ObjectivesTo characterise the baseline King’s College London Coronavirus Health and Experiences of Colleagues at King’s cohort and describe patterns of probable depression and anxiety among staff and postgraduate research students at a large UK university in April/May 2020.MethodsAn online survey was sent to current staff and postgraduate research students via email in April 2020 (n=2590). Primary outcomes were probable depression and anxiety, measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7, respectively. Secondary outcomes were alcohol use and perceived change in mental health. Outcomes were described using summary statistics and multivariable Poisson regression was used to explore associations with six groups of predictors: demographics and prior mental health, living arrangements, caring roles, healthcare, occupational factors and COVID-19 infection. All analyses were weighted to account for differences between the sample and target population in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity.ResultsAround 20% of staff members and 30% of postgraduate research students met thresholds for probable depression or anxiety on the questionnaires. This doubled to around 40% among younger respondents aged <25. Other factors associated with probable depression and anxiety included female gender, belonging to an ethnic minority group, caregiving responsibilities and shielding or isolating. Around 20% of participants were found to reach cut-off for hazardous drinking on Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, while 30% were drinking more than before the pandemic.ConclusionsOur study shows worrying levels of symptoms of depression, anxiety and alcohol use disorder in an occupational sample from a large UK university in the months following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction We will use an occupational sample to study the impact of COVID-19 on current staff and postgraduate research students at a large UK university. The cohort study will address some of the key questions about COVID-19 for the international community, while also providing feedback to the employer and educator. Methods and analysis Participants were recruited via email to their University email address. Administrative records were available to compare the composition of volunteer participants to underlying staff and postgraduate student populations of the University. The study comprises a baseline survey, longitudinal follow-up surveys and a viral antibody study. Baseline information was collected in April 2020 including demographics, working situation, current stresses and worries, mental health and neurological symptoms. Personal experiences of COVID-19, indirect experiences and attitudes towards the pandemic were queried, as well as satisfaction with communication and support at work. Longitudinal surveys will assess changes in COVID-19 exposure and mental health. A viral antibody detection component is being planned and will also be longitudinal in nature. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been gained from KCL's Psychiatry, Nursing and Midwifery Research Ethics Committee (HR-19/20-18247). Participants were provided with information and agreed to a series of consent statements before enrolment. Data are kept on secure servers with access to personally identifiable information limited. Researchers may apply to have access to pseudonymised data. Findings will be disseminated internally to the University and participants, and externally through scientific publications.

OBJECTIVE We tested the hypothesis that impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) is independently associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this cross-sectional observational study in 950 adults with type 1 diabetes, associations were examined using multiple regression models, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS Prevalence for probable anxiety, depression, and IAH were 9.4%, 9.8%, and 22.6%, respectively. When included in separate regression models, both depression and anxiety were independently associated with an increased odds of IAH and robust to adjustment (odds ratio 3.64 [95% CI 2.19–6.04] and 2.46 [1.46–4.14], respectively). Further analysis demonstrated a dose-response relationship between increased severity of probable mental disorder and increased odds of having IAH (P &lt; 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The robust independent relationship between probable anxiety and depression with IAH demonstrates the need for routine psychological assessment and management of people with type 1 diabetes and IAH.

BackgroundCohort studies of people with a history of COVID-19 infection and controls will be essential to understand the epidemiology of long-term effects. However, clinical diagnosis requires resources that are frequently restricted to the severely ill. Cohort studies may have to rely on surrogate indicators of COVID-19 illness. We describe the prevalence and overlap of five potential indicators: self-reported suspicion, self-reported core symptoms, symptom algorithm, self-reported routine test results, and home antibody testing.MethodsAn occupational cohort of staff and postgraduate students at a large London university who participated in surveys and antibody testing. Self-report items cover March to June 2020 and antibody test results from ‘lateral flow’ IgG/IgM antibody test cassettes sent to participants in June 2020.ResultsValid antibody test results were returned for 1882 participants. Of the COVID-19 indicators, the highest prevalence was core symptoms (770 participants positive, 41%), followed by participant suspicion of infection (n=509, 27%), a symptom algorithm (n=297, 16%), study antibody positive test (n=124, 6.6%) and self-report of a positive external test (n=39, 2.1%). Study antibody positive result was rare in people who had no suspicion they had experienced COVID-19 (n=4, 0.7%) or did not experience core symptoms (n=10, 1.6%). When study antibody test results were compared with earlier external antibody results in those who had reported them, the study antibody results agreed in 88% cases (kappa= 0.636), with a lower proportion testing positive on this occasion (proportion with antibodies detected 15% in study test vs 24% in external testing).DiscussionOur results demonstrate that there is some agreement between different COVID indicators, but that they a more complete story when used together. Antibody testing may provide greater certainty and be one of the only ways to detect asymptomatic cases, but is likely to under-ascertain due to weak antibody responses to mild infection, which wane over time. Cohort studies will need to review how they deal with different and sometimes conflicting indicators of COVID-19 illness in order to study the long-term outcomes of COVID-19 infection and related impacts.What is already known on this subject?Research into the effects of COVID-19 in the community is needed to respond to the pandemic. Objective testing has not been widely available and accuracy may not be high when carried out in retrospect. Many cohort studies are considering how best to measure COVID-19 infection status.What this study adds?Antibody testing is feasible, but it is possible that sensitivity may be poor. Each indicator included added different aspects to the ascertainment of COVID-19 exposure. Using combinations of self-reported and objectively measured variables, it may be possible to tailor COVID-19 indicators to the situation.