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

A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales

Aimee Serisier, View ORCID ProfileSarah Beale, Yamina Boukari, Susan Hoskins, View ORCID ProfileVincent Nguyen, Thomas Byrne, View ORCID ProfileWing Lam Erica Fong, View ORCID ProfileEllen Fragaszy, View ORCID ProfileCyril Geismar, Jana Kovar, View ORCID ProfileAlexei Yavlinsky, Andrew Hayward, View ORCID ProfileRobert W Aldridge
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.29.22279333
Aimee Serisier
1Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK, WC1E 7HB
(MSc)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Beale
1Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK, WC1E 7HB
2Centre for Public Health Data Science, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK, NW1 2DA
(MSc)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sarah Beale
  • For correspondence: sarah.beale.19@ucl.ac.uk
Yamina Boukari
2Centre for Public Health Data Science, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK, NW1 2DA
(PhD)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan Hoskins
1Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK, WC1E 7HB
(PhD)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vincent Nguyen
1Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK, WC1E 7HB
2Centre for Public Health Data Science, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK, NW1 2DA
(MSc)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Vincent Nguyen
Thomas Byrne
2Centre for Public Health Data Science, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK, NW1 2DA
(MPH)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wing Lam Erica Fong
2Centre for Public Health Data Science, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK, NW1 2DA
(MSc)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Wing Lam Erica Fong
Ellen Fragaszy
2Centre for Public Health Data Science, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK, NW1 2DA
3Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK, WC1E 7HT
(PhD)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ellen Fragaszy
Cyril Geismar
1Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK, WC1E 7HB
2Centre for Public Health Data Science, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK, NW1 2DA
(MSc)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Cyril Geismar
Jana Kovar
1Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK, WC1E 7HB
(PhD)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexei Yavlinsky
2Centre for Public Health Data Science, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK, NW1 2DA
(PhD)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alexei Yavlinsky
Andrew Hayward
1Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK, WC1E 7HB
(MD)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert W Aldridge
1Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK, WC1E 7HB
(PhD)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Robert W Aldridge
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Background Studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness show increases in COVID-19 cases within 14 days of a first dose, potentially reflecting post-vaccination behaviour changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission before vaccine protection. However, direct evidence for a relationship between vaccination and behaviour is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between vaccination status and self-reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities during a national lockdown in England and Wales.

Methods Participants (n=1,154) who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities from February to March 2021 in monthly surveys during a national lockdown in England and Wales. We used a case-crossover study design and conditional logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination vs. 14 days post-vaccination) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Stratified subgroup analyses examined potential effect heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, household income or age group.

Results 457/1,154 (39.60%) participants reported non-household contacts post-vaccination compared with 371/1,154 (32.15%) participants pre-vaccination. 100/1,154 (8.67%) participants reported use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination compared with 74/1,154 (6.41%) participants pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination status was associated with increased odds of reporting non-household contacts (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.31-2.06, p<0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03-2.17, p=0.032). This effect varied between men and women and different age groups.

Conclusion Participants had higher odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of their first COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination. Public health emphasis on maintaining protective behaviours during this post-vaccination time period when individuals have yet to develop full protection from vaccination could reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating impact on global public health since the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in late 2019 (1,2). SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted through direct or indirect contact with infected respiratory droplets or aerosols (3–5). Consequently, public settings and activities that involve direct and indirect contact may promote SARS-CoV-2 transmission (4,6) and were the target of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) introduced by many governments worldwide to control the spread of the virus. COVID-19 vaccination programmes, which began in December 2020 with the emergency licencing of first the Pfizer BioNTech and then AstraZeneca vaccines in the UK, are now a cornerstone of pandemic response in the UK and worldwide along with varying degrees of remaining NPIs. Delivered as two doses with additional booster doses, first and subsequent doses are proven to be effective in reducing symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, hospitalisations, and deaths from COVID-19 (7–10). However, the protection provided by vaccines is not immediate and infection with SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination is possible (11). Studies using data from Israel and the UK suggest an increased risk of symptomatic infection within 14 days of the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (12,13); the reduction in risk of symptomatic infection is seen after 14 days. It is possible that increased risk in the 14 days after vaccination may reflect changes in behaviour associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission during the period of time in which immunologic protection is building (14-16), particularly given the extent to which human behaviour is known to influence infectious disease dynamics (17-20). Furthermore, concerns have been raised that a reduction in behaviours protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection could be seen if the perceived risk of infection is reduced after vaccination against COVID-19 (21).

