Corrigendum to “Did the UK's public health shielding policy protect the clinically extremely vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic in wales? Results of EVITE immunity, a linked data retrospective study” [Public Health 218 (2023) 12–20]

Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

“…The changes in the intervention over time noted in our study reflect the evolving nature of the shielding list, and the slippage between guidance and advice in public discourse has been tracked in detail by Herrick. 16 Emerging evidence suggests that, despite the shielding intervention, there were still high rates of infection, hospitalisation and mortality in the shielding group 3 17 casting doubt on the mechanism proposed. This may in part be due to the impracticality of truly isolating people, particularly those who were in contact with clinical care providers and carers due to their vulnerability.…”

“…2 Initial findings show that people were more likely to have been identified for inclusion in the shielding intervention with increasing age, frailty and residence in deprived areas; and that reported infection rate was higher in the shielded cohort than the non-shielded general population, though testing rates were higher and infection rates among those not tested in each cohort were unknown. 3 We will also report how shielding affected deaths, healthcare utilisation, immunity status, National Health Service (NHS) costs and quality of life, and how people complied with guidance. 4 In line with the latest MRC guidelines on evaluating complex interventions, 5 the first stage of the EVITE Immunity study aimed to develop a programme theory to explain the intentions of the policy, making explicit all components of the intervention (defined here as being the shielding policy plus support programme), and representing these in a logic model, presented in this paper.…”

“… 2 Initial findings show that people were more likely to have been identified for inclusion in the shielding intervention with increasing age, frailty and residence in deprived areas; and that reported infection rate was higher in the shielded cohort than the non-shielded general population, though testing rates were higher and infection rates among those not tested in each cohort were unknown. 3 We will also report how shielding affected deaths, healthcare utilisation, immunity status, National Health Service (NHS) costs and quality of life, and how people complied with guidance. 4 …”