A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating impact on global public health since the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in late 2019 (1,2). SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted through direct or indirect contact with infected respiratory droplets or aerosols (3–5). Consequently, public settings and activities that involve direct and indirect contact may promote SARS-CoV-2 transmission (4,6) and were the target of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) introduced by many governments worldwide to control the spread of the virus. COVID-19 vaccination programmes, which began in December 2020 with the emergency licencing of first the Pfizer BioNTech and then AstraZeneca vaccines in the UK, are now a cornerstone of pandemic response in the UK and worldwide along with varying degrees of remaining NPIs. Delivered as two doses with additional booster doses, first and subsequent doses are proven to be effective in reducing symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, hospitalisations, and deaths from COVID-19 (7–10). However, the protection provided by vaccines is not immediate and infection with SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination is possible (11). Studies using data from Israel and the UK suggest an increased risk of symptomatic infection within 14 days of the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (12,13); the reduction in risk of symptomatic infection is seen after 14 days. It is possible that increased risk in the 14 days after vaccination may reflect changes in behaviour associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission during the period of time in which immunologic protection is building (14-16), particularly given the extent to which human behaviour is known to influence infectious disease dynamics (17-20). Furthermore, concerns have been raised that a reduction in behaviours protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection could be seen if the perceived risk of infection is reduced after vaccination against COVID-19 (21).

Empirical evidence regarding the effect of vaccination on infection prevention behaviour is limited. One study examining protective behaviours before and after vaccination against Lyme disease found that people who were vaccinated reduced protective behaviours and believed that they were at less risk of infection than unvaccinated people (22). There is evidence in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic that suggests changes in protective behaviours may occur. In February 2021 the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that 41% of over 80s met a person who was not a part of their household or support bubble indoors within 21 days post-vaccination (23). A December 2020 YouGov survey poll found that of the 1,706 people surveyed, 29% said that they would follow public health restrictions less strictly after receiving a vaccine (24); this poll was conducted prior to widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccination in the UK. Reductions in compliance with mask use and handwashing post-vaccination were found amongst healthcare workers in Ethiopia after the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (25). Contradictory to these findings, a longitudinal analysis investigating compliance with protective behaviours found increases in self-reported compliance with public health guidance and social distancing in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals from October 2020 to February 2021 (26). However, variation in context over this time could have influenced these results - for example, the introduction of the third national lockdown in January 2021 or changes in the perceived risk of infection as case numbers rose.

This study aimed to quantify the effect of a change in COVID-19 vaccination status on transmission-relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown using data from Virus Watch, a large prospective cohort study based in England and Wales. We set out to investigate whether participants’ self-reported levels of non-household contacts and retail and social activities classed as non-essential under lockdown restrictions (such as use of a hairdressers or other services for personal care, attending a party, or dining at restaurant or café) changed within 14 days of their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccination compared to pre-vaccination.

METHODS

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of Virus Watch participants in this analysis (n = 1,154). The majority were over 60 years of age (58.12%), likely due to the phases of COVID-19 vaccine delivery, with older age groups being prioritised in the early stages of the COVID-19 vaccination programme (34). Participants were mostly white (95.93%), from the East of England (24.61%) or South East (20.10%), lived in households with 2-3 people (62.48%), in IMD 5 (least deprived, (31.63%) or with an annual household income of £50,000 or more (38.88%). There was a greater proportion of men in the sample (54.59%) compared to women (44.37%).

Table 2 shows the frequency of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services. Pre-vaccination surveys asked participants to record activities from 2-9 February 2021, with post-vaccination surveys recording activities from 2-9 March 2021. 371/1,154 (32.15%) participants reported contact with a person outside of their household or support bubble pre-vaccination compared with 457/1,154 (39.60%) participants in the 14 days after the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. 74/1,154 (6.41%) participants reported using non-essential shops or services pre-vaccination, while 100/1,154 (8.67%) participants did so in the 14 days after their first COVID-19 vaccine.

Table 3 shows the frequency with which participants reported activities in pre-vaccination and post-vaccination surveys stratified by age group and sex. A greater proportion of participants reported non-household contacts in both pre-vaccination and post-vaccination surveys compared to use of non-essential shops and services, but both activities were reported more frequently post-vaccination. Post-vaccination, reporting of non-household contacts was greatest amongst male participants and those aged less than 60 (257/630, 40.79% and 199/480, 41.46% respectively), but the greatest increase in reported non-household contacts was seen when comparing post-vaccination with pre-vaccination surveys from male participants and those aged 60 years or more. Greater proportions of female participants (47/512, 9.18%) and participants aged 60 years or more (70/673, 10.40%) reported use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days post-vaccination. However, reported use of non-essential shops or services by male participants increased by more than female participants post-vaccination.