Empirical evidence regarding the effect of vaccination on infection prevention behaviour is limited. One study examining protective behaviours before and after vaccination against Lyme disease found that people who were vaccinated reduced protective behaviours and believed that they were at less risk of infection than unvaccinated people (22). There is evidence in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic that suggests changes in protective behaviours may occur. In February 2021 the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that 41% of over 80s met a person who was not a part of their household or support bubble indoors within 21 days post-vaccination (23). A December 2020 YouGov survey poll found that of the 1,706 people surveyed, 29% said that they would follow public health restrictions less strictly after receiving a vaccine (24); this poll was conducted prior to widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccination in the UK. Reductions in compliance with mask use and handwashing post-vaccination were found amongst healthcare workers in Ethiopia after the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (25). Contradictory to these findings, a longitudinal analysis investigating compliance with protective behaviours found increases in self-reported compliance with public health guidance and social distancing in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals from October 2020 to February 2021 (26). However, variation in context over this time could have influenced these results - for example, the introduction of the third national lockdown in January 2021 or changes in the perceived risk of infection as case numbers rose.

This study aimed to quantify the effect of a change in COVID-19 vaccination status on transmission-relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown using data from Virus Watch, a large prospective cohort study based in England and Wales. We set out to investigate whether participants’ self-reported levels of non-household contacts and retail and social activities classed as non-essential under lockdown restrictions (such as use of a hairdressers or other services for personal care, attending a party, or dining at restaurant or café) changed within 14 days of their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccination compared to pre-vaccination.

METHODS

Study design

A case-crossover design was used to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination versus ≤14 days post first dose) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Case-crossover designs are appropriate to examine the association between transient exposures and acute outcomes (27), and eliminate measured and unmeasured time-invariant confounding when comparing within-person exposed and unexposed periods (27-30).

To maximise the comparability of referent periods and reduce the potential for confounding by temporal or spatial trends in contacts and activities, the study timeframe was limited to include survey responses from within the third national lockdown in England and Wales (6 January – 29 March 2021). Each survey was open for 7 days and concerned non-household contacts and activities in the week prior to its start date – surveys from 9-16 February 2021 and 9-16 March 2021 could therefore be included, and the pre-vaccination period comprised responses from 2-9 February 2021 and the post-vaccination period from 2-9 March 2021.

Study setting and population

Data analysed in this project were collected as part of Virus Watch, a household community cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and COVID-19 in England and Wales. Details of Virus Watch relevant to the present study are described briefly here, with further information on its full scope and methodology described in the study protocol (31).

Participants were recruited in households, and a baseline survey completed upon study registration collected information on sociodemographic factors for each household member. Participants reported on changes in the vaccination status weekly. Monthly surveys collected health-related and behavioural/psychosocial factors, including information about participants’ activities and contacts.

Inclusion criteria were having received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and responded to a monthly survey regarding activities and contacts both pre-vaccination and post-vaccination (n = 1,154). Participants under 18 years old were excluded (n = 4) as this age group was not the focus of vaccinations during the study timeframe. Participants with missing data on sociodemographic covariates (see below) to be used in stratified analyses were excluded from the study sample following initial descriptive statistics (n = 23). The final study population for analysis included 1,141 participants (Figure 1).

