Search

Objectives Little is known about adults who self-report as autistic. This study aimed to profile the demographic characteristics, long-term health conditions and primary care experiences of adults who self-report as autistic (including those with and without a formal diagnosis).Design/setting A nationally representative cross-sectional survey of adults registered with National Health Service (NHS) General Practitioner (GP) surgeries in England.Participants 623 157 survey respondents aged 16 and over, including 4481 who self-report as autistic.Outcomes Weighted descriptive statistics, with 95% CIs. Logistic regression modelling adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity and area-level deprivation compared those who self-report as autistic with the rest of the population.Results A total of 4481 of the 623 157 survey participants included in the analysis self-reported autism, yielding a weighted proportion estimate of 1.41% (95% CI 1.35% to 1.46%). Adults self-reporting as autistic were more likely to be younger, male or non-binary, to identify as a gender different from their sex at birth, have a non-heterosexual sexual identity, be of white or mixed or multiple ethnic groups, non-religious, without caring responsibilities, unemployed, live in more deprived areas and not smoke. All chronic conditions covered were more prevalent among adults self-reporting as autistic, including learning disability, mental health conditions, neurological conditions, dementia, blindness or partial sight and deafness or hearing loss. Adults self-reporting as autistic were also less likely to report a positive experience of making an appointment (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98) and navigating GP practice websites (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87) and more likely to report seeking advice from a friend or family member prior to making an appointment (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38) and having a preferred GP (aOR 2.25, 95% CI 2.06 to 2.46). They were less likely to report that their needs were met (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.83).Conclusions Adults self-reporting as autistic have a distinctive sociodemographic profile and heightened rates of long-term conditions. They report challenges in both accessing primary care and having their needs met when they do. These findings should inform future care initiatives designed to meet the needs of this group.

Abstract Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombotic events, but the implications of vaccination for this increased risk are uncertain. With the approval of NHS England, we quantified associations between COVID-19 diagnosis and cardiovascular diseases in different vaccination and variant eras using linked electronic health records for ~40% of the English population. We defined a ‘pre-vaccination’ cohort (18,210,937 people) in the wild-type/Alpha variant eras (January 2020-June 2021), and ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated’ cohorts (13,572,399 and 3,161,485 people respectively) in the Delta variant era (June-December 2021). We showed that the incidence of each arterial thrombotic, venous thrombotic and other cardiovascular outcomes was substantially elevated during weeks 1-4 after COVID-19, compared with before or without COVID-19, but less markedly elevated in time periods beyond week 4. Hazard ratios were higher after hospitalised than non-hospitalised COVID-19 and higher in the pre-vaccination and unvaccinated cohorts than the vaccinated cohort. COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of cardiovascular events after COVID-19 infection. People who had COVID-19 before or without being vaccinated are at higher risk of cardiovascular events for at least two years.

Objectives Long-term sickness absence from employment has negative consequences for the economy and can lead to widened health inequalities. Sick notes (also called ‘fit notes’) are issued by general practitioners when a person cannot work for health reasons for more than 7 days. We quantified the sick note rate in people with evidence of COVID-19 in 2020, 2021 and 2022, as an indication of the burden for people recovering from COVID-19.Design Cohort study.Setting With National Health Service (NHS) England approval, we used routine clinical data (primary care, hospital and COVID-19 testing records) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database.Participants People 18–64 years with a recorded positive test or diagnosis of COVID-19 in 2020 (n=365 421), 2021 (n=1 206 555) or 2022 (n=1 321 313); general population matched in age, sex and region in 2019 (n=3 140 326), 2020 (n=3 439 534), 2021 (n=4 571 469) and 2022 (n=4 818 870); people hospitalised with pneumonia in 2019 (n=29 673).Primary outcome measure Receipt of a sick note in primary care.Results Among people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or COVID-19 diagnosis, the sick note rate was 4.88 per 100 person-months (95% CI 4.83 to 4.93) in 2020, 2.66 (95% CI 2.64 to 2.67) in 2021 and 1.73 (95% CI 1.72 to 1.73) in 2022. Compared with the age, sex and region-matched general population, the adjusted HR for receipt of a sick note over the entire follow-up period (up to 10 months) was 4.07 (95% CI 4.02 to 4.12) in 2020 decreasing to 1.57 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.58) in 2022. The HR was highest in the first 30 days postdiagnosis in all years. Among people hospitalised with COVID-19, after adjustment, the sick note rate was lower than in people hospitalised with pneumonia.Conclusions Given the under-recording of postacute COVID-19-related symptoms, these findings contribute a valuable perspective on the long-term effects of COVID-19. Despite likely underestimation of the sick note rate, sick notes were issued more frequently to people with COVID-19 compared with those without, even in an era when most people are vaccinated. Most sick notes occurred in the first 30 days postdiagnosis, but the increased risk several months postdiagnosis may provide further evidence of the long-term impact.

