The UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and changes in diet, physical activity and sleep during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from eight longitudinal studies

Abstract

Background: In March 2020 the UK implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough) to minimize job losses. Our aim was to investigate associations between furlough and diet, physical activity, and sleep during the early stages of the pandemic. Methods: We analysed data from 25,092 participants aged 16 to 66 years from eight UK longitudinal studies. Changes in employment (including being furloughed) were defined by comparing employment status pre- and during the first lockdown. Health behaviours included fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, and sleeping patterns. Study-specific estimates obtained using modified Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and pre-pandemic health and health behaviours, were statistically pooled. Associations were also stratified by sex, age, and education. Findings: Across studies, between 8 and 25% of participants were furloughed. Compared to those who remained working, furloughed workers were slightly less likely to be physically inactive (RRR:0.85, [0.75-0.97], I2=58.7%) and did not differ in diet and sleep behaviours. In stratified analyses, furlough was associated with low fruit and vegetable consumption among males (RRR=1.11; 95%CI: 1.01-1.22; I2: 0%) but not females (RRR=0.84; 95%CI: 0.68-1.04; I2: 65%). Considering change in behaviour, furloughed workers were more likely than those who remained working to report increased fruit and vegetable consumption, exercise, and hours of sleep. Interpretation: Those furloughed exhibited broadly similar levels of health behaviours with those who remained in employment during the initial stages of the pandemic. Social protection policies in the post-pandemic recovery period and during future economic crises may help protect population health. Funding: Medical Research Council.

Bias from questionnaire invitation and response in COVID-19 research: an example using ALSPAC

“…Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 181 million individuals worldwide and is responsible for over 3.9 million global deaths to date (1 st July 2021, WHO). Due to their wealth of pre-pandemic data, prospective longitudinal studies are making important contributions to understanding the mechanisms of both infection and disease (COVID- 19), and the impact of the pandemic and its management on future health [1][2][3][4][5][6] . However, sociodemographic, behavioural and health-related factors may shape not only who gets infected, progression to COVID-19 and disease severity, but also health-seeking behaviour, who gets tested, and their wider response to the pandemic (e.g., mental health impact).…”

Mental and social wellbeing and the UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: evidence from nine longitudinal studies

“…COVID-19 and its associated mitigation measures, including a series of lockdowns, have had an impact on the economy in the United Kingdom (UK) and worldwide (Koltai et al, 2020;Office for National Statistics, 2020). There is a well-established relationship between individual employment status and mental health and wellbeing (Di Gessa et al, 2021;Flint et al, 2013;Frasquilho et al, 2016;Parsons et al, 2021;Steele et al, 2013). Existing literature on the effects of economic downturns on population health and health-related behaviours is complex and suggests effects are context-specific and vary across generations and between different demographic and socioeconomic groups (Catalano et al, 2011;Copeland et al, 2015;Valkonen et al, 2000).…”

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - A resource for COVID-19 research: Antibody testing results, April – June 2021

“…There is therefore a greater risk of false negatives in the first ALSPAC serology test. Second, the tests were conducted at different times, meaning that participants could have been negative at the first test -if not a false negative -and positive for the second if they contracted the virus after October 1 Data taken from pregnancy questionnaires for G0 and from most recent questionnaire for G1 where available 2 Data taken from the most recent clinic that individual attended where available 3 Data taken from pregnancy questionnaires or COVID4 questionnaire (if missing from pregnancy questionnaire) for all 2020. Additionally, due to waning antibody response over time, especially for N antibodies, it is also possible that participant's infection prior to October 2021 may have been positive for the first test and negative for the second (although the extent of this waning response does appear variable, potentially due to both individual characteristics and the antibody test used [18][19][20] ).…”

“…1 Eligibility criteria: 1)2 Proportions of those invited (i.e., eligible) 3. Proportions of those invited (i.e., eligible) and sent a samples kit Taking the spike antibody response first, 74.8% of participants had a positive result (defined as a U/ml value ≥ 0.80).…”