Search

BACKGROUND: Evidence on associations between COVID-19 illness and mental health is mixed. We aimed to examine whether COVID-19 is associated with deterioration in mental health while considering pre-pandemic mental health, time since infection, subgroup differences, and confirmation of infection via self-reported test and serology data.METHODS: We obtained data from 11 UK longitudinal studies with repeated measures of mental health (psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and life satisfaction; mental health scales were standardised within each study across time) and COVID-19 status between April, 2020, and April, 2021. We included participants with information available on at least one mental health outcome measure and self-reported COVID-19 status (suspected or test-confirmed) during the pandemic, and a subset with serology-confirmed COVID-19. Furthermore, only participants who had available data on a minimum set of covariates, including age, sex, and pre-pandemic mental health were included. We investigated associations between having ever had COVID-19 and mental health outcomes using generalised estimating equations. We examined whether associations varied by age, sex, ethnicity, education, and pre-pandemic mental health, whether the strength of the association varied according to time since infection, and whether associations differed between self-reported versus confirmed (by test or serology) infection.FINDINGS: Between 21 Dec, 2021, and July 11, 2022, we analysed data from 54 442 participants (ranging from a minimum age of 16 years in one study to a maximum category of 90 years and older in another; including 33 200 [61·0%] women and 21 242 [39·0%] men) from 11 longitudinal UK studies. Of 40 819 participants with available ethnicity data, 36 802 (90·2%) were White. Pooled estimates of standardised differences in outcomes suggested associations between COVID-19 and subsequent psychological distress (0·10 [95% CI 0·06 to 0·13], I2=42·8%), depression (0·08 [0·05 to 0·10], I2=20·8%), anxiety (0·08 [0·05 to 0·10], I2=0·0%), and lower life satisfaction (-0·06 [-0·08 to -0·04], I2=29·2%). We found no evidence of interactions between COVID-19 and sex, education, ethnicity, or pre-pandemic mental health. Associations did not vary substantially between time since infection of less than 4 weeks, 4-12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks, and were present in all age groups, with some evidence of stronger effects in those aged 50 years and older. Participants who self-reported COVID-19 but had negative serology had worse mental health outcomes for all measures than those without COVID-19 based on serology and self-report. Participants who had positive serology but did not self-report COVID-19 did not show association with mental health outcomes.INTERPRETATION: Self-reporting COVID-19 was longitudinally associated with deterioration in mental health and life satisfaction. Our findings emphasise the need for greater post-infection mental health service provision, given the substantial prevalence of COVID-19 in the UK and worldwide.FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Background Aging affects immunity, potentially altering fever response to infection. We assess effects of biological variables on basal temperature, and during COVID-19 infection, proposing an updated temperature threshold for older adults ≥65 years. Methods Participants were from 4 cohorts: 1 089 unaffected adult TwinsUK volunteers; 520 adults with emergency admission to a London hospital with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 757 adults with emergency admission to a Birmingham hospital with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 3 972 adult community-based COVID Symptom Study participants self-reporting a positive RT-PCR test. Heritability was assessed using saturated and univariate ACE models; mixed-effect and multivariable linear regression examined associations between temperature, age, sex, and body mass index (BMI); multivariable logistic regression examined associations between fever (≥37.8°C) and age; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to identify temperature threshold for adults ≥ 65 years. Results Among unaffected volunteers, lower BMI (p = .001), and increasing age (p < .001) was associated with lower basal temperature. Basal temperature showed a heritability of 47% (95% confidence interval 18%–57%). In COVID-19+ participants, increasing age was associated with lower temperatures in Birmingham and community-based cohorts (p < .001). For each additional year of age, participants were 1% less likely to demonstrate a fever ≥37.8°C (OR 0.99; p < .001). Combining healthy and COVID-19+ participants, a temperature of 37.4°C in adults ≥65 years had similar sensitivity and specificity to 37.8°C in adults Conclusions Aging affects temperature in health and acute infection, with significant heritability, indicating genetic factors contribute to temperature regulation. Our observations suggest a lower threshold (37.4°C/97.3°F) for identifying fever in older adults ≥65 years.

Peer reviewed: True, Background: SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels can be used to assess humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and may predict risk of future infection. Higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 anti-Spike antibodies are known to be associated with increased protection against future SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, variation in antibody levels and risk factors for lower antibody levels following each round of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been explored across a wide range of socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and health factors within population-based cohorts. Methods: Samples were collected from 9,361 individuals from TwinsUK and ALSPAC UK population-based longitudinal studies and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Cross-sectional sampling was undertaken jointly in April-May 2021 (TwinsUK, N = 4,256; ALSPAC, N = 4,622), and in TwinsUK only in November 2021-January 2022 (N = 3,575). Variation in antibody levels after first, second, and third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables were analysed. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we tested associations between antibody levels following vaccination and: (1) SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination(s); (2) health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables. Results: Within TwinsUK, single-vaccinated individuals with the lowest 20% of anti-Spike antibody levels at initial testing had 3-fold greater odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next six to nine months (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.0), compared to the top 20%. In TwinsUK and ALSPAC, individuals identified as at increased risk of COVID-19 complication through the UK 'Shielded Patient List' had consistently greater odds (2- to 4-fold) of having antibody levels in the lowest 10%. Third vaccination increased absolute antibody levels for almost all individuals, and reduced relative disparities compared with earlier vaccinations. Conclusions: These findings quantify the association between antibody level and risk of subsequent infection, and support a policy of triple vaccination for the generation of protective antibodies. Funding: Antibody testing was funded by UK Health Security Agency. The National Core Studies program is funded by COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing - National Core Study (LHW-NCS) HMT/UKRI/MRC (MC_PC_20030 & MC_PC_20059). Related funding was also provided by the NIHR 606 (CONVALESCENCE grant COV-LT-0009). TwinsUK is funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation (CDRF), Zoe Ltd and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC.

