Abstract:The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992. The resource provides an informative and efficient setting for collecting data on the current coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In early March 2020, a questionnaire was developed in collaboration with other longitudinal population studies to ensure cross-cohort comparability. It targeted retrospective and current COVID-19 infection information (exposure as… Show more
“…We were able to assess some key sociodemographic factors predicting questionnaire completion, which is important for assessing and quantifying the extent of possible selection and collider bias, which may bias both our prevalence estimates and associations between variables 20 . As reported both here and previously 10 , 11 , questionnaire response is socially patterned, with older, female, and higher-socioeconomic position participants more likely to respond. Additionally, in this questionnaire participants who previously reported that they had COVID-19 were more likely to respond.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Datasupporting
confidence: 83%
“…As with the previous COVID-19 questionnaires 10,11 , women were more likely to return the questionnaire than men. Individuals who had previously self-reported that they had had COVID-19 (from either a positive test, doctor suspicions or own suspicions) were more likely to complete this third questionnaire.…”
Section: Key Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…This data note describes the data collected via our third online questionnaire in October 2020 which was complemented by home-based antibody testing. The update to the original dataset obtained from our first two online questionnaires 10 , 11 are described here, together with any variables that have been derived using all sets of questionnaire data. We also present a summary of the antibody testing results.…”
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. The study reacted rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, deploying online questionnaires in March and May 2020. Home-based antibody tests and a further questionnaire were sent to 5220 participants during a two-week period of October 2020. 4.2% (n=201) of participants reported a positive antibody test (3.2% G0s [n=81]; 5.6% G1s [n=120]). 43 reported an invalid test, 7 did not complete and 3 did not report their result. Participants uploaded a photo of their test to enable validation: all positive tests, those where the participant could not interpret the result and a 5% random sample were manually checked against photos. We report 92% agreement (kappa=0.853). Positive tests were compared to additional COVID-19 status information: 58 (1.2%) participants reported a previous positive test, 73 (1.5%) reported that COVID-19 was suspected by a doctor, but not tested and 980 (20.4%) believed they had COVID-19 due to their own suspicions. Of those reporting a positive result on our antibody test, 55 reported that they did not think they had had COVID-19. Results from antibody testing and questionnaire data will be complemented by health record linkage and results of other biological testing– uniting Pillar testing data with home testing and self-report. Data have been released as an update to the original datasets released in July 2020. It comprises: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to all three questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors and 2) as individual participant-specific release files enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the antibody testing, associated questionnaire and the data obtained from it.
“…We were able to assess some key sociodemographic factors predicting questionnaire completion, which is important for assessing and quantifying the extent of possible selection and collider bias, which may bias both our prevalence estimates and associations between variables 20 . As reported both here and previously 10 , 11 , questionnaire response is socially patterned, with older, female, and higher-socioeconomic position participants more likely to respond. Additionally, in this questionnaire participants who previously reported that they had COVID-19 were more likely to respond.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Datasupporting
confidence: 83%
“…As with the previous COVID-19 questionnaires 10,11 , women were more likely to return the questionnaire than men. Individuals who had previously self-reported that they had had COVID-19 (from either a positive test, doctor suspicions or own suspicions) were more likely to complete this third questionnaire.…”
Section: Key Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…This data note describes the data collected via our third online questionnaire in October 2020 which was complemented by home-based antibody testing. The update to the original dataset obtained from our first two online questionnaires 10 , 11 are described here, together with any variables that have been derived using all sets of questionnaire data. We also present a summary of the antibody testing results.…”
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort study which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. The study reacted rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, deploying online questionnaires in March and May 2020. Home-based antibody tests and a further questionnaire were sent to 5220 participants during a two-week period of October 2020. 4.2% (n=201) of participants reported a positive antibody test (3.2% G0s [n=81]; 5.6% G1s [n=120]). 43 reported an invalid test, 7 did not complete and 3 did not report their result. Participants uploaded a photo of their test to enable validation: all positive tests, those where the participant could not interpret the result and a 5% random sample were manually checked against photos. We report 92% agreement (kappa=0.853). Positive tests were compared to additional COVID-19 status information: 58 (1.2%) participants reported a previous positive test, 73 (1.5%) reported that COVID-19 was suspected by a doctor, but not tested and 980 (20.4%) believed they had COVID-19 due to their own suspicions. Of those reporting a positive result on our antibody test, 55 reported that they did not think they had had COVID-19. Results from antibody testing and questionnaire data will be complemented by health record linkage and results of other biological testing– uniting Pillar testing data with home testing and self-report. Data have been released as an update to the original datasets released in July 2020. It comprises: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to all three questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors and 2) as individual participant-specific release files enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the antibody testing, associated questionnaire and the data obtained from it.