Background After the rapid implementation of digital health services during the COVID-19 pandemic, a paucity of research exists about the suitability of remote consulting in people with intellectual disabilities and their carers, particularly for neuropsychiatric reviews. Aim This study examines when remote neuropsychiatric routine consulting is suitable for this population. Method A survey was conducted of people with intellectual disabilities and their carers, examining their preference between face-to-face and video consultations for ongoing neuropsychiatric reviews within a rural countywide intellectual disability service in Cornwall, England (population: 538 000). The survey was sent to all adults with intellectual disabilities open to the service on 30 July 2022, closing on 30 September 2022. Participants were asked to provide responses on 11 items predesigned and co-produced between clinicians and experts by experience. The entire service caseload of people had White ethnicity, reflecting the ethnic demographics of Cornwall. Responses received without consent were excluded from the study dataset. Results Of 271 eligible participants, 119 responses were received, 104 of whom consented to having their anonymised data used for research analysis. There were no significant differences between preferences and age and gender variables. There was no statistically significant difference regarding preference for the reintroduction of face-to-face appointments (52.0%) compared with video consultations (48.0%). Travel distance (>10 miles) to the clinical setting was important but did not outweigh benefits for those preferring a face-to-face appointment. Conclusions This study offers insights into the factors that influence preferences about what type of neuropsychiatric appointment is most suitable for people with intellectual disabilities.

Abstract Background Healthcare workers’ (HCW) well-being has a direct effect on patient care. However, little is known about the prevalence and patterns of long-term medical conditions in HCWs, especially those from ethnic minorities. This study evaluated the burden of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs), i.e. the presence of two or more single long-term conditions (LTCs), among HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) and variation by ethnicity and migration status. Methods We used baseline data from the UK-REACH cohort study collected December 2020–March 2021. We used multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for demographic, occupational and lifestyle factors to examine the relationship between self-reported LTCs/MLTCs and ethnicity, migration status and time since migration to the UK. Results Of 12,100 included HCWs, with a median age of 45 years (IQR: 34–54), 27% were overseas-born, and 30% were from non-White ethnic groups (19% Asian, 4% Black, 4% Mixed, 2% Other). The most common self-reported LTCs were anxiety (14.9%), asthma (12.2%), depression (10.7%), hypertension (8.7%) and diabetes (4.0%). Mental health conditions were more prevalent among UK-born than overseas-born HCWs for all ethnic groups (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) using White UK-born as the reference group each time: White overseas-born 0.77, 95%CI 0.66–0.95 for anxiety). Diabetes and hypertension were more common among Asian (e.g. Asian overseas, diabetes aOR 2.97, 95%CI 2.30–3.83) and Black (e.g. Black UK-born, hypertension aOR 1.77, 95%CI 1.05–2.99) groups than White UK-born. After adjustment for age, sex and deprivation, the odds of reporting MLTCs were lower in most ethnic minority groups and lowest for those born overseas, compared to White UK-born (e.g. White overseas-born, aOR 0.68, 95%CI 0.55–0.83; Asian overseas-born aOR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62–0.90; Black overseas-born aOR 0.52, 95%CI 0.36–0.74). The odds of MLTCs in overseas-born HCWs were equivalent to the UK-born population in those who had settled in the UK for ≥ 20 years (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 0.94–1.37). Conclusions Among UK HCWs, the prevalence of common LTCs and odds of reporting MLTCs varied by ethnicity and migrant status. The lower odds of MLTCs in migrant HCWs reverted to the odds of MLTCs in UK-born HCWs over time. Further research on this population should include longitudinal studies with linkage to healthcare records. Interventions should be co-developed with HCWs from different ethnic and migrant groups focussed upon patterns of conditions prevalent in specific HCW subgroups to reduce the overall burden of LTCs/MLTCs.