ObjectivesWe investigated associations between multiple sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, occupational social class, education and ethnicity) and self-reported healthcare disruptions during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignCoordinated analysis of prospective population surveys.SettingCommunity-dwelling participants in the UK between April 2020 and January 2021.ParticipantsOver 68 000 participants from 12 longitudinal studies.OutcomesSelf-reported healthcare disruption to medication access, procedures and appointments.ResultsPrevalence of healthcare disruption varied substantially across studies: between 6% and 32% reported any disruption, with 1%–10% experiencing disruptions in medication, 1%–17% experiencing disruption in procedures and 4%–28% experiencing disruption in clinical appointments. Females (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.40; I2=54%), older persons (eg, OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.72; I2=77% for 65–75 years vs 45–54 years) and ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities) (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; I2=0% vs white) were more likely to report healthcare disruptions. Those in a more disadvantaged social class were also more likely to report healthcare disruptions (eg, OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27; I2=0% for manual/routine vs managerial/professional), but no clear differences were observed by education. We did not find evidence that these associations differed by shielding status.ConclusionsHealthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic could contribute to the maintenance or widening of existing health inequalities.

Background:Life course trajectories of affective symptoms (depression and anxiety) are heterogenous. However, few studies have investigated the role of early life risk factors in the development of these trajectories. The present study aimed to: (1) derive latent trajectories of affective symptoms over a period of more than 50 years (ages 13–69), and (2) examine early life risk factors for associations with specific life course trajectories of affective symptoms. Method:Participants are from the MRC National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD) (n = 5,362). Affective symptoms were measured prospectively at ages 13, 15, 36, 43, 53, 60–64 and 69. A latent variable modelling framework was implemented to model longitudinal profiles of affective symptoms. Twenty-four prospectively measured early life predictors were tested for associations with different symptom profiles using multinomial logistic regression. Results:Four life course profiles of affective symptoms were identified: (1) absence of symptoms (66.6% of the sample); (2) adolescent symptoms with good adult outcome (15.2%); (3) adult symptoms only (with no symptoms in adolescence and late life) (12.9%); (4) symptoms in adolescence and mid adulthood (5.2%). Of the 24 early life predictors observed, only four were associated with life course trajectories, with small effect sizes observed. Conclusions:People differ in their life course trajectories of anxiety and depression symptoms and that these differences are not largely influenced by early life factors tested in this study.

BackgroundAdolescent mental health difficulties are increasing over time. However, it is not known whether their adulthood health and socio-economic sequelae are changing over time.MethodsParticipants (N = 31 349) are from two prospective national birth cohort studies: 1958 National Child Development Study (n = 16 091) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (n = 15 258). Adolescent mental health was operationalised both as traditional internalising and externalising factors and a hierarchical bi-factor. Associations between adolescent psychopathology and age 42 health and wellbeing (mental health, general health, life satisfaction), social (cohabitation, voting behaviour) and economic (education and employment) outcomes are estimated using linear and logistic multivariable regressions across cohorts, controlling for a wide range of early life potential confounding factors.ResultsThe prevalence of adolescent mental health difficulties increased and their associations with midlife health, wellbeing, social and economic outcomes became more severe or remained similar between those born in 1958 and 1970. For instance, a stronger association with adolescent mental health difficulties was found for those born in 1970 for midlife psychological distress [odds ratio (OR) 1970 = 1.82 (1.65–1.99), OR 1958 = 1.60 (1.43–1.79)], cohabitation [OR 1970 = 0.64 (0.59–0.70), OR 1958 = 0.79 (0.72–0.87)], and professional occupations [OR 1970 = 0.75 (0.67–0.84), OR 1958 = 1.05 (0.88–1.24)]. The associations of externalising symptoms with later outcomes were mainly explained by their shared variance with internalising symptoms.ConclusionThe widening of mental health-based inequalities in midlife outcomes further supports the need to recognise that secular increases in adolescent mental health symptoms is a public health challenge with measurable negative consequences through the life-course. Increased public health efforts to minimise adverse outcomes are needed.

Multiple studies across global populations have established the primary symptoms characterising COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) and long COVID. However, as symptoms may also occur in the absence of COVID-19, a lack of appropriate controls has often meant that specificity of symptoms to acute COVID-19 or long COVID could not be examined. We aimed to characterise patterns of COVID-19 and long COVID symptoms across nine UK longitudinal studies, totalling over 42,000 participants. Conducting latent class analyses separately in three groups (‘no COVID-19’, ‘COVID-19 in last 12 weeks’, ‘COVID-19 > 12 weeks ago’), the data did not support the presence of more than two distinct symptom patterns, representing high and low symptom burden, in each group. Comparing the high symptom burden classes between the ‘COVID-19 in last 12 weeks’ and ‘no COVID-19’ groups we identified symptoms characteristic of acute COVID-19, including loss of taste and smell, fatigue, cough, shortness of breath and muscle pains or aches. Comparing the high symptom burden classes between the ‘COVID-19 > 12 weeks ago’ and ‘no COVID-19’ groups we identified symptoms characteristic of long COVID, including fatigue, shortness of breath, muscle pain or aches, difficulty concentrating and chest tightness. The identified symptom patterns among individuals with COVID-19 > 12 weeks ago were strongly associated with self-reported length of time unable to function as normal due to COVID-19 symptoms, suggesting that the symptom pattern identified corresponds to long COVID. Building the evidence base regarding typical long COVID symptoms will improve diagnosis of this condition and the ability to elicit underlying biological mechanisms, leading to better patient access to treatment and services.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels can be used to assess humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and may predict risk of future infection. From cross-sectional antibody testing of 9,361 individuals from TwinsUK and ALSPAC UK population-based longitudinal studies (jointly in April-May 2021, and TwinsUK only in November 2021-January 2022), we tested associations between antibody levels following vaccination and: (1) SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination(s); (2) health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables.Within TwinsUK, single-vaccinated individuals with the lowest 20% of anti-Spike antibody levels at initial testing had 3-fold greater odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next six to nine months, compared to the top 20%. In TwinsUK and ALSPAC, individuals identified as at increased risk of COVID-19 complication through the UK “Shielded Patient List” had consistently greater odds (2 to 4-fold) of having antibody levels in the lowest 10%. Third vaccination increased absolute antibody levels for almost all individuals, and reduced relative disparities compared with earlier vaccinations.These findings quantify the association between antibody level and risk of subsequent infection, and support a policy of triple vaccination for the generation of protective antibodies.Lay summaryIn this study, we analysed blood samples from 9,361 participants from two studies in the UK: an adult twin registry, TwinsUK (4,739 individuals); and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC (4,622 individuals). We did this work as part of the UK Government National Core Studies initiative researching COVID-19. We measured blood antibodies which are specific to SARS-CoV-2 (which causes COVID-19). Having a third COVID-19 vaccination boosted antibody levels. More than 90% of people from TwinsUK had levels after third vaccination that were greater than the average level after second vaccination. Importantly, this was the case even in individuals on the UK “Shielded Patient List”. We found that people with lower antibody levels after first vaccination were more likely to report having COVID-19 later on, compared to people with higher antibody levels. People on the UK “Shielded Patient List”, and individuals who reported that they had poorer general health, were more likely to have lower antibody levels after vaccination. In contrast, people who had had a previous COVID-19 infection were more likely to have higher antibody levels following vaccination compared to people without infection. People receiving the Oxford/AstraZeneca rather than the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine had lower antibody levels after one or two vaccinations. However, after a third vaccination, there was no difference in antibody levels between those who had Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer BioNTech vaccines for their first two doses. These findings support having a third COVID-19 vaccination to boost antibodies.

