Most genome-wide association studies are based on samples of European descent. We assess whether the genetic determinants of blood lipids, a major cardiovascular risk factor, are shared across populations. Genetic correlations for lipids between European-ancestry and Asian cohorts are not significantly different from 1. A genetic risk score based on LDL-cholesterol-associated loci has consistent effects on serum levels in samples from the UK, Uganda and Greece (r = 0.23–0.28, p < 1.9 × 10−14). Overall, there is evidence of reproducibility for ~75% of the major lipid loci from European discovery studies, except triglyceride loci in the Ugandan samples (10% of loci). Individual transferable loci are identified using trans-ethnic colocalization. Ten of fourteen loci not transferable to the Ugandan population have pleiotropic associations with BMI in Europeans; none of the transferable loci do. The non-transferable loci might affect lipids by modifying food intake in environments rich in certain nutrients, which suggests a potential role for gene-environment interactions.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: While medical studies generally provide health feedback to participants, in observational studies this is not always the case due to logistical and financial difficulties, or concerns about changing observed behaviours. However, evidence suggests that lack of feedback may deter participants from providing biological samples. This paper investigates the effect of offering feedback of blood results on participation in biomeasure sample collection.Methods: Participants aged 16 and over from a longitudinal study – the Understanding Society Innovation Panel - were randomised to three arms – nurse interviewer, interviewer, web survey – and invited to participate in biomeasures data collection. Within each arm they were randomised to receive feedback of their blood results or not. For those interviewed by a nurse both venous and dried blood samples (DBS) were taken in the interview. For the other two arms, they were asked if they would be willing to take a sample, and if they agreed a DBS kit was left or sent to them so the participant could take their own sample and return it. Blood samples were analysed and, if in the feedback arms, participants were sent their total cholesterol and HbA1c results.Response rates for feedback and non-feedback groups were compared: overall; in each arm of the study; by socio-demographic and health characteristics; and by previous study participation. Logistic regression models of providing a blood sample by feedback group and data collection approach controlling for confounders were calculated.Results: Overall 2162 (80.3% of individuals in responding households) took part in the survey; of those 1053 (48.7%) consented to provide a blood sample. Being offered feedback had little effect on overall participation but did increase consent to provide a blood sample (unadjusted OR 1.38; CI: 1.16–1.64). Controlling for participant characteristics, the effect of feedback was highest among web participants (1.55; 1.11–2.17), followed by interview participants (1.35; 0.99 –1.84) and then nurse interview participants (1.30; 0.89–1.92).Conclusions: Offering feedback of blood results increased willingness to give samples, especially for those taking part in a web survey.

Understanding Society: The UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) has now been collecting a range of data from its nationally representative sample of participants for 10 years. This significant ‘birthday’ offers a moment to reflect on its contribution to sociological research, and on its current and future potential for fundamental and cutting-edge sociological analysis. While the study shares many features with other longer-standing household panel studies, including its direct predecessor the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), it incorporated from the outset distinctive features that make it particularly valuable for analysis in specific fields, including biosocial research, ethnicity and migration studies, and analyses of the interplay between environmental, social and institutional contexts and individual characteristics. Understanding Society has incorporated methodological development and innovation since its inception, which has facilitated more extensive forms of data collection.

were daily, weekly, monthly, every 3 months or never. Multivariate logistic regression on weighted data was performed to assess variation by sex, age group (50 to state pension age (SPA), SPA to 74, 75 and over), and wealth quintile. Results 5,142 core participants responded to both W9 and CW1. Of these, 553 (10.75%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.71 to 11.89) reported never using the internet in W9 and 733 (14.26%; 13.05 to 15.57) in CW1. Of those aged 75 and older, 320 (30.64%; 26.87 to 34.87) were 'never users' in W9 and 419 (40.03%; 35.51 to 45.03) in CW1. Univariate analysis found that the odds of reporting 'never use' were higher for women than men (W9 odds ratio (OR) 1.39; (CI)

No abstract

Using new data from the Understanding Society: COVID 19 survey collected in April 2020, we show how the aggregate shock caused by the pandemic affects individuals across the distribution. The survey collects data from existing members of the Understanding Society panel survey who have been followed for up to 10 years. Understanding society is based on probability samples and the Understanding Society Covid19 Survey is carefully constructed to support valid population inferences. Further the panel allows comparisons with a pre-pandemic baseline. We document how the shock of the pandemic translates into different economic shocks for different types of worker: those with less education and precarious employment face the biggest economic shocks. Some of those affected are able to mitigate the impact of the economic shocks: universal credit protects those in the bottom quintile, for example. We estimate the prevalence of the different measures individuals and households take to mitigate the shocks. We show that the opportunities for mitigation are most limited for those most in need.