Abstract
Background Shielding (extended self-isolation) of people judged, a priori, to be at high-risk from COVID-19 has been used by some countries to protect the individuals and reduce demand on health services. It is unclear how well this strategy works in either regard.
Methods A general population study was conducted using linked primary care, prescribing, laboratory, hospital and death records up to end of May 2020. Poisson regression models and population attributable fractions were used to compare COVID-19 outcomes by overall risk category, and individual risk criteria: confirmed infection, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, population mortality and case-fatality.
Results Of the 1.3 million population, 32,533 (2.47%) had been advised to shield, a further 347,374 (26.41%) were classified as moderate risk. Testing for COVID-19 was more common in the shielded (6.75%) and moderate (1.99%) than low (0.72%) risk categories. Referent to low-risk, the shielded group had higher risk of confirmed infection (RR 7.91, 95% 7.01-8.92), case-fatality (RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.12-6.53) and population mortality (RR 48.64, 95% 37.23-63.56). The moderate risk had intermediate risk of confirmed infection (RR 4.11, 95% CI 3.82-4.42) and population mortality (RR 26.10, 95% CI 20.89-32.60), but had comparable case-fatality (RR 5.13, 95% CI 4.24-6.21) to the shielded, and accounted for a higher proportion of deaths (PAF 75.27% vs 13.38%). Age ≥70 years made the largest contribution to deaths (49.53%) and was associated with an 8-fold risk of infection, 7-fold case-fatality and 74-fold mortality.
Conclusions Shielding has not been effective at preventing deaths in those with highest risk. To be effective as a population strategy, shielding criteria would need to be widely expanded to include other criteria, such as the elderly.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding sources.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Primary Care Information Sharing Group and the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Local Privacy Advisory Committee (LPAC) (Reference GSH/20RM005) and was covered by the generic Safe Haven Research Ethics Committee approval (GSH20RM005_COVID_Community).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available in the Glasgow Safe Haven.
https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/about-us/professional-support-sites/safe-haven/services/