BackgroundEvidence on associations between COVID-19 illness and mental health is mixed. We examined longitudinal associations between COVID-19 and mental health while considering: 1) pre-pandemic mental health, 2) time since infection; 3) subgroup differences; and 4) confirmation of infection via self-reported test, and serology data.MethodsUsing data from 11 UK longitudinal studies, involving 54,442 participants, with 2 to 8 repeated measures of mental health and COVID-19 between April 2020 and April 2021, we standardised continuous mental health scales within each study across time. We investigated associations between COVID-19 (self-report, test-confirmed, serology-confirmed) and mental health using multilevel generalised estimating equations. We examined whether associations varied by age, sex, ethnicity, education and pre-pandemic mental health. Effect-sizes were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses.OutcomesPooled estimates of the standardized difference in outcome between those with and without self-reported COVID-19 suggested associations with subsequent psychological distress (0.10 [95%CI: 0.06; 0.13], I2=42.8%), depression (0.08 [0.05; 0.10], I2=20.8%), anxiety (0.08 [0.05; 0.10], I2=0%), and lower life satisfaction (−0.06 [-0.08; -0.04], I2=29.2%). Associations did not vary by time since infection until 3+ months and were present in all age groups, with some evidence of stronger effects in those aged 50+. Self-reported COVID-19, whether suspected or test-confirmed and irrespective of serology status, was associated with poorer mental health.InterpretationSelf-reporting COVID-19 was longitudinally associated with deterioration in mental health and life satisfaction. Our findings have important implications for mental health service provision, given the substantial prevalence of COVID-19 in the UK and worldwide.FundingMRC and NIHR

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to major economic disruptions. In March 2020, the UK implemented the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – known as furlough – to minimize the impact of job losses. We investigate associations between change in employment status and mental and social wellbeing during the early stages of the pandemic.MethodsData were from 25,670 respondents, aged 17 to 66, across nine UK longitudinal studies. Furlough and other employment changes were defined using employment status pre-pandemic and during the first lockdown (April-June 2020). Mental and social wellbeing outcomes included psychological distress, life satisfaction, self-rated health, social contact, and loneliness. Study-specific modified Poisson regression estimates, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and pre-pandemic mental and social wellbeing measures, were pooled using meta-analysis.ResultsCompared to those who remained working, furloughed workers were at greater risk of psychological distress (adjusted risk ratio, ARR=1.12; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.29), low life satisfaction (ARR=1.14; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.22), loneliness (ARR=1.12; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.23), and poor self-rated health (ARR=1.26; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.50), but excess risk was less pronounced than that of those no longer employed (e.g., ARR for psychological distress=1.39; 95% CI: 1.21, 1.59) or in stable unemployment (ARR=1.33; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.62).ConclusionsDuring the early stages of the pandemic, those furloughed had increased risk for poor mental and social wellbeing. However, their excess risk was lower in magnitude than that of those who became or remained unemployed, suggesting that furlough may have partly mitigated poorer outcomes.