Abstract Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) ensures that research is designed and conducted in a manner that is most beneficial to the individuals whom it will impact. It has an undisputed place in applied research and is required by many funding bodies. However, PPI in statistical methodology research is more challenging and work is needed to identify where and how patients and the public can meaningfully input in this area. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional research study was conducted using an online questionnaire, which asked statistical methodologists about themselves and their experience conducting PPI, either to inform a grant application or during a funded statistical methodology project. The survey included both closed-text responses, which were reported using summary statistics, and open-ended questions for which common themes were identified. Results 119 complete responses were recorded. Individuals who completed the survey displayed an even range of ages, career lengths and positions, with the majority working in academia. 40.3% of participants reported undertaking PPI to inform a grant application and the majority reported that the inclusion of PPI was received positively by the funder. Only 21.0% of participants reported undertaking PPI during a methodological project. 31.0% of individuals thought that PPI was “very” or “extremely” relevant to statistical methodology research, with 45.5% responding “somewhat” and 24.4% answering “not at all” or “not very”. Arguments for including PPI were that it can provide the motivation for research and shape the research question. Negative opinions included that it is too technical for the public to understand, so they cannot have a meaningful impact. Conclusions This survey found that the views of statistical methodologists on the inclusion of PPI in their research are varied, with some individuals having particularly strong opinions, both positive and negative. Whilst this is clearly a divisive topic, one commonly identified theme was that many researchers are willing to try and incorporate meaningful PPI into their research but would feel more confident if they had access to resources such as specialised training, guidelines, and case studies.

Abstract Background The kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) predicts the 2- and 5-year risk of needing kidney replacement therapy (KRT) using four risk factors — age, sex, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) and creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Although the KFRE has been recalibrated in a UK cohort, this did not consider minority ethnic groups. Further validation of the KFRE in different ethnicities is a research priority. The KFRE also does not consider the competing risk of death, which may lead to overestimation of KRT risk. This study externally validates the KFRE for patients of South Asian ethnicity and compares methods for accounting for ethnicity and the competing event of death. Methods Data were gathered from an established UK cohort containing 35,539 individuals diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. The KFRE was externally validated and updated in several ways taking into account ethnicity, using recognised methods for time-to-event data, including the competing risk of death. A clinical impact assessment compared the updated models through consideration of referrals made to secondary care. Results The external validation showed the risk of KRT differed by ethnicity. Model validation performance improved when incorporating ethnicity and its interactions with ACR and eGFR as additional risk factors. Furthermore, accounting for the competing risk of death improved prediction. Using criteria of 5 years ≥ 5% predicted KRT risk, the competing risks model resulted in an extra 3 unnecessary referrals (0.59% increase) but identified an extra 1 KRT case (1.92% decrease) compared to the previous best model. Hybrid criteria of predicted risk using the competing risks model and ACR ≥ 70 mg/mmol should be used in referrals to secondary care. Conclusions The accuracy of KFRE prediction improves when updated to consider South Asian ethnicity and to account for the competing risk of death. This may reduce unnecessary referrals whilst identifying risks of KRT and could further individualise the KFRE and improve its clinical utility. Further research should consider other ethnicities.

