ArticleBMJ public health2026
Health inequalities in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in England's second wave: population-based cross-sectional analysis from the REACT-1 study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection caused high levels of hospitalisation and deaths in late 2020 and early 2021 during the second wave in England. COVID-19 disease during this period was associated with marked health inequalities across ethnic and sociodemographic subgroups. In this paper, we aim to investigate and quantify inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection across ethnic and sociodemographic subgroups during a key period before widespread vaccination, thereby identifying the populations that bore a disproportionate burden of risk. Methods: We analysed risk factors for test-positivity for SARS-CoV-2, based on self-administered throat and nose swabs in the community during rounds 5-10 of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study between 18 September 2020 and 30 March 2021. Results: Compared with the White ethnicity, people of Asian and the Black ethnicity had a higher risk of infection during rounds 5-10, with odds of 1.45 (1.27, 1.66) and 1.34 (1.11, 1.63), respectively, adjusted for demographic factors including age, sex, region, key work status, ethnicity and deprivation. Among ethnic subgroups, the highest and the second-highest odds were found in Bangladeshi and Pakistani participants at 3.28 (2.24, 4.80) and 2.12 (1.70, 2.64), respectively, when compared with the White British participants. People in larger (compared with smaller) households had higher odds of infection. Healthcare workers with direct patient contact and care home workers showed higher odds of infection compared with other essential/key workers. Additionally, the odds of infection among participants in public-facing activities or settings were greater than among those not working in those activities or settings. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a global north population during a period when the risk of infection was high, and there were substantial levels of social mixing. Planning for future waves of severe respiratory pathogens should include policies to reduce inequality in the risk of infection by ethnicity, household size and occupational activity in order to reduce inequality in disease.
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.