ImportanceHow population mental health has evolved across the COVID-19 pandemic under varied lockdown measures is poorly understood, with impacts on health inequalities unclear.ObjectiveWe investigated changes in mental health and sociodemographic inequalities from before and across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 longitudinal studies.Design, Setting and ParticipantsData from 11 UK longitudinal population-based studies with pre-pandemic measures of psychological distress were jointly analysed and estimates pooled. Multi-level regression was used to examine changes in psychological distress from pre-pandemic to during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.ExposuresTrends in the prevalence of poor mental health were assessed pre-pandemic (TP0) and at three pandemic time periods: initial lockdown (TP1, Mar-June 20); easing of restrictions (TP2, July-Oct 20); and a subsequent lockdown (TP3, Nov 20-Mar 21). We stratified analyses by sex, ethnicity, education, age, and UK country.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPsychological distress was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire 12 (GHQ-12), Kessler-6, 9-item Malaise Inventory, Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ), Patient Health Questionnaire-8 and 9 (PHQ-8/9), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Centre for Epidemiological Studies – Depression (CES-D), across different studies.ResultsIn total, 49,993 adult participants (61.2% female; 8.7% Non-White) were analysed. Across the 11 studies, mental health deteriorated from pre-pandemic scores across all three pandemic time periods, but with considerable heterogeneity across the study-specific effect sizes estimated (pooled estimate TP1 Standardised Mean Difference (SMD): 0.15 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.25); TP2 SMD: 0.18 (0.09, 0.27); TP3 SMD: 0.21 (0.10, 0.32)). Changes in psychological distress across the pandemic were higher in females (TP3 SMD: 0.23 (0.11, 0.35)) than males (TP3 SMD: 0.16 (0.06, 0.26)), and lower in below-degree level educated persons at TP3 (SMD: 0.18 (0.06, 0.30)) compared to those who held degrees (SMD: 0.26 (0.14, 0.38)). Increased psychological distress was most prominent amongst adults aged 25-34 and 35-44 years compared to other age groups. We did not find evidence of changes in distress differing by ethnicity or UK country.Conclusions and RelevanceThe substantial deterioration in mental health seen in the UK during the first lockdown did not reverse when lockdown lifted, and a sustained worsening was observed across the pandemic. Mental health declines have been unequal across the population, with females, those with higher degrees, and those aged 25-44 years more affected.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and livelihoods, and people already experiencing mental ill health may have been especially vulnerable.AimsQuantify mental health inequalities in disruptions to healthcare, economic activity and housing.MethodWe examined data from 59 482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal studies with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within each study, we estimated the association between psychological distress assessed pre-pandemic and disruptions since the start of the pandemic to healthcare (medication access, procedures or appointments), economic activity (employment, income or working hours) and housing (change of address or household composition). Estimates were pooled across studies.ResultsAcross the analysed data-sets, 28% to 77% of participants experienced at least one disruption, with 2.3–33.2% experiencing disruptions in two or more domains. We found 1 s.d. higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with (a) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.20–1.40), with fully adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.24 (95% CI 1.09–1.41) for disruption to procedures to 1.33 (95% CI 1.20–1.49) for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access; (b) loss of employment (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.21) and income (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 –1.19), and reductions in working hours/furlough (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.09) and (c) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18–1.32) or in one domain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07–1.16), relative to no disruption. There were no associations with housing disruptions (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.03).ConclusionsPeople experiencing psychological distress pre-pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare and economic disruptions, and clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Failing to address these disruptions risks further widening mental health inequalities.

SummaryBackgroundMental health issues have been reported after SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, comparison to prevalence in uninfected individuals and contribution from common risk factors (e.g., obesity, comorbidities) have not been examined. We identified how COVID-19 relates to mental health in the large community-based COVID Symptom Study.MethodsWe assessed anxiety and depression symptoms using two validated questionnaires in 413,148 individuals between February and April 2021; 26,998 had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We adjusted for physical and mental pre-pandemic comorbidities, BMI, age, and sex.FindingsOverall, 26.4% of participants met screening criteria for general anxiety and depression. Anxiety and depression were slightly more prevalent in previously SARS-CoV-2 positive (30.4%) vs. negative (26.1%) individuals. This association was small compared to the effect of an unhealthy BMI and the presence of other comorbidities, and not evident in younger participants (≤40 years). Findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. Association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and anxiety and depression was stronger in individuals with recent (120 days) infection, suggesting a short-term effect.InterpretationA small association was identified between SARS-CoV-2 infection and anxiety and depression symptoms. The proportion meeting criteria for self-reported anxiety and depression disorders is only slightly higher than pre-pandemic.FundingZoe Limited, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Medical Research Council UK

The impact of long COVID is increasingly recognised, but risk factors are poorly characterised. We analysed questionnaire data on symptom duration from 10 longitudinal study (LS) samples and electronic healthcare records (EHR) to investigate sociodemographic and health risk factors associated with long COVID, as part of the UK National Core Study for Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing.MethodsAnalysis was conducted on 6,899 adults self-reporting COVID-19 from 45,096 participants of the UK LS, and on 3,327 cases assigned a long COVID code in primary care EHR out of 1,199,812 adults diagnosed with acute COVID-19. In LS, we derived two outcomes: symptoms lasting 4+ weeks and symptoms lasting 12+ weeks. Associations of potential risk factors (age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, smoking, general and mental health, overweight/obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and asthma) with these two outcomes were assessed, using logistic regression, with meta-analyses of findings presented alongside equivalent results from EHR analyses.ResultsFunctionally limiting long COVID for 12+ weeks affected between 1.2% (age 20), and 4.8% (age 63) of people reporting COVID-19 in LS. The proportion reporting symptoms overall for 12+ weeks ranged from 7.8 (mean age 28) to 17% (mean age 58) and for 4+ weeks 4.2% (age 20) to 33.1% (age 56). Age was associated with a linear increase in long COVID between age 20-70. Being female (LS: OR=1.49; 95%CI:1.24-1.79; EHR: OR=1.51 [1.41-1.61]), poor pre-pandemic mental health (LS: OR=1.46 [1.17-1.83]; EHR: OR=1.57 [1.47-1.68]) and poor general health (LS: OR=1.62 [1.25-2.09]; EHR: OR=1.26; [1.18-1.35]) were associated with higher risk of long COVID. Individuals with asthma also had higher risk (LS: OR=1.32 [1.07-1.62]; EHR: OR=1.56 [1.46-1.67]), as did those categorised as overweight or obese (LS: OR=1.25 [1.01-1.55]; EHR: OR=1.31 [1.21-1.42]) though associations for symptoms lasting 12+ weeks were less pronounced. Non-white ethnic minority groups had lower 4+ week symptom risk (LS: OR=0.32 [0.22-0.47]), a finding consistent in EHR. Associations were not observed for other risk factors. Few participants in the studies had been admitted to hospital (0.8-5.2%).ConclusionsLong COVID is clearly distributed differentially according to several sociodemographic and pre-existing health factors. Establishing which of these risk factors are causal and predisposing is necessary to further inform strategies for preventing and treating long COVID.

