社区队列研究参与者进行多变量logistic回归,估计剥夺与自我报告活动之间的关系,以及剥夺与感染之间的关系(自我报告的横向流动或PCR检测以及与国家检测数据和第二代监测系统(SGSS)的联系)。结果:生活在最贫困地区的人更有可能从事必要的活动(离家上班(aOR 1.56(1.33 - 1.83)),乘坐公共交通工具(aOR 1.33(1.13 - 1.57)),但不太可能从事非必要的活动(aOR 0.82(0.70 - 0.96)),户外招待(aOR 0.56(0.48 - 0.66)),室内休闲(aOR 0.63(0.54 - 0.74)),户外休闲(aOR 0.64(0.46 - 0.88)),或去理发店(aOR 0.72(0.61 - 0.85))。贫困与感染之间无统计学关联(P=0.5745),生活在最贫困地区的人不太可能感染SARS-CoV-2 (aOR 1.25(0.87 - 1.79))。结论:贫困和感染之间缺乏联系可能是由于最贫困的人群增加了非必要活动的参与,平衡了最贫困的人群增加的与工作相关的接触。活动的差异突出了个人选择如何限制感染暴露的能力的明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信