Exposure

Vaccination status was the exposure of interest, defined as ‘pre-vaccination’ and ‘within 14-days post-vaccination’ of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and derived from data on the date and dose of vaccinations reported in weekly surveys.

Outcome

The following contact and activity outcomes were derived based on responses to monthly surveys, and were binary coded (yes or no during survey week): (1) any close contact with non-household members (‘face-to-face contact with another person less than 1 metre away, spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of another person, or travelling in a car or other small vehicle with another person’ (32), (2) any social or leisure activity (attending a theatre, cinema, concert, or sports event; attending a party; going to a restaurant, café, or canteen; going to a bar, pub, or club; and/or use of a gym or indoor sports facility), and (3) visiting non-essential shops or services (e.g. hairdressers, barbers, or beauty salons). Such behaviours were targeted by social distancing restrictions and/or public venue closures under lockdown restrictions in place in February – March 2021. Due to low numbers of participants reporting social activities in both pre- and post-vaccination surveys during this lockdown period, social and leisure activities could not be included in this analysis.

Demographic Characteristics

Data on sociodemographic characteristics were collected from study baseline responses. Age group was defined according to reported age of participants at baseline: less than 60 years and 60 years or more. Participants were categorised as White British and Minority Ethnic according to self-reported ethnicity. Sex was categorised as male and female by self-reported sex. Household size was defined as households of 1 person, 2-3 people and 4-6 people. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for each participant was categorised using household postcodes recorded on registration, comprising 1 (least deprived) through 5 (most deprived). Region was measured using participant’s postcodes and categorised according to ONS national regions. Observations with missing data on sex (1.12%) and age (0.43%) which were included as potential effect modifiers were excluded following descriptive statistics in order to perform a complete cases analysis.

Analysis

The frequency with which non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services were reported in surveys pre- and post-vaccination were calculated and stratified by age and sex only as group sizes amongst other participant subgroups were too small. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the odds of reporting contacts and activity outcomes within 14 days after the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine compared to the earlier pre-vaccination time point within individuals. This approach accounts for non-independence in responses within individuals over time by conditioning the participants responses using an individual-specific fixed effect (33). Each participant contributes two observations occupying a single stratum in the model. As the model estimates within-individual changes, strata that do not vary (i.e., people who reported contacts and activities in neither hazard nor control periods, or in both) do not contribute to the model (29). Stratification of conditional logistic regression models by age and sex was then performed. Sociodemographic covariates were collected at baseline and considered time-invariant confounders, and consequently were not entered into the models. Cluster robust standard errors were used to account for household-level clustering.

Ethics

Ethical approval for Virus Watch was obtained from the Hampstead National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (ethics approval number 20/HRA/2320). All participants provided online informed consent. All analyses were conducted using the University College London Data Safe Haven.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of Virus Watch participants in this analysis (n = 1,154). The majority were over 60 years of age (58.12%), likely due to the phases of COVID-19 vaccine delivery, with older age groups being prioritised in the early stages of the COVID-19 vaccination programme (34). Participants were mostly white (95.93%), from the East of England (24.61%) or South East (20.10%), lived in households with 2-3 people (62.48%), in IMD 5 (least deprived, (31.63%) or with an annual household income of £50,000 or more (38.88%). There was a greater proportion of men in the sample (54.59%) compared to women (44.37%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1

Characteristics of study participants

Table 2 shows the frequency of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services. Pre-vaccination surveys asked participants to record activities from 2-9 February 2021, with post-vaccination surveys recording activities from 2-9 March 2021. 371/1,154 (32.15%) participants reported contact with a person outside of their household or support bubble pre-vaccination compared with 457/1,154 (39.60%) participants in the 14 days after the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. 74/1,154 (6.41%) participants reported using non-essential shops or services pre-vaccination, while 100/1,154 (8.67%) participants did so in the 14 days after their first COVID-19 vaccine.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2

Frequency of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services over 7 days in pre- and post-vaccination surveys (n = 1,154).