BackgroundHealth systems worldwide have faced major disruptions due to COVID-19 which could exacerbate health inequalities. The UK National Health Service (NHS) provides free healthcare and prioritises equity of delivery, but the pandemic may be hindering the achievement of these goals. We investigated associations between multiple social characteristics (sex, age, occupational social class, education and ethnicity) and self-reported healthcare disruptions in over 65,000 participants across twelve UK longitudinal studies.MethodsParticipants reported disruptions from March 2020 up to late January 2021. Associations between social characteristics and three types of self-reported healthcare disruption (medication access, procedures, appointments) and a composite of any of these were assessed in logistic regression models, adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity where relevant. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to obtain pooled estimates.ResultsPrevalence of disruption varied across studies; between 6.4% (TwinsUK) and 31.8 % (Understanding Society) of study participants reported any disruption. Females (Odd Ratio (OR): 1.27 [95%CI: 1.15,1.40]; I2=53%), older persons (e.g. OR: 1.39 [1.13,1.72]; I2=77% for 65-75y vs 45-54y), and Ethnic minorities (excluding White minorities) (OR: 1.19 [1.05,1.35]; I2=0% vs White) were more likely to report healthcare disruptions. Those in a more disadvantaged social class (e.g. OR: 1.17 [1.08, 1.27]; I2=0% for manual/routine vs managerial/professional) were also more likely to report healthcare disruptions, but no clear differences were observed by education levels.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to unequal healthcare disruptions, which, if unaddressed, could contribute to the maintenance or widening of existing health inequalities.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated virus suppression measures have disrupted lives and livelihoods, potentially exacerbating inequalities. People already experiencing mental ill-health may have been especially vulnerable to disruptions. Aim Investigate associations between pre-pandemic psychological distress and disruptions during the pandemic to (1) healthcare, economic activity, and housing, (2) cumulative disruptions and 3) whether these differ by age, sex, ethnicity or education. Methods Data were from 59,482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal adult population surveys with data collected both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants self-reported disruptions since the start of the pandemic to: healthcare (medication access, procedures, or appointments); economic activity (negative changes in employment, income or working hours); and housing (change of address or household composition). Logistic regression models were used within each study to estimate associations between pre-pandemic psychological distress scores and disruption outcomes. Findings were synthesised using a random effects meta-analysis with restricted maximum likelihood. Results Between one to two-thirds of study participants experienced at least one disruption during the pandemic, with 2.3-33.2% experiencing disruptions in 2 or more of the 3 domains examined. One standard deviation higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with: (i) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (OR=1.30; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.40) with fully adjusted ORs ranging from 1.33 [1.20 to 1.49] for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access and 1.24 [1.09 to 1.41] for disruption to procedures; (ii) loss of employment (OR=1.13 [1.06 to 1.21]) and income (OR=1.12 [1.06 to 1.19]) and reductions in working hours/furlough (OR=1.05 [1.00 to 1.09]); (iii) no associations with housing disruptions (OR=1.00 [0.97 to 1.03]); and (iv) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR=1.25 [1.18 to 1.32]) or in one domain (OR=1.11 [1.07 to 1.16]) relative to experiencing no disruption. We did not find evidence of these associations differing by sex, ethnicity, education level, or age. Conclusion Those suffering from psychological distress before the pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare disruptions, economic disruptions related to unemployment and loss of income, and to clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Considering mental ill-health was already unequally distributed in the UK population, the pandemic may exacerbate existing mental health inequalities. Individuals with poor mental health may need additional support to manage these pandemic-associated disruptions.

IntroductionAgeing affects immune function resulting in aberrant fever response to infection. We assess the effects of biological variables on basal temperature and temperature in COVID-19 infection, proposing an updated temperature threshold for older adults.MethodsParticipants:Unaffected twin volunteers: 1089 adult TwinsUK participants.London hospitalised COVID-19+: 520 adults with emergency admission.Birmingham hospitalised COVID-19+: 757 adults with emergency admission.Community-based COVID-19+: 3972 adults self-reporting a positive test using the COVID Symptom Study mobile application.AnalysisHeritability assessed using saturated and univariate ACE models; Linear mixed-effect and multivariable linear regression analysing associations between temperature, age, sex and BMI; multivariable logistic regression analysing associations between fever (≥37.8°C) and age; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify temperature threshold for adults ≥ 65 years.ResultsAmong unaffected volunteers, lower BMI (p=0.001), and older age (pIn COVID-19+ participants, increasing age associated with lower temperatures in cohorts (c) and (d) (pCombining healthy and COVID-19+ participants, a temperature of 37.4°C in adults ≥65 years had similar sensitivity and specificity to 37.8°C in adults ConclusionsAgeing affects temperature in health and acute infection. Significant heritability indicates biological factors contribute to temperature regulation.Our observations indicate a lower threshold (37.4°C) should be considered for assessing fever in older adults.Key PointsOlder adults, particularly those with lower BMI, have a lower basal temperature and a lower temperature in response to infectionBasal temperature is heritable, suggesting biological factors underlying temperature regulationOur findings support a lower temperature threshold of 37.4°C for identifying possible COVID-19 infection in older adultsThis has implications for case detection, surveillance and isolation and could be incorporated into observation assessment

Understanding the geographical distribution of COVID-19 through the general population is key to the provision of adequate healthcare services. Using self-reported data from 1 960 242 unique users in Great Britain (GB) of the COVID-19 Symptom Study app, we estimated that, concurrent to the GB government sanctioning lockdown, COVID-19 was distributed across GB, with evidence of ‘urban hotspots’. We found a geo-social gradient associated with predicted disease prevalence suggesting urban areas and areas of higher deprivation are most affected. Our results demonstrate use of self-reported symptoms data to provide focus on geographical areas with identified risk factors.

