ArticlePloS one2025
Associations between different measures of SARS-CoV-2 infection status and subsequent economic inactivity: A pooled analysis of five longitudinal surveys linked to healthcare records.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Health-related adverse work outcomes associated with post COVID-19 condition: a cross-sectional study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFollowing the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a record number of people became economically inactive in the UK. We investigated the association between coronavirus infection and subsequent economic inactivity among people employed pre-pandemic, and whether this association varied between self-report versus healthcare recorded infection status.
methodsWe pooled data from five longitudinal studies (1970 British Cohort Study, English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, 1958 National Child Development Study, Next Steps, and Understanding Society), in two databases: the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration (UKLLC), which links study data to NHS England records, and the UK Data Service (UKDS), which does not. The study population were aged 25-65 years between April 2020 to March 2021. The outcome was economic inactivity measured at the time of the last survey (November 2020 to March 2021). The exposures were COVID-19 status, indicated by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in NHS records (UKLLC sample only), or by self-reported measures of coronavirus infection (both samples). Logistic regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) adjusting for potential confounders including sociodemographic variables and pre-pandemic health.
resultsWithin the UKLLC sample (N = 8,174), both a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in NHS records (5.9% of the sample; OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.68-1.73) and self-reported positive tests (6.5% of the sample; OR 1.07, 95%CI 0.68-1.69), were marginally and non-significantly associated with economic inactivity (5.3% of the sample) in adjusted analyses. Within the larger UKDS sample (n = 13,881) reliant on self-reported ascertainment of infection (6.4% of the sample), the coefficient indicated a null relationship (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.68-1.40) with economic inactivity (5.0% of sample).
conclusionsAmong people employed pre-pandemic, testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was not associated with increased economic inactivity, although we could not exclude small effects. Ascertaining infection through healthcare records or self-report made little difference to results. However, processes related to record linkage may introduce small biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.