Table 3 shows the frequency with which participants reported activities in pre-vaccination and post-vaccination surveys stratified by age group and sex. A greater proportion of participants reported non-household contacts in both pre-vaccination and post-vaccination surveys compared to use of non-essential shops and services, but both activities were reported more frequently post-vaccination. Post-vaccination, reporting of non-household contacts was greatest amongst male participants and those aged less than 60 (257/630, 40.79% and 199/480, 41.46% respectively), but the greatest increase in reported non-household contacts was seen when comparing post-vaccination with pre-vaccination surveys from male participants and those aged 60 years or more. Greater proportions of female participants (47/512, 9.18%) and participants aged 60 years or more (70/673, 10.40%) reported use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days post-vaccination. However, reported use of non-essential shops or services by male participants increased by more than female participants post-vaccination.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3

The frequency of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services over 7 days in pre-vaccination and post-vaccination surveys by participant characteristics (n = 1,154).

The pre-vaccination survey and post-vaccination surveys asked participants to report activities from 2-9 February 2021 and 2-9 March 2021 respectively.

Table 4 presents the results of conditional logistic models for the within-individual effects of vaccination on non-household close contacts and use of non-essential shops or services. Odds of reporting non-household close contacts (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.31-2.06, p=<0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03-2.17, p=0.032) were higher within 14 days post-vaccination compared to pre-vaccination.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4

Conditional logistic regression models for the effect of vaccinations status on contacts and use of non-essential shops or services.

Table 5 shows the results of stratified conditional logistic models examining heterogeneity of the within-individual effect of a change in vaccination status for contacts and use of non-essential shops or services by sociodemographic characteristics. All analyses compare time periods within 14 days post-vaccination to time periods pre-vaccination.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 5

Conditional logistic analyses stratified by sociodemographic characteristics for the effect of vaccination status on self-reported contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination.

After stratification by sex, greater odds of reporting non-household close contacts within the 14 days post-vaccination compared to pre-vaccination were consistent for both men (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28-2.29, p=<0.001) and women (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.13-2.17, p=0.007). However, overlapping confidence intervals indicate a lack of effect heterogeneity by sex in the study population. There was evidence of effect of vaccination status on use of non-essential shops or services amongst male participants, who had greater odds of reporting these activities post-vaccination (OR 1.86 95% CI 1.14-3.32, p=0.015). Female participants were not at increased odds of reporting use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76-2.03, p=<0.39).

The odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services in those aged less than 60 years were respectively 1.48 (95% CI 1.05-2.08, p=0.027) and 1.37 (95% CI 0.75-2.47, p=0.30). Elevated odds were seen in those aged 60 years or more, with greater odds for both non-household close contacts (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.33-2.41, p=<0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.01-2.48, p=0.046).

DISCUSSION

Our findings indicate that within 14 days of their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, participants were more likely to report non-household close contacts (OR=1.65, 1.31-2.06) and visiting non-essential shops and services (OR=1.50, 1.03-2.17) compared to pre-vaccination. There was no substantial heterogeneity in the effect of vaccination status on non-household close contacts between men and women, but men had higher odds of reporting use of non-essential shops or services. Participants aged 60 years or more had greater odds of reporting both non-household close contacts and use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination. Increased close contact with people outside of the household and in non-essential retail activities may contribute to the increased risk of infection seen within 14 days of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (12,13), although directly measuring the risk of infection associated with these behaviours was outside the scope of this analysis.

The greatest effect was seen for contacts with people outside of the household. Few participants reported use of non-essential shops or services or social activities, leading to the exclusion of social activities from this analysis due to small group sizes. This is largely due to closure of public venues (e.g., non-essential retail or indoor dining venues) under national regulations in England and Wales at the time of the survey. Results from stratified analyses must also be interpreted with caution due to small subgroup sizes, which likely substantially reduced power for these analyses.