ObjectivesDietary supplements may provide nutrients of relevance to ameliorate SARS-CoV-2 infection, although scientific evidence to support a role is lacking. We investigate whether the regular use of dietary supplements can reduce the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in around 1.4M users of the COVID Symptom Study App who completed a supplement use questionnaire.DesignLongitudinal app-based community survey and nested case control study.SettingSubscribers to an app that was launched to enable self-reported information related to SARS-CoV-2 infection for use in the general population in three countries.Main ExposureSelf-reported regular dietary supplement usage since the beginning of the pandemic.Main Outcome MeasuresSARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by viral RNA polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) or serology test. A secondary outcome was new-onset anosmia.ResultsIn an analysis including 327,720 UK participants, the use of probiotics, omega-3 fatty acids, multivitamins or vitamin D was associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by 14%(95%CI: [8%,19%]), 12%(95%CI: [8%,16%]), 13%(95%CI: [10%,16%]) and 9%(95%CI: [6%,12%]), respectively, after adjusting for potential confounders. No effect was observed for vitamin C, zinc or garlic supplements. When analyses were stratified by sex, age and body mass index (BMI), the protective associations for probiotics, omega-3 fatty acids, multivitamins and vitamin D were observed in females across all ages and BMI groups, but were not seen in men. The same overall pattern of association was observed in both the US and Swedish cohorts. Results were further confirmed in a sub-analysis of 993,365 regular app users who were not tested for SARS-CoV-2 with cases (n= 126,556) defined as those with new onset anosmia (the strongest COVID-19 predictor).ConclusionWe observed a modest but significant association between use of probiotics, omega-3 fatty acid, multivitamin or vitamin D supplements and lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in women. No clear benefits for men were observed nor any effect of vitamin C, garlic or zinc for men or women. Randomised controlled trials of selected supplements would be required to confirm these observational findings before any therapeutic recommendations can be made.

Importance How population mental health has evolved across the COVID-19 pandemic under varied lockdown measures is poorly understood, and the consequences for health inequalities are unclear.Objective To investigate changes in mental health and sociodemographic inequalities from before and across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 longitudinal studies.Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study included adult participants from 11 UK longitudinal population-based studies with prepandemic measures of psychological distress. Analyses were coordinated across these studies, and estimates were pooled. Data were collected from 2006 to 2021.Exposures Trends in the prevalence of poor mental health were assessed in the prepandemic period (time period 0 [TP 0]) and at 3 pandemic TPs: 1, initial lockdown (March to June 2020); 2, easing of restrictions (July to October 2020); and 3, a subsequent lockdown (November 2020 to March 2021). Analyses were stratified by sex, race and ethnicity, education, age, and UK country.Main Outcomes and Measures Multilevel regression was used to examine changes in psychological distress from the prepandemic period across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological distress was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire, the Kessler 6, the 9-item Malaise Inventory, the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, the 8-item or 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies–Depression across different studies.Results In total, 49 993 adult participants (12 323 [24.6%] aged 55-64 years; 32 741 [61.2%] women; 4960 [8.7%] racial and ethnic minority) were analyzed. Across the 11 studies, mental health deteriorated from prepandemic scores across all 3 pandemic periods, but there was considerable heterogeneity across the study-specific estimated effect sizes (pooled estimate for TP 1: standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06-0.25; TP 2: SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.27; TP 3: SMD, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.32). Changes in psychological distress across the pandemic were higher in women (TP 3: SMD, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11, 0.35) than men (TP 3: SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.26) and lower in individuals with below–degree level education at TP 3 (SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.30) compared with those who held degrees (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.38). Increased psychological distress was most prominent among adults aged 25 to 34 years (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.14-0.84) and 35 to 44 years (SMD, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.10-0.60) compared with other age groups. No evidence of changes in distress differing by race and ethnicity or UK country were observed.Conclusions and Relevance In this study, the substantial deterioration in mental health seen in the UK during the first lockdown did not reverse when lockdown lifted, and a sustained worsening was observed across the pandemic period. Mental health declines have been unequal across the population, with women, those with higher degrees, and those aged 25 to 44 years more affected than other groups.

ObjectiveTo investigate whether the associations between adolescent externalising and internalising mental health difficulties and mid-life health and social outcomes are changing across cohorts.MethodsData from 31,349 participants followed as part of two prospective national birth cohort studies: 1958 National Child Development Study (n=16091) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (n=15258). Adolescent mental health at age 16 years was assessed using the Rutter scales and operationalised as both a traditional 2-factor internalising and externalising and as a hierarchical bi-factor. Associations between adolescent psychopathology and health and wellbeing (mental health, general health, life satisfaction) and socio-economic (cohabitation, voting behaviour, education and employment) outcomes at ages 42 are estimated and illustrated across cohorts.ResultsThe prevalence of adolescent mental health difficulties increased between those born in 1958 and 1970. Their associations with different midlife outcomes became more severe or remained similar in the 1970 compared the 1958 cohort. For instance, a stronger association with adolescent mental health difficulties was found for those born in 1970, compared with those born in 1958 for midlife psychological distress (OR 1970=1.82 [1.65;1.99], OR 1958=1.60 [1.43;1.79], cohabitation (OR 1970=0.64 [0.59;0.70], OR 1958=0.74 [1.43;1.79]), and professional occupations (OR 1970=0.75 [0.67;0.84], OR 1958=1.05 [0.88;1.24]). A hierarchical bi-factor approach to modelling adolescent mental health indicated that the associations of externalising symptoms with later outcomes were mainly explained by their shared variance with internalising symptoms.ConclusionA strengthening trend in the associations of adolescent mental health with adverse mid-life outcomes across two generations highlights the individual and societal burden of adolescent mental health problems might be increasing. If this trend continues to apply to more recently born cohorts, the wide-ranging implications of the increasing prevalence in adolescent mental health difficulties currently observed should be recognised and increased public health efforts to minimise adverse outcomes are needed.

Background: Twins offer social scientists a unique opportunity to understand the interplay of social factors and physical and mental well-being. TwinsUK is the largest UK registry of adult mono- and dy-zygotic twins, but most of the research that utilises the cohorts’ data to date has focused on the genetic underpinnings of complex disease. Methods: Following formal unstructured discussions with social scientists we identified key areas of research interest and annotated the historical data collections in TwinsUK where they could be applied to these research aims. Results: We present a summary of variables identified as of key interest to researchers from the social science sphere, spanning the following domains: 1: Parenting, child rearing and pregnancies; 2: Working habits and patterns; 3: Sleeping habits and patterns; 4: Social support; 5: Negative life events; 6: Spousal relationships. Conclusions: TwinsUK has a wide range of genetic and health data that would allow investigation of research questions focusing on these domains.

