Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations: A general population cohort study of 1.3 million

Bhautesh D Jani, Frederick K Ho, David J Lowe, Sean MacBride-Stewart, Frances S Mair, Jill P Pell
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.17.20196436
Bhautesh D Jani
1Clinical Senior Lecturer in General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 9LX, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frederick K Ho
2Research Associate, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8RZ, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David J Lowe
3Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, G52 4TF, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sean MacBride-Stewart
4Lead Pharmacist (Medicines Management Resources), Pharmacy Services, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, G76 7AT, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frances S Mair
5Norie Miller Professor of General Practice, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 9LX, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jill P Pell
6Henry Mechan Professor of Public Health, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8RZ, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Jill.pell@glasgow.ac.uk
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Shielding (extended self-isolation) of people judged, a priori, to be at high-risk from COVID-19 has been used by some countries to protect the individuals and reduce demand on health services. It is unclear how well this strategy works in either regard.

Methods A general population study was conducted using linked primary care, prescribing, laboratory, hospital and death records up to end of May 2020. Poisson regression models and population attributable fractions were used to compare COVID-19 outcomes by overall risk category, and individual risk criteria: confirmed infection, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, population mortality and case-fatality.

Results Of the 1.3 million population, 32,533 (2.47%) had been advised to shield, a further 347,374 (26.41%) were classified as moderate risk. Testing for COVID-19 was more common in the shielded (6.75%) and moderate (1.99%) than low (0.72%) risk categories. Referent to low-risk, the shielded group had higher risk of confirmed infection (RR 7.91, 95% 7.01-8.92), case-fatality (RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.12-6.53) and population mortality (RR 48.64, 95% 37.23-63.56). The moderate risk had intermediate risk of confirmed infection (RR 4.11, 95% CI 3.82-4.42) and population mortality (RR 26.10, 95% CI 20.89-32.60), but had comparable case-fatality (RR 5.13, 95% CI 4.24-6.21) to the shielded, and accounted for a higher proportion of deaths (PAF 75.27% vs 13.38%). Age ≥70 years made the largest contribution to deaths (49.53%) and was associated with an 8-fold risk of infection, 7-fold case-fatality and 74-fold mortality.

Conclusions Shielding has not been effective at preventing deaths in those with highest risk. To be effective as a population strategy, shielding criteria would need to be widely expanded to include other criteria, such as the elderly.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

No external funding sources.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was approved by the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Primary Care Information Sharing Group and the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Local Privacy Advisory Committee (LPAC) (Reference GSH/20RM005) and was covered by the generic Safe Haven Research Ethics Committee approval (GSH20RM005_COVID_Community).

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available in the Glasgow Safe Haven.

https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/about-us/professional-support-sites/safe-haven/services/

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted September 21, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations: A general population cohort study of 1.3 million
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations: A general population cohort study of 1.3 million
Bhautesh D Jani, Frederick K Ho, David J Lowe, Sean MacBride-Stewart, Frances S Mair, Jill P Pell
medRxiv 2020.09.17.20196436; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.17.20196436
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations: A general population cohort study of 1.3 million
Bhautesh D Jani, Frederick K Ho, David J Lowe, Sean MacBride-Stewart, Frances S Mair, Jill P Pell
medRxiv 2020.09.17.20196436; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.17.20196436

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Public and Global Health
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (174)
  • Allergy and Immunology (421)
  • Anesthesia (97)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (901)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (170)
  • Dermatology (102)
  • Emergency Medicine (257)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (407)
  • Epidemiology (8789)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (405)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1863)
  • Geriatric Medicine (179)
  • Health Economics (388)
  • Health Informatics (1292)
  • Health Policy (644)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (492)
  • Hematology (207)
  • HIV/AIDS (394)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10565)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (564)
  • Medical Education (193)
  • Medical Ethics (52)
  • Nephrology (218)
  • Neurology (1756)
  • Nursing (103)
  • Nutrition (266)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (343)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (461)
  • Oncology (965)
  • Ophthalmology (283)
  • Orthopedics (107)
  • Otolaryngology (177)
  • Pain Medicine (118)
  • Palliative Medicine (43)
  • Pathology (264)
  • Pediatrics (557)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (265)
  • Primary Care Research (219)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1845)
  • Public and Global Health (3986)
  • Radiology and Imaging (655)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (344)
  • Respiratory Medicine (535)
  • Rheumatology (215)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (178)
  • Sports Medicine (166)
  • Surgery (197)
  • Toxicology (37)
  • Transplantation (106)
  • Urology (80)