Background Exploration of the association between financial concerns and depression in UK healthcare workers (HCWs) is paramount given the current ‘cost of living crisis’, ongoing strike action and recruitment/retention problems in the National Health Service. Aims To assess the impact of financial concerns on the risk of depression in HCWs, how these concerns have changed over time and what factors might predict financial concerns. Method We used longitudinal survey data from a UK-wide cohort of HCWs to determine whether financial concerns at baseline (December 2020 to March 2021) were associated with depression (measured with the Public Health Questionnaire-2) at follow-up (June to October 2022). We used logistic regression to examine the association between financial concerns and depression, and ordinal logistic regression to establish predictors of developing financial concerns. Results A total of 3521 HCWs were included. Those concerned about their financial situation at baseline had higher odds of developing depressive symptoms at follow-up. Financial concerns increased in 43.8% of HCWs and decreased in 9%. Those in nursing, midwifery and other nursing roles had over twice the odds of developing financial concerns compared with those in medical roles. Conclusions Financial concerns are increasing in prevalence and predict the later development of depressive symptoms in UK HCWs. Those in nursing, midwifery and other allied nursing roles may have been disproportionately affected. Our results are concerning given the potential effects on sickness absence and staff retention. Policy makers should act to alleviate financial concerns to reduce the impact this may have on a discontent workforce plagued by understaffing.

Summary: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and may have impacted ethnic inequalities in healthcare. We aimed to describe the impact of pandemic-related disruption on ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospital admissions for non-COVID conditions in England. Methods: In this population-based, observational cohort study we used primary care electronic health record data with linkage to hospital episode statistics data and mortality data within OpenSAFELY, a data analytics platform created, with approval of NHS England, to address urgent COVID-19 research questions. We included adults aged 18 years and over registered with a TPP practice between March 1, 2018, and April 30, 2022. We excluded those with missing age, sex, geographic region, or Index of Multiple Deprivation. We grouped ethnicity (exposure), into five categories: White, Asian, Black, Other, and Mixed. We used interrupted time-series regression to estimate ethnic differences in clinical monitoring frequency (blood pressure and Hba1c measurements, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma annual reviews) before and after March 23, 2020. We used multivariable Cox regression to quantify ethnic differences in hospitalisations related to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and mental health before and after March 23, 2020. Findings: Of 33,510,937 registered with a GP as of 1st January 2020, 19,064,019 were adults, alive and registered for at least 3 months, 3,010,751 met the exclusion criteria and 1,122,912 were missing ethnicity. This resulted in 14,930,356 adults with known ethnicity (92% of sample): 86.6% were White, 7.3% Asian, 2.6% Black, 1.4% Mixed ethnicity, and 2.2% Other ethnicities. Clinical monitoring did not return to pre-pandemic levels for any ethnic group. Ethnic differences were apparent pre-pandemic, except for diabetes monitoring, and remained unchanged, except for blood pressure monitoring in those with mental health conditions where differences narrowed during the pandemic. For those of Black ethnicity, there were seven additional admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis per month during the pandemic, and relative ethnic differences narrowed during the pandemic compared to the White ethnic group (Pre-pandemic hazard ratio (HR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41, 0.60, Pandemic HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.87). There was increased admissions for heart failure during the pandemic for all ethnic groups, though highest in those of White ethnicity (heart failure risk difference: 5.4). Relatively, ethnic differences narrowed for heart failure admission in those of Asian (Pre-pandemic HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.49, 1.64, Pandemic HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19, 1.29) and Black ethnicity (Pre-pandemic HR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.53, Pandemic HR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.09, 1.25) compared with White ethnicity. For other outcomes the pandemic had minimal impact on ethnic differences. Interpretation: Our study suggests that ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospitalisations remained largely unchanged during the pandemic for most conditions. Key exceptions were hospitalisations for diabetic ketoacidosis and heart failure, which warrant further investigation to understand the causes. Funding: LSHTM COVID-19 Response Grant (DONAT15912).