TwinsUK is a population-based study which consists of 14,575 adult twins at present (55% monozygotic and 43% dizygotic) who are between 18 to 101 years of age from around the United Kingdom (UK). In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the resulting UK ‘lockdown’ restrictions, our team developed the TwinsUK COVID-19 personal experience (CoPE) questionnaire. To date the CoPE questionnaire has been implemented three times, once during the first lockdown (April-May 2020), once as the restrictions eased (July-August 2020) and another when we entered the second wave of the pandemic and stricter restrictions were put into place (October-November 2020). This data note details the sample characteristics, and response rates of the data collected during the initial lockdown phase (wave 1) using the CoPE questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to capture a variety of social, behavioural, psychological, environmental and health factors. It includes both measures that have been collected previously in TwinsUK as well as new measures. This data can be combined with pre-pandemic TwinsUK data and biological and genetic data. TwinsUK will also soon be complemented with the availability of linked health records. All TwinsUK data is available upon request and details are provided on how to access the data below.

Background: The prevalence of divorce in Western countries has increased in recent decades. However, there is no recent systematic review and/or meta-analysis of studies testing for long-term effects of parental divorce on offspring affective disorders. The present study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published since 1980 testing for the association between parental divorce and offspring depression and anxiety in adulthood.\ud \ud Method: PUBMED, Science Direct, Medline, PsychInfo, and PsychArticles databases were searched for eligible studies. Random-effect meta-analyses were used to synthesize effect sizes and to test whether associations of parental divorce with offspring affective disorders differed among three publication periods (i.e., before 1996, 1996–2005, 2006–2015).\ud \ud Results: In total, 29 studies were eligible for the systematic review, and 18 studies were included in the meta-analyses (depression: n=21,581; anxiety: n=2472). There was significant association between parental divorce and offspring depression (OR=1.56; 95%CI [1.31, 1.86]), but not anxiety (OR=1.16; 95%CI [0.98, 1.38]). The effect of parental divorce on offspring depression was not weaker in the reports published in more recent decades.\ud \ud Limitations: There is limited research in relation to offspring anxiety in adulthood.\ud \ud Conclusions: Parental divorce is associated with an increased risk of adult offspring depression, with no indication of the effect being weaker in recent publications.

Internalizing psychopathology (i.e., depression and anxiety) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. The recognition that both genetic factors (nature) and environmental factors (nurture) contribute to the aetiology of internalizing disorders has led to a rapid growth in research of gene–environment interactions (G×E) and of epigenetic mechanisms underlying G×E. The purpose of this paper was to critically review evidence on the contributions of genes, environments and G×E to the risk of internalizing psychopathology across the life course. The existing G×E studies have primarily focused on a limited number of candidate genes. Overall, albeit with some conflicting findings, these studies have supported G×E effects on the risk for depressive and anxiety outcomes. Future G×E studies would benefit from more systematic assessment of both negative and positive environmental influences, utilization of a developmentally sensitive life-course approach, and thorough investigations of epigenetic mechanisms that can underlie the complex gene-environment co-action.

This paper explores whether the increased vulnerability\ud of children of anxious parents to develop anxiety disorders may be partially explained by these children having increased cognitive biases towards threat compared with children of non-anxious parents. Parents completed questionnaires about their child’s anxiety symptoms. Children aged 5–9 (n = 85) participated in two cognitive bias tasks: 1) an emotion recognition task, and 2) an ambiguous situations questionnaire. For the emotion recognition task, there were no significant differences between at-risk children and children of non-anxious parents in their cognitive bias scores for reaction times or for accuracy in identifying angry or happy facial expressions. In addition, there were no significant differences between at-risk children and children of non-anxious parents in the number of threat interpretations made for the ambiguous situations questionnaire. It is possible that these cognitive biases only become present subsequent to the development of an anxiety disorder, or only in older at-risk children.

Children of anxious parents are at high risk of anxiety disorders themselves. The evidence suggests that this is due to environmental rather than genetic factors. However, we currently do little to reduce this risk of transmission. There is evidence that supporting parenting in those with mental health difficulties can ameliorate this risk. Therefore, the objective of this study was to test the feasibility of a new one-session, group-based, preventive parenting intervention for parents with anxiety disorders.Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.A total of 100 parents with anxiety disorders, recruited from adult mental health services in England (and child aged 3-9 years), were randomized to receive the new intervention (a 1-day, group workshop), or to treatment as usual. Children's anxiety disorder and anxiety symptoms were assessed to 12 months by outcome assessors who were blind to group allocation. Exploratory analyses were conducted on an intention to treat basis, as far as possible.A total of 51 participants were randomized to the intervention condition and 49 to the control condition (82% and 80% followed to 12 months, respectively). The attendance rate was 59%, and the intervention was highly acceptable to parents who received it. The RCT was feasible, and 12-month follow-up attrition rates were low. Children whose parents were in the control condition were 16.5% more likely to have an anxiety disorder at follow-up than those in the intervention group. No adverse events were reported.An inexpensive, light-touch, psycho-educational intervention may be useful in breaking the intergenerational cycle of transmission of anxiety disorders. A substantive trial is warranted.Anxiety disorders run in families, but we currently do little to help anxious parents to raise confident children. A brief group workshop was highly acceptable to such parents and was very inexpensive to run. Children of parents who took part in the brief intervention were 16.5% less likely to have an anxiety disorder, 1 year later, than children whose parents were in the control group. This was a feasibility study, and while it showed that both the intervention and the research were feasible, the study needs replicating with a much larger sample. Many parents faced barriers to attending the workshop, and future efforts should focus on widening accessibility. We were unable to obtain sufficient self-report data from children, so the outcomes are based on parent report only.