Table 4 presents the results of conditional logistic models for the within-individual effects of vaccination on non-household close contacts and use of non-essential shops or services. Odds of reporting non-household close contacts (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.31-2.06, p=<0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03-2.17, p=0.032) were higher within 14 days post-vaccination compared to pre-vaccination.

Table 5 shows the results of stratified conditional logistic models examining heterogeneity of the within-individual effect of a change in vaccination status for contacts and use of non-essential shops or services by sociodemographic characteristics. All analyses compare time periods within 14 days post-vaccination to time periods pre-vaccination.

After stratification by sex, greater odds of reporting non-household close contacts within the 14 days post-vaccination compared to pre-vaccination were consistent for both men (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28-2.29, p=<0.001) and women (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.13-2.17, p=0.007). However, overlapping confidence intervals indicate a lack of effect heterogeneity by sex in the study population. There was evidence of effect of vaccination status on use of non-essential shops or services amongst male participants, who had greater odds of reporting these activities post-vaccination (OR 1.86 95% CI 1.14-3.32, p=0.015). Female participants were not at increased odds of reporting use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76-2.03, p=<0.39).

The odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services in those aged less than 60 years were respectively 1.48 (95% CI 1.05-2.08, p=0.027) and 1.37 (95% CI 0.75-2.47, p=0.30). Elevated odds were seen in those aged 60 years or more, with greater odds for both non-household close contacts (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.33-2.41, p=<0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.01-2.48, p=0.046).

DISCUSSION

Our findings indicate that within 14 days of their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, participants were more likely to report non-household close contacts (OR=1.65, 1.31-2.06) and visiting non-essential shops and services (OR=1.50, 1.03-2.17) compared to pre-vaccination. There was no substantial heterogeneity in the effect of vaccination status on non-household close contacts between men and women, but men had higher odds of reporting use of non-essential shops or services. Participants aged 60 years or more had greater odds of reporting both non-household close contacts and use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination. Increased close contact with people outside of the household and in non-essential retail activities may contribute to the increased risk of infection seen within 14 days of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (12,13), although directly measuring the risk of infection associated with these behaviours was outside the scope of this analysis.

The greatest effect was seen for contacts with people outside of the household. Few participants reported use of non-essential shops or services or social activities, leading to the exclusion of social activities from this analysis due to small group sizes. This is largely due to closure of public venues (e.g., non-essential retail or indoor dining venues) under national regulations in England and Wales at the time of the survey. Results from stratified analyses must also be interpreted with caution due to small subgroup sizes, which likely substantially reduced power for these analyses.

These results highlight the need to maintain protective behaviours within 14 days of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine while immunological protection builds. This could reduce the risk of infection in this time and is a relevant target for public health messaging. Although this analysis focused specifically on non-essential contacts and activities during the third national lockdown, it is possible that the effect of vaccination on activity levels at times when social distancing and other public health measures are relaxed may be even greater. Additionally, there is some evidence to suggest that older people are more likely to adopt or adhere to protective behaviours than younger people during pandemics (35). As most participants in this project were older than 50 years of age, our findings may be different or magnified in younger age groups. Our findings may also be of relevance for current and future booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines considering reported reductions in vaccine effectiveness over time (36-39). This may be of particular importance given recent evidence for immune evasion of both natural and vaccine-acquired immunity by the Omicron Variant of Concern (VoC) (40), the most dominant strain in the UK (41). Longer-term, quantitative data on behaviour related to vaccination could be used to parametrize and validate models of infectious disease dynamics used in public health decision making and policy (19,20), assisting public health planning in response to future outbreaks of infectious diseases.

While we found no differences in the effect of vaccination status between men and women, previous research has suggested that women may be more likely to adopt protective behaviours than men during pandemics, which is potentially related to increased perceived risk (35). A study examining adherence to public health guidance in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic found that women reported making fewer trips outside of the home than men and less use of non-essential shops (42). Although our findings are supported by evidence that a reduction in protective behaviours may be seen after the introduction of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic (25, 43, 44), they are not consistent with those from a Virus Watch study using GPS location data to examine changes in travel distance pre- and post-the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine during the third national lockdown (45). In this analysis, Nguyen et al. found no evidence for an increase in the rate of change in the distance travelled by participants post-vaccination in the 30 days before and after vaccination, suggesting that participants may not have altered behaviours leading to an increased distance travelled during this time. However, participants in the geolocation tracking arm of the study were aware that they were being monitored and so may have been more likely to modify their behaviour. Our results differ from those of Wright et al. (26), whose research showed that compliance with public health guidelines increased in both unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals from October 2020 to February 2021.