These results highlight the need to maintain protective behaviours within 14 days of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine while immunological protection builds. This could reduce the risk of infection in this time and is a relevant target for public health messaging. Although this analysis focused specifically on non-essential contacts and activities during the third national lockdown, it is possible that the effect of vaccination on activity levels at times when social distancing and other public health measures are relaxed may be even greater. Additionally, there is some evidence to suggest that older people are more likely to adopt or adhere to protective behaviours than younger people during pandemics (35). As most participants in this project were older than 50 years of age, our findings may be different or magnified in younger age groups. Our findings may also be of relevance for current and future booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines considering reported reductions in vaccine effectiveness over time (36-39). This may be of particular importance given recent evidence for immune evasion of both natural and vaccine-acquired immunity by the Omicron Variant of Concern (VoC) (40), the most dominant strain in the UK (41). Longer-term, quantitative data on behaviour related to vaccination could be used to parametrize and validate models of infectious disease dynamics used in public health decision making and policy (19,20), assisting public health planning in response to future outbreaks of infectious diseases.

While we found no differences in the effect of vaccination status between men and women, previous research has suggested that women may be more likely to adopt protective behaviours than men during pandemics, which is potentially related to increased perceived risk (35). A study examining adherence to public health guidance in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic found that women reported making fewer trips outside of the home than men and less use of non-essential shops (42). Although our findings are supported by evidence that a reduction in protective behaviours may be seen after the introduction of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic (25, 43, 44), they are not consistent with those from a Virus Watch study using GPS location data to examine changes in travel distance pre- and post-the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine during the third national lockdown (45). In this analysis, Nguyen et al. found no evidence for an increase in the rate of change in the distance travelled by participants post-vaccination in the 30 days before and after vaccination, suggesting that participants may not have altered behaviours leading to an increased distance travelled during this time. However, participants in the geolocation tracking arm of the study were aware that they were being monitored and so may have been more likely to modify their behaviour. Our results differ from those of Wright et al. (26), whose research showed that compliance with public health guidelines increased in both unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals from October 2020 to February 2021.

Context-specific psychological predictors of behaviour could account for this difference. A scoping review of 149 studies of behaviour change during pandemics (including the COVID-19 pandemic) found higher perceived risk predicted greater levels of adherence to a number of protective behaviours, including social distancing and avoidance of non-essential shopping (46). A number of contextual factors could have caused changes in perceived risk between late 2020 and early 2021. Perceived risk may have been greater during the national lockdown beginning in January 2021 at the peak of the second wave of COVID-19 cases (47). The rapid expansion of first the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha VoC (48) and then Delta VoC in early 2021 (49) may have also influenced perceived risk. Comparison of longer-term changes in compliance with guidelines or protective behaviours post-vaccination with changes over a shorter period of time may therefore not be appropriate.

Alternatively, perceived risk may contribute to the changes in behaviour seen in this analysis independently of vaccination status. Following the peak in January 2021, the number of people testing positive for COVID-19 decreased over February – March 2021 (50). Over time participants may have felt at less risk of COVID-19 and gradually increased their contacts and activities independently of a change in their vaccination status. As our analysis did not directly examine the perceived risk of infection further investigation of the relationship between psychological predictors of behaviour, vaccination and infectious disease dynamics is warranted.

A strength of the case-crossover design is that time-invariant confounders are controlled by self-matching. This is advantageous when studying complex outcomes such as behaviour as conditional logistic regression accounts for unmeasured confounders, which may be unknown or difficult to quantify. By selecting pre- and post-vaccination time periods to be within a period of time during which public health guidance and restrictions were in place, temporal and spatial variation in behaviours was likely minimised. The potential for information bias is minimised as survey questions remained the same over time, and self-matching means that the same individuals reported information for both pre- and post-vaccination time periods,