Summary: Background: Few studies have compared SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity by ethnic group. We sought to establish whether cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ according to ethnicity in UK Healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, we used baseline data from two immunological cohort studies conducted in HCWs in Leicester, UK. Blood samples were collected between March 3, and September 16, 2021. We excluded HCW who had not received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at the time of sampling and those who had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcome measures were SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific total antibody titre, neutralising antibody titre and ELISpot count. We compared our outcome measures by ethnic group using univariable (t tests and rank-sum tests depending on distribution) and multivariable (linear regression for antibody titres and negative binomial regression for ELISpot counts) tests. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, vaccine type, length of interval between vaccine doses and time between vaccine administration and sample collection and expressed as adjusted geometric mean ratios (aGMRs) or adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs). To assess differences in the early immune response to vaccination we also conducted analyses in a subcohort who provided samples between 14 and 50 days after their second dose of vaccine. Findings: The total number of HCWs in each analysis were 401 for anti-spike antibody titres, 345 for neutralising antibody titres and 191 for ELISpot. Overall, 25.4% (19.7% South Asian and 5.7% Black/Mixed/Other) were from ethnic minority groups. In analyses including the whole cohort, neutralising antibody titres were higher in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs (aGMR 1.47, 95% CI [1.06–2.06], P = 0.02) as were T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 peptides (aIRR 1.75, 95% CI [1.05–2.89], P = 0.03). In a subcohort sampled between 14 and 50 days after second vaccine dose, SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody and neutralising antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) was higher in South Asian HCWs compared to White HCWs (9616 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml, 95% CI [7178–12,852] vs 5888 BAU/ml [5023–6902], P = 0.008 and 2851 95% CI [1811–4487] vs 1199 [984–1462], P

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs), particularly those from ethnic minority groups, have been shown to be at disproportionately higher risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to the general population. However, there is insufficient evidence on how demographic and occupational factors influence infection risk among ethnic minority HCWs.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the baseline questionnaire of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study, administered between December 2020 and March 2021. We used logistic regression to examine associations of demographic, household, and occupational risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serology, or suspected COVID-19) in a diverse group of HCWs. The primary exposure of interest was self-reported ethnicity. Among 10,772 HCWs who worked during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020, the median age was 45 (interquartile range [IQR] 35 to 54), 75.1% were female and 29.6% were from ethnic minority groups. A total of 2,496 (23.2%) reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fully adjusted model contained the following dependent variables: demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, deprivation, religiosity), household factors (living with key workers, shared spaces in accommodation, number of people in household), health factors (presence/absence of diabetes or immunosuppression, smoking history, shielding status, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status), the extent of social mixing outside of the household, and occupational factors (job role, the area in which a participant worked, use of public transport to work, exposure to confirmed suspected COVID-19 patients, personal protective equipment [PPE] access, aerosol generating procedure exposure, night shift pattern, and the UK region of workplace). After adjustment, demographic and household factors associated with increased odds of infection included younger age, living with other key workers, and higher religiosity. Important occupational risk factors associated with increased odds of infection included attending to a higher number of COVID-19 positive patients (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.18 for ≥21 patients per week versus none), working in a nursing or midwifery role (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53, compared to doctors), reporting a lack of access to PPE (1.29, 1.17 to 1.43), and working in an ambulance (2.00, 1.56 to 2.58) or hospital inpatient setting (1.55, 1.38 to 1.75). Those who worked in intensive care units were less likely to have been infected (0.76, 0.64 to 0.92) than those who did not. Black HCWs were more likely to have been infected than their White colleagues, an effect which attenuated after adjustment for other known risk factors. This study is limited by self-selection bias and the cross sectional nature of the study means we cannot infer the direction of causality.ConclusionsWe identified key sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among UK HCWs, and have determined factors that might contribute to a disproportionate odds of infection in HCWs from Black ethnic groups. These findings demonstrate the importance of social and occupational factors in driving ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes, and should inform policies, including targeted vaccination strategies and risk assessments aimed at protecting HCWs in future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.Trial registrationThe study was prospectively registered at ISRCTN (reference number: ISRCTN11811602).

