Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35351028›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022

The association between a lifestyle score, socioeconomic status, and COVID-19 outcomes within the UK Biobank cohort.

Hamish M E Foster, Frederick K Ho, Frances S Mair, Bhautesh D Jani, Naveed Sattar, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Jill P Pell, Claire L Niedzwiedz, Claire E Hastie, Jana J Anderson and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Exploring Public, Practitioner and Policymaker Perspectives of Unhealthy Lifestyle Factors in the Context of Socioeconomic Deprivation: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Hamish M E Foster *Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Frederick K Ho *Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Frances S MairInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Bhautesh D JaniInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Naveed SattarBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Srinivasa Vittal KatikireddiInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jill P PellInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Claire L NiedzwiedzInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Claire E HastieInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jana J AndersonInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Barbara I NichollInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jason M R GillBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Carlos Celis-Morales *British Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Catherine A O'Donnell *Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. Kate.O'Donnell@glasgow.ac.uk.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/15/02Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MR/R024774/1Medical Research Council MR/T001585/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfection 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.

methodsUsing 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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionsUnhealthy 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.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksCOVID-19AdultAgedHumansLife StyleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2Social ClassUnited KingdomCOVID-19EpidemiologyHealth behavioursLifestyleSocioeconomic factors

Identifiers

PMID35351028
PMCPMC8964028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.