Emily Cooper

Introduction People with Long Covid report a wide range of symptoms and inconsistent responses when seeking clinical diagnosis and support. Much of the qualitative research on Long Covid has been based on people attending specialist clinical services or who have accessed support groups. We describe the varied ways in which a diverse group of people in a community sample experience, recognise and manage persistent symptoms following COVID-19. Methods Qualitative interview study nested within the large, community-based REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) study in England. Participants reporting persistent symptoms following COVID-19 were asked for consent to be contacted about a follow-up interview. We then purposively sampled by age, gender, ethnicity and symptom severity and conducted 60 interviews. Analysis was carried out using a reflexive thematic analysis approach. Results Participants were an ethnically diverse group aged between 18 and 80 years who reported symptoms following COVID-19 for between a few months and more than two years. Many had not accessed clinical care or specific Long Covid support, and some did not identify with the category of long covid, rendering their experiences largely invisible. Participants highlighted the ways in which they self-manage symptoms within this context, and the varied burden of coping with ongoing health problems. Conclusion This diverse sample of people with Long Covid report a range of challenges managing this emerging and contested condition, with uncertainty affecting their own understanding and the validation they receive from professionals, family and friends. These challenges intersect with others such as racism, and are compounded by a lack of specific resources for Long Covid as well as over-stretched health services in the UK. Nevertheless, people show resilience in their self-management, seeking information and support from a range of sources. Patient or Public Contribution Study design, analysis and outputs informed by Patient Advisory Group.

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a lasting impact on health and well-being. We compare current self-reported health, quality of life and symptom profiles for people with ongoing symptoms following COVID-19 to those who have never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who have recovered from COVID-19. Overall, 276,840/800,000 (34·6%) of invited participants took part. Mental health and health-related quality of life were worse among participants with ongoing persistent symptoms post-COVID compared with those who had never had COVID-19 or had recovered. In this study, median duration of COVID-related symptoms (N = 130,251) was 1·3 weeks (inter-quartile range 6 days to 2 weeks), with 7·5% and 5·2% reporting ongoing symptoms ≥12 weeks and ≥52 weeks respectively. Female sex, ≥1 comorbidity and being infected when Wild-type variant was dominant were associated with higher probability of symptoms lasting ≥12 weeks and longer recovery time in those with persistent symptoms. Although COVID-19 is usually of short duration, some adults experience persistent and burdensome illness.

Background: Long COVID is a patient-made term describing new or persistent symptoms experienced following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission-Long COVID (REACT-LC) study aims to understand variation in experiences following infection, and to identify biological, social, and environmental factors associated with Long COVID. We undertook a pilot interview study to inform the design, recruitment approach, and topic guide for the REACT-LC qualitative study. We sought to gain initial insights into the experience and attribution of new or persistent symptoms and the awareness or perceived applicability of the term Long COVID. Methods: People were invited to REACT-LC assessment centres if they had taken part in REACT, a random community-based prevalence study, and had a documented history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We invited people from REACT-LC assessment centres who had reported experiencing persistent symptoms for more than 12 weeks to take part in an interview. We conducted face to face and online semi-structured interviews which were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis. Results: We interviewed 13 participants (6 female, 7 male, median age 31). Participants reported a wide variation in both new and persistent symptoms which were often fluctuating or unpredictable in nature. Some participants were confident about the link between their persistent symptoms and COVID-19; however, others were unclear about the underlying cause of symptoms or felt that the impact of public health measures (such as lockdowns) played a role. We found differences in awareness and perceived applicability of the term Long COVID. Conclusion: This pilot has informed the design, recruitment approach and topic guide for our qualitative study. It offers preliminary insights into the varied experiences of people living with persistent symptoms including differences in symptom attribution and perceived applicability of the term Long COVID. This variation shows the value of recruiting from a nationally representative sample of participants who are experiencing persistent symptoms.

Despite developments in HIV treatment and care, disparities persist with some not fully benefiting from improvements in the HIV care continuum. We conducted a systematic review to explore associations between social determinants and HIV treatment outcomes (viral suppression and treatment adherence) in high-income countries. A random effects meta-analysis was performed where there were consistent measurements of exposures. We identified 83 observational studies eligible for inclusion. Social determinants linked to material deprivation were identified as education, employment, food security, housing, income, poverty/deprivation, socioeconomic status/position, and social class; however, their measurement and definition varied across studies. Our review suggests a social gradient of health persists in the HIV care continuum; people living with HIV who reported material deprivation were less likely to be virologically suppressed or adherent to antiretrovirals. Future research should use an ecosocial approach to explore these interactions across the lifecourse to help propose a causal pathway.

Background: This study assesses the behavioural responses to SARS-CoV-2 antibody test results as part of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2 (REACT-2) research programme, a large community-based surveillance study of antibody prevalence in England. Methods: A follow-up survey was conducted six weeks after the SARS-CoV-2 antibody test. The follow-up survey included 4500 people with a positive result and 4039 with a negative result. Reported changes in behaviour were assessed using difference-in-differences models. A nested interview study was conducted with 40 people to explore how they thought through their behavioural decisions. Results: While respondents reduced their protective behaviours over the six weeks, we did not find evidence that positive test results changed participant behaviour trajectories in relation to the number of contacts the respondents had, for leaving the house to go to work, or for leaving the house to socialise in a personal place. The qualitative findings supported these results. Most people did not think that they had changed their behaviours because of their test results, however they did allude to some changes in their attitudes and perceptions around risk, susceptibility, and potential severity of symptoms. Conclusions: We found limited evidence that knowing your antibody status leads to behaviour change in the context of a research study. While this finding should not be generalised to widespread self-testing in other contexts, it is reassuring given the importance of large prevalence studies, and the practicalities of doing these at scale using self-testing with lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA).

Background: This study assesses the behavioural responses to SARS-CoV-2 antibody test results as part of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2 (REACT-2) research programme, a large community-based surveillance study of antibody prevalence in England. Methods: A follow-up survey was conducted six weeks after the SARS-CoV-2 antibody test. The follow-up survey included 4500 people with a positive result and 4039 with a negative result. Reported changes in behaviour were assessed using difference-in-differences models. A nested interview study was conducted with 40 people to explore how they thought through their behavioural decisions. Results: While respondents reduced their protective behaviours over the six weeks, we did not find evidence that positive test results changed participant behaviour trajectories in relation to the number of contacts the respondents had, for leaving the house to go to work, or for leaving the house to socialise in a personal place. The qualitative findings supported these results. Most people did not think that they had changed their behaviours because of their test results, however they did allude to some changes in their attitudes and perceptions around risk, susceptibility, and potential severity of symptoms. Conclusions: We found limited evidence that knowing your antibody status leads to behaviour change in the context of a research study. While this finding should not be generalised to widespread self-testing in other contexts, it is reassuring given the importance of large prevalence studies, and the practicalities of doing these at scale using self-testing with lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA).