Abstract
Background Structural barriers to testing may introduce selection bias in COVID-19 research. We explore whether changes to testing and lockdown restrictions introduce time-specific selection bias into analyses of socioeconomic position (SEP) and SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Methods Using UK Biobank (N = 420 231; 55 % female; mean age = 56·3 [SD=8·01]) we estimated the association between SEP and i) being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus not being tested ii) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus testing negative and iii) testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus not being tested, at four distinct time-periods between March 2020 and March 2021. We explored potential selection bias by examining the same associations with hypothesised positive (ABO blood type) and negative (hair colour) control exposures. Finally, we conducted a hypothesis-free phenome-wide association study to investigate how individual characteristics associated with testing changed over time.
Findings The association between low SEP and SARS-CoV-2 testing attenuated across time-periods. Compared to individuals with a degree, individuals who left school with GCSEs or less had an OR of 1·05 (95% CI: 0·95 to 1·16) in March-May 2020 and 0·98 (95% CI: 0·94 to 1·02) in January-March 2021. The magnitude of the association between low SEP and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection increased over the same time-period. For the same comparisons, the OR for testing positive increased from 1·27 (95% CI: 1·08 to 1·50), to 1·73 (95% CI: 1·59 to 1·87). We found little evidence of an association between both control exposures and all outcomes considered. Our phenome-wide analysis highlighted a broad range of individual traits were associated with testing, which were distinct across time-periods.
Interpretation The association between SEP (and indeed many individual traits) and SARS-CoV-2 testing changed over time, indicating time-specific selection pressures in COVID-19. However, positive, and negative control analyses suggest that changes in the magnitude of the association between SEP and SARS-CoV-2 infection over time were unlikely to be explained by selection bias and reflect true increases in socioeconomic inequalities.
Funding University of Bristol; UK Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; European Union Horizon 2020; Wellcome Trust and The Royal Society; National Institute of Health Research; UK Economic and Social Research Council
Competing Interest Statement
KT has acted as a consultant for CHDI foundation. DAL acknowledges support from Roche Diagnostics and Medtronic Ltd for research unrelated to that presented here. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the University of Bristol and Medical Research Council (MRC) Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011/3, MC_UU_00011/6), supporting all authors; the Bristol British Heart Foundation Accelerator Award (AA/18/7/34219), which supports ARC, MCB and DAL; the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 733206 (LifeCycle), which supports GLC and DAL; a University of Bristol Vice-Chancellors Fellowship which supports MCB; an MRC Career Development Award (MR/M020894/1), which supports LDH; a Wellcome Trust and Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship (Grant Number 215408/Z/19/Z) which supports RAH; a British Heart Foundation Chair (CH/F/20/90003) and a National Institute of Health Research Senior Investigator award (NF-0616-10102) which both support DAL; the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/T009101/1), postdoctoral fellowship which supports GJG. This work was conducted as part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and British Heart Foundation (BHF) COVID Flagship project (COVIDITY). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ARC and GJG serve as the guarantors.
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:
UK Biobank ethics committee gave approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
UK Biobank data is available to bona fide researchers. The analysis code used is available at github.com/alicerosecarter/timevarying_covid_selection.
https://www.github.com/alicerosecarter/timevarying_covid_selection