Context-specific psychological predictors of behaviour could account for this difference. A scoping review of 149 studies of behaviour change during pandemics (including the COVID-19 pandemic) found higher perceived risk predicted greater levels of adherence to a number of protective behaviours, including social distancing and avoidance of non-essential shopping (46). A number of contextual factors could have caused changes in perceived risk between late 2020 and early 2021. Perceived risk may have been greater during the national lockdown beginning in January 2021 at the peak of the second wave of COVID-19 cases (47). The rapid expansion of first the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha VoC (48) and then Delta VoC in early 2021 (49) may have also influenced perceived risk. Comparison of longer-term changes in compliance with guidelines or protective behaviours post-vaccination with changes over a shorter period of time may therefore not be appropriate.

Alternatively, perceived risk may contribute to the changes in behaviour seen in this analysis independently of vaccination status. Following the peak in January 2021, the number of people testing positive for COVID-19 decreased over February – March 2021 (50). Over time participants may have felt at less risk of COVID-19 and gradually increased their contacts and activities independently of a change in their vaccination status. As our analysis did not directly examine the perceived risk of infection further investigation of the relationship between psychological predictors of behaviour, vaccination and infectious disease dynamics is warranted.

A strength of the case-crossover design is that time-invariant confounders are controlled by self-matching. This is advantageous when studying complex outcomes such as behaviour as conditional logistic regression accounts for unmeasured confounders, which may be unknown or difficult to quantify. By selecting pre- and post-vaccination time periods to be within a period of time during which public health guidance and restrictions were in place, temporal and spatial variation in behaviours was likely minimised. The potential for information bias is minimised as survey questions remained the same over time, and self-matching means that the same individuals reported information for both pre- and post-vaccination time periods,

An important limitation of this analysis is the lack of representativeness of the study population with the general population in England and Wales. Participants who responded to surveys were predominantly of White ethnicity, living in the East or South East of England and living in less deprived environments with high household income. This is significant given the unequal burden of disease and mortality from COVID-19 in the UK population. People living in overcrowded households are at greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (51), and rates of diagnosis and death are higher in people who live in more deprived areas and are from minority ethnic backgrounds (52). Furthermore, confounders (e.g., household income, IMD and region) may have varied over time but were only available at baseline. Self-reported contacts and activities may have been affected by recall bias, although this may have been minimised by survey timing (i.e. the following week). There was also the potential for social desirability bias, but this may have been reduced by survey responses being recorded online. Importantly, the infection risk of contacts and activities in this project could not be directly measured using survey responses – this limits inferences about the impact of changes in behaviour on infection risk and is recommended as a focus for future research.

This analysis provides quantitative evidence for an association between vaccination status and transmission-relevant behaviour using data gathered during the third national lockdown in England and Wales. Our findings suggest that changes in protective behaviours occur while immunological protection is building and may contribute to risk of infection in the 14 days after vaccination. It is possible that such an effect could exist with current and future booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines given reductions in vaccine effectiveness occurring over time. Interventions emphasising the need to maintain protective behaviours in the recently vaccinated could therefore reduce the risk of infection during these time periods.

Funding

The Virus Watch study is supported by the MRC Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. This study was also supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602]. SB and TB are supported by an MRC doctoral studentship (MR/N013867/1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, in the writing of this report, or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Conflicts of interest

AH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group and is a member of the COVID-19 transmission sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Data availability

We aim to share aggregate data from this project on our website and via a “Findings so far” section on our website - https://ucl-virus-watch.net/. We also share some individual record level data on the Office of National Statistics Secure Research Service. In sharing the data we will work within the principles set out in the UKRI Guidance on best practice in the management of research data. Access to use of the data whilst research is being conducted will be managed by the Chief Investigators (ACH and RWA) in accordance with the principles set out in the UKRI guidance on best practice in the management of research data. We will put analysis code on publicly available repositories to enable their reuse.

FIGURES

Figure 1. Exclusion criteria for the analysis of the effect of vaccination status on contacts and activities.