Predicting resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom: Cross-sectional and longitudinal results

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the psychological wellbeing of some people, there is evidence that many have been much less affected. The Ecological Model of Resilience (EMR) may explain why some individuals are not resilient whilst others are. In this study we test the EMR in a comparison of UK survey data collected from the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) longitudinal study of a representative sample of the United Kingdom (UK) adult population and data from an Italian arm of the study. We first compare data from the third wave of the UK arm of the study, collected in July/August 2020, with data from an equivalent sample and stage of the pandemic in Italy in July 2020. Next, using UK longitudinal data collected from C19PRC Waves 1, 3 and 5, collected between March 2020 and April 2021 we identify the proportion of people who were resilient. Finally, we examine which factors, drawn from the EMR, predict resilient and non-resilient outcomes. We find that the 72% of the UK sample was resilient, in line with the Italian study. In the cross-sectional logistic regression model, age and self-esteem were significantly associated with resilience whilst death anxiety thoughts, neuroticism, loneliness, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms related to COVID-19 were significantly associated with Non-Resilient outcomes. In the longitudinal UK analysis, at Wave 5, 80% of the sample was Resilient. Service use, belonging to wider neighbourhood, self-rated health, self-esteem, openness, and externally generated death anxiety were associated with Resilient outcomes. In contrast, PTSD symptoms and loneliness were associated with Non-Resilient outcomes. The EMR effectively explained the results. There were some variables which are amenable to intervention which could increase resilience in the face of similar future challenges

Tracking the psychological and socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a methodological report from Wave 5 of the Covid-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study

Objectives: The COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study was established in March 2020 to monitor the psychological and socio-economic impact of the pandemic in the UK and other countries. This paper describes the protocol for Wave 5 (March-April 2021). Methods: The survey assessed: COVID-19 related experiences; experiences of common mental health disorders; psychological characteristics; and social and political attitudes. Adults who participated in any previous wave (N=4949) were re-invited to participate. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the longitudinal panel was nationally representative in terms of gender, age, and household income, amongst other factors. Results: Overall, 2520 adults participated. A total of 2377 adults who participated in the previous survey wave (November-December 2020) were re-interviewed at Wave 5 (61.5% retention rate). Attrition between these two waves was predicted by younger age, lower household income, children living in the household, and treatment for mental health difficulties. Of the adults recruited into the C19PRC study at baseline, 57.4% (N=1162) participated in Wave 5. The raking procedure re-balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1.5% of population estimates for selected socio-demographic characteristics. Conclusion: This paper outlines the growing strength of the publicly available C19PRC Study data for COVID-19-related interdisciplinary research

Pandemic buying: Testing a psychological model of over-purchasing and panic buying using data from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

The over-purchasing and hoarding of necessities is a common response to crises, especially in developed economies where there is normally an expectation of plentiful supply. This behaviour was observed internationally during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. In the absence of actual scarcity, this behaviour can be described as ‘panic buying’ and can lead to temporary shortages. However, there have been few psychological studies of this phenomenon. Here we propose a psychological model of over-purchasing informed by animal foraging theory and make predictions about variables that predict over-purchasing by either exacerbating or mitigating the anticipation of future scarcity. These variables include additional scarcity cues (e.g. loss of income), distress (e.g. depression), psychological factors that draw attention to these cues (e.g. neuroticism) or to reassuring messages (eg. analytical reasoning) or which facilitate over-purchasing (e.g. income). We tested our model in parallel nationally representative internet surveys of the adult general population conducted in the United Kingdom (UK: N = 2025) and the Republic of Ireland (RoI: N = 1041) 52 and 31 days after the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 were detected in the UK and RoI, respectively. About three quarters of participants reported minimal over-purchasing. There was more over-purchasing in RoI vs UK and in urban vs rural areas. When over-purchasing occurred, in both countries it was observed across a wide range of product categories and was accounted for by a single latent factor. It was positively predicted by household income, the presence of children at home, psychological distress (depression, death anxiety), threat sensitivity (right wing authoritarianism) and mistrust of others (paranoia). Analytic reasoning ability had an inhibitory effect. Predictor variables accounted for 36% and 34% of the variance in over-purchasing in the UK and RoI respectively. With some caveats, the data supported our model and points to strategies to mitigate over-purchasing in future crises

Design, content, and fieldwork procedures of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study – Wave 4

Objectives: This paper outlines fieldwork procedures for Wave 4 of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study in the UK during November-December 2020. Methods: Respondents provided data on socio-political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, and mental health disorders (anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress). In Phase 1, adults (N=2878) were reinvited to participate. At Phase 2, new recruitment: (i) replenished the longitudinal strand to account for attrition; and (ii) oversampled from the devolved UK nations to facilitate robust between-country analyses for core study outcomes. Weights were calculated using a survey raking algorithm to ensure the longitudinal panel was representative of the baseline sample characteristics. Results: In Phase 1, 1796 adults were successfully recontacted and provided full interviews at Wave 4 (62.4% retention rate). In Phase 2, 292 new respondents were recruited to replenish the panel, as well as 1779 adults from Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, who were representative of the socio-political composition of the adult populations in these nations. The raking procedure successfully re-balanced the longitudinal panel to within 1% of population estimates for selected socio-demographic characteristics. Conclusion: The C19PRC Study offers a unique opportunity to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research addressing important public health questions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic

Delay discounting and under-valuing of recent information predict poorer adherence to social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented global changes in individual and collective behaviour. To reduce the spread of the virus, public health bodies have promoted social distancing measures while attempting to mitigate their mental health consequences. The current study aimed to identify cognitive predictors of social distancing adherence and mental health symptoms, using computational models derived from delay discounting (the preference for smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards) and patch foraging (the ability to trade-off between exploiting a known resource and exploring an unknown one). In a representative sample of the UK population (N=442), we find that steeper delay discounting predicted poorer adherence to social distancing measures and greater sensitivity to reward magnitude during delay discounting predicted higher levels of anxiety symptoms. Furthermore, under-valuing recently sampled information during foraging independently predicted greater violation of lockdown guidance. Our results suggest that those who show greater discounting of delayed rewards struggle to maintain social distancing. Further, those who adapt faster to new information are better equipped to change their behaviour in response to public health measures. These findings can inform interventions that seek to increase compliance with social distancing measures whilst minimising negative repercussions for mental health

Sharing data to better understand one of the world’s most significant shared experiences: Data Resource Profile of the longitudinal COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study

This paper serves to alert IJPDS readers to the availability of a major new longitudinal survey data resource, the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study, which is being released for secondary use via the Open Science Framework. The C19PRC Study is a rich and detailed dataset that provides a convenient and valuable foundation from which to study the social, political, and health status of European adults during an unprecedent time of change as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit. Here, we provide an overview of the C19PRC Study design, with the purpose of stimulating interest about the study among social scientists and maximising use of this resource

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials