Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37994319›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2023

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 and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Contact behaviour before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: evidence from contact surveys, 2016 to 2017 and 2020 to 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024
    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

13 authors.

Susan HoskinsCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0418-309X
Sarah BealeCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.
Vincent NguyenCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9776-6242
Yamina BoukariCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.
Alexei YavlinskyCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.
Jana KovarInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, England, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Thomas ByrneCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.
Wing Lam Erica FongCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.
Cyril GeismarCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8486-5890
Parth PatelCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.
Anne M JohnsonInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, England, WC1N 1EH, UK.
Robert W AldridgeCentre for Public Health Data Science, University College London, London, England, NW1 2DA, UK.
Andrew HaywardInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, England, WC1E 7HB, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Covid-19deprivationhospitalityleisurepublic transportSARS-CoV-2work

Identifiers

PMID37994319
PMCPMC10663878

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.