Background Previous studies have shown that specific types of adverse childhood events (ACEs), such as parental divorce and parental psychopathology, pose a risk for the development of affective symptoms in adulthood (AS). However, a majority of this evidence is based on single types of retrospectively reported ACEs. This is problematic as ACEs tend to be inter-related and often co-occur. Methods We used the data from the MRC National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD). This is an ongoing longitudinal study of 5362 women and men who were born in Britain in1946. Later life AS were measures using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) at ages 53 y, 60–64 y and 69. Multiple imputation was implemented on each ACE predictor and a cumulative risk index was derived though summing the number of adversities experienced by each participant (0, 1, 2, 3…20) before age 16 y. The effect of cumulative ACEs on AS at each time point (53, 60–64 and 69) was examined using linear regression. Results Preliminary analyses revealed a significant association was found between cumulative ACEs and AS at ages 60–64, β(1, 2183)=0.07, p=0.002, and 69, β(1, 2110)=0.07, p=0.003, but not age 53 β(1, 2900)=0.04, p=0.058. Further to this growth mixture modelling will be used to model latent trajectories of AS between age 53 and 69 years and the effect of cumulative ACEs will be examined. Discussion These findings will be presented in light of the growing evidence for the negative effects of ACEs on health and wellbeing in later life. Furthermore, we will discuss how this research informs prevention for the development of psychopathology across the life course.

Background: Childhood chronic physical illness is associated with a greater vulnerability for emotional problems (i.e., depression and anxiety) in childhood. However, little is known about life-long effects of childhood chronic physical illness on mental health. The present study aims to systematically review evidence for associations between eight chronic physical illnesses with childhood onset (arthritis, asthma, cancer, chronic renal failure, congenital heart disease, cystic fibrosis, type 1 diabetes, and epilepsy) and adult emotional problems. Methods: A database search of MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and ScienceDirect was undertaken, and random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesize evidence from eligible studies. Results: In total, 37 studies were eligible for the systematic review (n = 45,733) and of these, 34 studies were included into the meta-analyses (n = 45,358). There were overall associations between childhood chronic physical illness and adult depression (OR = 1.31; 95% CI [1.12, 1.54]) and anxiety (OR = 1.47; 95% CI [1.13, 1.92]). Separate meta-analyses for childhood asthma, type 1 diabetes and cancer were also conducted, with cancer being significantly associated with adult depression (OR = 1.19; 95% CI [1.00, 1.42]). Conclusions: The effects of childhood chronic physical illness on the risk of emotional problems persist beyond childhood and adolescence. Mental health prevention and intervention strategies targeting children with chronic physical illnesses can have long-term benefits.

Background: Previous meta-analyses of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for children and young people with anxiety disorders have not considered the efficacy of transdiagnostic CBT for the remission of childhood anxiety. Aim: To provide a meta-analysis on the efficacy of transdiagnostic CBT for children and young people with anxiety disorders. Methods: The analysis included randomized controlled trials using transdiagnostic CBT for children and young people formally diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. An electronic search was conducted using the following databases: ASSIA, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Current Controlled Trials, Medline, PsycArticles, PsychInfo, and Web of Knowledge. The search terms included “anxiety disorder(s)”, “anxi*”, “cognitive behavio*, “CBT”, “child*”, “children”, “paediatric”, “adolescent(s)”, “adolescence”, “youth” and “young pe*”. The studies identified from this search were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 20 studies were identified as appropriate for inclusion in the current meta-analysis. Pre- and posttreatment (or control period) data were used for analysis. Results: Findings indicated significantly greater odds of anxiety remission from pre- to posttreatment for those engaged in the transdiagnostic CBT intervention compared with those in the control group, with children in the treatment condition 9.15 times more likely to recover from their anxiety diagnosis than children in the control group. Risk of bias was not correlated with study effect sizes. Conclusions: Transdiagnostic CBT seems effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety in children and young people. Further research is required to investigate the efficacy of CBT for children under the age of 6.

In this paper, we review the area of anxiety in children under the age of 11 years. We explore the literature examining the continuity of anxiety symptoms and behavioral inhibition when they appear in children of this age, and show that when these are present, there is a high likelihood of significant anxiety in later childhood, adolescence, and beyond. We then focus on the growing area of treatment research. We show that there are a number of promising new avenues for managing anxiety disorders in this young age group. Many of these interventions involve a key role for parents in the treatment process, but others have demonstrated success employing modified cognitive behavior therapy directed at the child. Limitations to the conclusions, caused by the limited amounts research, small sample sizes and significant methodological difficulties, are discussed.

Background In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies we conducted, specific types of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and multiple ACEs (3+), were found to be significantly associated with internalising symptoms in adulthood. There is evidence that these associations depend on the presence of subsequent adult factors, such as education. Methods We used data from the Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD) (n = 5362). A wide range of prospectively measured ACEs were grouped into six domains: ‘family instability’, ‘family socio-economic status’, ‘parental age’, ‘childrearing and parenting’, ‘parental health’, and ‘childhood health’. Multinomial logistic regressions and SEM were used to: 1) investigate associations between ACEs and different life course trajectories of internalising symptoms: absence of symptoms, adolescent symptoms with good adult outcome, adult onset symptoms, and adolescent onset repeated symptoms; and 2) to explore the role of educational level (degree or higher vs. no degree) by age 26, in the pathway between ACEs and life course trajectories of internalising symptoms. Results ACEs across multiple domains were significantly associated with adolescent onset repeated symptoms (all ps Significant associations were found between ACEs and educational level at age 26: father’s occupation (manual), OR = 0.13; and father’s education (primary), OR = 0.15; cleanliness of house (average/among the least clean), OR = 0.27; mother’s perceived health (average with complaints/poor), OR = 0.54; birth weight ( Lower level of education was significantly associated with adolescent onset repeated symptoms, OR = 1.54, and adolescent onset symptoms with good adult outcome, OR = 2.28. Conclusion These preliminary results suggest that education may be a specific potentially modifiable pathway underling the association between ACEs and internalising symptoms.