PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Bridgen, Jessica RE
AU  - Jewell, Chris P
AU  - Read, Jonathan M
TI  - Social mixing patterns in the UK following the relaxation of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions: a cross-sectional online survey
AID  - 10.1101/2021.10.22.21265371
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.10.22.21265371
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/25/2021.10.22.21265371.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/25/2021.10.22.21265371.full
AB  - Background Since 23 March 2020, social distancing measures have been implemented in the UK to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to quantify and characterize non-household contact and to identify the effect of shielding and isolating on contact patterns.Methods Through an online questionnaire, the CoCoNet study measured daily interactions and mobility of 5143 participants between 28 July and 14 August 2020. Negative binomial regression modelling identified participant characteristics associated with contact rates.Results The mean rate of non-household contacts per person was 2.9 d-1. Participants attending a workplace (adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) 3.33, 95%CI 3.02 to 3.66), self-employed (aIRR 1.63, 95%CI 1.43 to 1.87) or working in healthcare (aIRR 5.10, 95%CI 4.29 to 6.10) reported significantly higher non-household contact rates than those working from home. Participants self-isolating as a precaution or following Test and Trace instructions had a lower non-household contact rate than those not self-isolating (aIRR 0.58, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.79). We found limited evidence that those shielding had reduced non-household contacts compared to non-shielders.Conclusion The daily rate of non-household interactions remains lower than pre-pandemic levels, suggesting continued adherence to social distancing guidelines. Individuals attending a workplace in-person or employed as healthcare professionals were less likely to maintain social distance and had a higher non-household contact rate, possibly increasing their infection risk. Shielding and self-isolating individuals required greater support to enable them to follow the government guidelines and reduce non-household contact and therefore their risk of infection.What is already known on this subject?The introduction of social distancing guidelines in March 2020 reduced social contact rates in the UK.Evidence of low levels of adherence to self-isolation.What does this study add?This study provides quantitative insight into the social mixing patterns in the UK at the beginning of the second wave of SARS-CoV2 infection.Healthcare professionals and individuals attending their workplace in-person were less able to follow social distancing guidelines and made more contact with people outside their household than those working from home.Shielding individuals did not make fewer non-household contacts than those not shielding.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementJREB is supported by a Lancaster University Faculty of Health and Medicine doctoral scholarship. JMR and CPJ were supported by UKRI through the JUNIPER modelling consortium [grant number MR/V038613/1].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Faculty of Health and Medicine Ethics Committee at Lancaster University (reference FHMREC19135).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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data are available from Lancaster University research directory at: https://doi.org/10.17635/lancaster/researchdata/476. License: Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY). https://doi.org/10.17635/lancaster/researchdata/476