Objectives Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) case ascertainment improves for the UK general population using linked health data sets. Because care pathways for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) change based on disease severity, AMI case ascertainment for these people may differ compared with the general population. We aimed to determine the association between CKD severity and AMI case ascertainment in two secondary care data sets, and the agreement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the same data sets.Methods We used a cohort study design. Primary care records for people with CKD or risk factors for CKD, identified using the National CKD Audit (2015–2017), were linked to the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP, 2007–2017) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES, 2007–2017) secondary care registries. People with an AMI recorded in either MINAP, HES or both were included in the study cohort. CKD status was defined using eGFR, derived from the most recent serum creatinine value recorded in primary care. Moderate–severe CKD was defined as eGFR

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality and devastated economies globally. Among groups at increased risk are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related outcomes. To date, there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK HCWs or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation, and adjusted for confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers).Methods and analysis A baseline questionnaire will be administered to a national cohort of UK HCWs and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators, with follow-up questionnaires administered at 4 and 8 months. With consent, questionnaire data will be linked to health records with 25-year follow-up. Univariate associations between ethnicity and clinical COVID-19 outcomes, physical and mental health, and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested. Multivariable analyses will test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables. We will model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings.Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress about questions on sensitive topics by clearly participant information that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and there is no obligation to answer these or any other questions, and by providing support organisation links. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers submitted to pre-print servers and peer reviewed journals.Trial registration number ISRCTN11811602; Pre-results.

Introduction COVID-19 has spread rapidly worldwide, causing significant morbidity and mortality. People from ethnic minorities, particularly those working in healthcare settings, have been disproportionately affected. Current evidence of the association between ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes in people working in healthcare settings is insufficient to inform plans to address health inequalities.Methods and analysis This study combines anonymised human resource databases with professional registration and National Health Service data sets to assess associations between ethnicity and COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalisation and death in healthcare workers in the UK. Adverse COVID-19 outcomes will be assessed between 1 February 2020 (date following first confirmed COVID-19 case in UK) and study end date (31 January 2021), allowing 1-year of follow-up. Planned analyses include multivariable Poisson, logistic and flexible parametric time-to-event regression within each country, adjusting for core predictors, followed by meta-analysis of country-specific results to produce combined effect estimates for the UK. Mediation analysis methods will be explored to examine the direct, indirect and mediated interactive effects between ethnicity, occupational group and COVID-19 outcomes.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for the UK-REACH programme has been obtained via the expedited HRA COVID-19 processes (REC ref: 20/HRA/4718, IRAS ID: 288316). Research information will be anonymised via the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank before release to researchers. Study results will be submitted for publication in an open access peer-reviewed journal and made available on our dedicated website (https://uk-reach.org/).Trial registration number ISRCTN11811602.

IntroductionVarious prognostic models have been developed for acute stroke, including one based on age and five binary variables ('six simple variables' model; SSVMod) and one based on age plus scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSSMod). The aims of this study were to externally validate and recalibrate these models, and to compare their predictive ability in relation to both survival and independence.MethodsData from a large clinical trial of oxygen therapy (n = 8003) were used to determine the discrimination and calibration of the models, using C-statistics, calibration plots, and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics. Methods of recalibration in the large and logistic recalibration were used to update the models.ResultsFor discrimination, both models functioned better for survival (C-statistics between .802 and .837) than for independence (C-statistics between .725 and .735). Both models showed slight shortcomings with regard to calibration, over-predicting survival and under-predicting independence; the NIHSSMod performed slightly better than the SSVMod. For the most part, there were only minor differences between ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes. Logistic recalibration successfully updated the models for a clinical trial population.ConclusionsBoth prognostic models performed well overall in a clinical trial population. The choice between them is probably better based on clinical and practical considerations than on statistical considerations.