» Articles » PMID: 33837048

Impact of Lockdown on Key Workers: Findings from the COVID-19 Survey in Four UK National Longitudinal Studies

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2021 Apr 10
PMID 33837048
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Key workers played a pivotal role during the national lockdown in the UK's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although protective measures have been taken, the impact of the pandemic on key workers is yet to be fully elucidated.

Methods: Participants were from four longitudinal age-homogeneous British cohorts (born in 2001, 1990, 1970 and 1958). A web-based survey provided outcome data during the first UK national lockdown (May 2020) on COVID-19 infection status, changes in financial situation, trust in government, conflict with people around, household composition, psychological distress, alcohol consumption, smoking and sleep duration. Generalised linear models with logit link assessed the association between being a key worker and the above outcomes. Adjustment was made for cohort design, non-response, sex, ethnicity, adult socioeconomic position (SEP), childhood SEP, the presence of a chronic illness and receipt of a shielding letter. Meta-analyses were performed across the cohorts.

Findings: 13 736 participants were included. During lockdown, being a key worker was associated with increased chances of being infected with COVID-19 (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.68) and experiencing conflict with people around (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.37). However, key workers were less likely to be worse off financially (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.65), to consume more alcohol (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98) or to smoke more (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.80) during lockdown. Interestingly, being a key worker was not associated with psychological distress (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.05).

Interpretation: Being a key worker during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown was a double-edged sword, with both benefits and downsides. The UK government had the basic duty to protect its key workers from SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it may have failed to do so, and there is an urgent need to rectify this in light of the ongoing third wave.

Citing Articles

Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection: the Japan COVID-19 and Society Internet Survey (JACSIS) study in 2022.

Sato A, Tanaka H, Tabuchi T, Katanoda K BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):2841.

PMID: 39415154 PMC: 11481273. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-20355-6.


Sleep quality during and after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) lockdowns in the UK: Results from the SleepQuest study.

Blackman J, Gabb V, Carrigan N, Wearn A, Meky S, Selwood J J Sleep Res. 2024; 33(6):e14205.

PMID: 38650540 PMC: 11597021. DOI: 10.1111/jsr.14205.


Risk and protective factors for new-onset binge eating, low weight, and self-harm symptoms in >35,000 individuals in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Davies H, Hubel C, Herle M, Kakar S, Mundy J, Peel A Int J Eat Disord. 2022; 56(1):91-107.

PMID: 36315390 PMC: 9874817. DOI: 10.1002/eat.23834.


Understanding the Mental Health Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Railway Workers: Risks and Protective Factors.

Cogan N, McGibbon M, Gardiner A, Morton L J Occup Environ Med. 2022; 65(2):172-183.

PMID: 36109012 PMC: 9897125. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002711.


Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection: analysis of the UK ONS COVID-19 infection survey.

Rhodes S, Wilkinson J, Pearce N, Mueller W, Cherrie M, Stocking K J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022; .

PMID: 35817467 PMC: 9484374. DOI: 10.1136/jech-2022-219101.


References
1.
Montazeri A, Harirchi A, Shariati M, Garmaroudi G, Ebadi M, Fateh A . The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1:66. PMC: 280704. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-66. View

2.
He D, Dushoff J, Day T, Ma J, Earn D . Inferring the causes of the three waves of the 1918 influenza pandemic in England and Wales. Proc Biol Sci. 2013; 280(1766):20131345. PMC: 3730600. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1345. View

3.
Connelly R, Platt L . Cohort profile: UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). Int J Epidemiol. 2014; 43(6):1719-25. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyu001. View

4.
Power C, Elliott J . Cohort profile: 1958 British birth cohort (National Child Development Study). Int J Epidemiol. 2005; 35(1):34-41. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyi183. View

5.
Kennedy D, Read A . Monitor for COVID-19 vaccine resistance evolution during clinical trials. PLoS Biol. 2020; 18(11):e3001000. PMC: 7676675. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001000. View