An important limitation of this analysis is the lack of representativeness of the study population with the general population in England and Wales. Participants who responded to surveys were predominantly of White ethnicity, living in the East or South East of England and living in less deprived environments with high household income. This is significant given the unequal burden of disease and mortality from COVID-19 in the UK population. People living in overcrowded households are at greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (51), and rates of diagnosis and death are higher in people who live in more deprived areas and are from minority ethnic backgrounds (52). Furthermore, confounders (e.g., household income, IMD and region) may have varied over time but were only available at baseline. Self-reported contacts and activities may have been affected by recall bias, although this may have been minimised by survey timing (i.e. the following week). There was also the potential for social desirability bias, but this may have been reduced by survey responses being recorded online. Importantly, the infection risk of contacts and activities in this project could not be directly measured using survey responses – this limits inferences about the impact of changes in behaviour on infection risk and is recommended as a focus for future research.

This analysis provides quantitative evidence for an association between vaccination status and transmission-relevant behaviour using data gathered during the third national lockdown in England and Wales. Our findings suggest that changes in protective behaviours occur while immunological protection is building and may contribute to risk of infection in the 14 days after vaccination. It is possible that such an effect could exist with current and future booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines given reductions in vaccine effectiveness occurring over time. Interventions emphasising the need to maintain protective behaviours in the recently vaccinated could therefore reduce the risk of infection during these time periods.

Data Availability

We aim to share aggregate data from this project on our website and via a "Findings so far" section on our website - https://ucl-virus-watch.net/. We also share some individual record level data on the Office of National Statistics Secure Research Service. In sharing the data we will work within the principles set out in the UKRI Guidance on best practice in the management of research data. Access to use of the data whilst research is being conducted will be managed by the Chief Investigators (ACH and RWA) in accordance with the principles set out in the UKRI guidance on best practice in the management of research data. We will put analysis code on publicly available repositories to enable their reuse.

https://ucl-virus-watch.net/

Funding

The Virus Watch study is supported by the MRC Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. This study was also supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602]. SB and TB are supported by an MRC doctoral studentship (MR/N013867/1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, in the writing of this report, or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Conflicts of interest

AH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group and is a member of the COVID-19 transmission sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Data availability

We aim to share aggregate data from this project on our website and via a “Findings so far” section on our website - https://ucl-virus-watch.net/. We also share some individual record level data on the Office of National Statistics Secure Research Service. In sharing the data we will work within the principles set out in the UKRI Guidance on best practice in the management of research data. Access to use of the data whilst research is being conducted will be managed by the Chief Investigators (ACH and RWA) in accordance with the principles set out in the UKRI guidance on best practice in the management of research data. We will put analysis code on publicly available repositories to enable their reuse.

FIGURES

Figure 1. Exclusion criteria for the analysis of the effect of vaccination status on contacts and activities.

ABBREVIATIONS

COVID-19
Coronavirus disease 2019
SARS-CoV-2
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
UK
United Kingdom
IMD
Index of Multiple Deprivation
VoC
Variant of Concern