“…Additionally, although not explored directly in this data note, previous ALSPAC data notes [8][9][10][11] and other research 24 has established that invitation and response to ALSPAC's COVID-19 data collection is non-random (e.g., with participants who are older, female, white and from higher socioeconomic backgrounds -among other factors -more likely to be invited and respond). Analyses using this data may therefore potentially be subject to selection bias, which may bias both prevalence estimates in this population and associations between variables [25][26][27] .…”
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and their offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. The study reacted rapidly and repeatedly to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, deploying multiple online questionnaires and a previous home-based antibody test in October 2020. A second antibody test, in collaboration with ten other longitudinal population studies, was completed by 4,622 ALSPAC participants between April and June 2021. Of participants with a valid spike protein antibody test result (4,241; 8.2% void), indicating antibody response to either COVID-19 vaccination or natural infection, 3,172 were positive (74.8%). Generational differences were substantial, with 2,463/2,555 G0 participants classified positive (96.4%) compared to 709/1,686 G1 participants (42.1%). Of participants with a valid nucleocapsid antibody test result (4,199; 9.2% void), suggesting potential and recent natural infection, 493 were positive (11.7%); with 248/2,526 G0 participants (9.8%) and 245/1,673 G1 participants (14.6%) testing positive, respectively. We also compare results for this round of testing to that undertaken in October 2020. Future work will combine these test results with additional sources of data to identify participants’ COVID-19 infection and vaccination status. These ALSPAC COVID-19 serology data are being complemented with linkage to health records and Public Health England pillar testing results as they become available, in addition to four previous questionnaire waves and a prior antibody test. Data have been released as an update to the previous COVID-19 datasets. These comprise: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to all four previous questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors; and 2) individual participant-specific release files enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the second ALSPAC antibody test and the data obtained from it.
“…Pre-pandemic high-risk drinking, smoking (no/yes), and e-cigarette use (no/yes; young people only), were assessed at different time points (2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017). Early pandemic risk/protective behaviours (self-isolating, social contact) were assessed in the first COVID-19 online questionnaire (09.04.20-15.05.20) (Northstone et al, 2020a).…”
Background: Mental health has worsened, and substance use has increased for some individuals during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Cross-sectional studies suggest that COVID-19 risk perceptions are related to mental health and risk behaviours (potentially including substance use). However, longitudinal and genetic data are needed to support stronger inferences regarding whether these associations reflect causal pathways. Methods: Using cross-sectional, longitudinal, and polygenic risk score (PRS) data from the UK Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), we examined cross-sectional and prospective associations between COVID-19 risk perceptions and mental health, wellbeing, and risk behaviours. Participants (85% female) were aged between 27-72 years. We used pandemic (April-July 2020) and pre-pandemic (2003-2017) data (ns = 233-5,115). Results: COVID-19 risk perceptions were positively associated with anxiety (OR 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20 to 3.52), depression (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.18), low wellbeing (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.13), increased alcohol use (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.72), and COVID-19 prevention behaviours (ps < .05). Pre-pandemic anxiety (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.09) and low wellbeing (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.74) were positively associated with COVID-19 risk perceptions. The depression (b 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.40) and wellbeing (b -0.29, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.09) PRS were associated with higher and lower COVID-19 risk perceptions, respectively. Conclusions: Poorer mental health and wellbeing are associated with higher COVID-19 risk perceptions, and longitudinal and genetic data suggest that they may play a casual role in COVID-19 risk perceptions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.