PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Shabnam, Sharmin AU - Razieh, Cameron AU - Dambha-Miller, Hajira AU - Yates, Tom AU - Gillies, Clare AU - Chudasama, Yogini V AU - Pareek, Manish AU - Banerjee, Amitava AU - Kawachi, Ichiro AU - Lacey, Ben AU - Morris, Eva JA AU - White, Martin AU - Zaccardi, Francesco AU - Khunti, Kamlesh AU - Islam, Nazrul TI - Socioeconomic inequalities of Long COVID: findings from a population-based survey in the United Kingdom AID - 10.1101/2022.10.19.22281254 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.10.19.22281254 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/21/2022.10.19.22281254.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/21/2022.10.19.22281254.full AB - Objective To estimate the risk of Long COVID by socioeconomic deprivation and to further examine the socioeconomic inequalities in Long COVID by sex and occupational groups.Design We analysed data from the COVID-19 Infection Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics between 26/04/2020 and 31/01/2022. This is the largest and nationally representative survey of COVID-19 in the UK and provides uniquely rich, contemporaneous, and longitudinal data on occupation, health status, COVID-19 exposure, and Long COVID symptoms.Setting Community-based longitudinal survey of COVID-19 in the UK.Participants We included 201,799 participants in our analysis who were aged between 16 and 64 years and had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.Main outcome measures We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the risk of Long COVID at least 4 weeks after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection by deciles of index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and adjusted for a range of demographic and spatiotemporal factors. We further examined the modifying effects of socioeconomic deprivation by sex and occupational groups.Results A total of 19,315 (9.6%) participants reported having Long COVID symptoms. Compared to the least deprived IMD decile, participants in the most deprived decile had a higher adjusted risk of Long COVID (11.4% vs 8.2%; adjusted OR: 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33, 1.57). There were particularly significantly higher inequalities (most vs least deprived decile) of Long COVID in healthcare and patient facing roles (aOR: 1.76; 1.27, 2.44), and in the education sector (aOR: 1.62; 1.26, 2.08). The inequality of Long COVID was higher in females (aOR: 1.54; 1.38, 1.71) than males (OR: 1.32; 1.15, 1.51).Conclusions Participants living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas had a higher risk of Long COVID. The inequality gap was wider in females and certain public facing occupations (e.g., healthcare and education). These findings will help inform public health policies and interventions in adopting a social justice and health inequality lens.Competing Interest StatementKK is chair of the ethnicity subgroup of the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and is a member of SAGE. KK, SS, TY, FZ, CG, YC, CR, MP are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC EM) and the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). MW is supported by Medical Research Council funding for the MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge [grant number MC/UU/00006/7]. Other authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThe author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Project number: 2002569, Ref: PU-22-0205(a). https://www.ons.gov.uk/.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:The ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS) was approved by the South-Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee (Ethics Ref: 20/SC/0195). The study was assessed using the National Statistician's Data Ethics Advisory Committee (NSDEC) ethics self-assessment tool, and the committee confirmed that no further ethical consideration was required.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.YesThe data from the Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS) can be accessed only by ONS accredited researchers (AR) through the Secure Research Service (SRS). Researchers can apply for accreditation through the Research Accreditation Service and will need approval to access CIS data. For further details see: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/statistics/requestingstatistics/secureresearchservice.