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B, Chen YM, Wang W, Song ZG, et al. A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature. 2020 12;579(7798):265–9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Zhou P, Yang X lou, Wang XG, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020 12;579(7798):270–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Falahi S, Kenarkoohi A. Transmission routes for SARS-CoV-2 infection: review of evidence. Vol. 38, New Microbes and New Infections. 2020 100778 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100778
  4. 4.↵
    Government of the United Kingdom (EMG and NERVTAG). SARS-Cov-2 Transmission Routes and Environments SAGE - 22 October 2020. 2020 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sars-cov-2-transmission-routes-and-environments-22-october-2020
  5. 5.↵
    World Health Organisation. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: implications for infection prevention precautions. 2020 https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions
  6. 6.↵
    Hayward AC, Beale S, Johnson AM, Fragaszy EB, Cowling BJ, Uzicanin A. Public activities preceding the onset of acute respiratory infection syndromes in adults in england-implications for the use of social distancing to control pandemic respiratory infections. Wellcome Open Research. 2020, 5:54 https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15795.1
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Public Health England. Public Health England vaccine effectiveness report: March 2021. 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/989360/PHE_COVID-19_vaccine_effectiveness_report_March_2021_v2.pdf
  8. 8.
    Public Health England. Impact of COVID-19 vaccines on mortality in England: December 2020 to March 2021. 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/977249/PHE_COVID-19_vaccine_impact_on_mortality_March.pdf
  9. 9.
    Public Health England. PHE monitoring of the early impact and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in England. 2021 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/968977/COVID-19_vaccine_effectiveness_surveillance_report_February_2021.pdf
  10. 10.↵
    Public Health England. Direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on COVID-19 infections and mortality. 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997495/Impact_of_COVID-19_vaccine_on_infection_and_mortality.pdf
  11. 11.↵
    Antonelli M, Penfold RS, Merino J, Sudre CH, Molteni E, Berry S, et al. Risk factors and disease profile of post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection in UK users of the COVID Symptom Study app: a prospective, community-based, nested, case-control study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00460-6
  12. 12.↵
    Bernal JL, Andrews N, Gower C, Stowe J, Robertson C, Cottrell S, et al. Early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine and ChAdOx1 adenovirus vector vaccine on symptomatic disease, hospitalisations and mortality in older adults in England. MedRxiv 2021 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.01.21252652
  13. 13.↵
    Hunter PR, Brainard J. Estimating the effectiveness of the Pfizer COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccine after a single dose. A reanalysis of a study of ‘real-world’ vaccination outcomes from Israel. MedRxiv 2021 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.01.21250957
  14. 14.↵
    Madhumita Shrotri A, Fragaszy E, Geismar C, Nguyen V, Beale S, Braithwaite I, et al. Spike-antibody responses following first and second doses of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines by age, gender, and clinical factors - a prospective community cohort study (Virus Watch). MedRxiv 2021 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.12.21257102
  15. 15.
    Folegatti PM, Ewer KJ, Aley PK, Angus B, Becker S, Belij-Rammerstorfer S, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2020 15;396(10249):467–78 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31604-4
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Sahin U, Muik A, Derhovanessian E, Vogler I, Kranz LM, Vormehr M, et al. COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and TH1 T cell responses. Nature. 2020 22;586(7830):594–9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2814-7
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Funk S, Salathé M, Jansen VAA. Modelling the influence of human behaviour on the spread of infectious diseases: A review. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2010 7(50):1247–56 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0142
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.
    Funk S, Bansal S, Bauch CT, Eames KTD, Edmunds WJ, Galvani AP, et al. Nine challenges in incorporating the dynamics of behaviour in infectious diseases models. Epidemics. 2015 10:21–5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2014.09.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Weston D, Hauck K, Amlôt R. Infection prevention behaviour and infectious disease modelling: A review of the literature and recommendations for the future. BMC Public Health. 2018 18, 336 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5223-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    Yan QL, Tang SY, Xiao YN. Impact of individual behaviour change on the spread of emerging infectious diseases. Statistics in Medicine. 2018 37(6):948–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7548
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours. SPI-B: Possible impact of the COVID-19 vaccination programme on adherence to rules and guidance about personal protective behaviours aimed at preventing spread of the virus – 7 December 2020. 2021 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/950723/s0978-spi-b-possible-impact-covid-19-vaccination-programme-adherence-to-rules-guidance.pdf
  22. 22.↵
    Brewer NT, Cuite CL, Herrington JE, Weinstein ND. Risk compensation and vaccination: Can getting vaccinated cause people to engage in risky behaviors? Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2007 34(1):95–9 https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02879925
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus and vaccine attitudes and behaviours in England: over 80s population, 15 February to 20 February 2021. 2021 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronavirusandvaccineattitudesandbehavioursinengland/over80spopulation15februaryto20february2021
  24. 24.↵
    YouGov. YouGov / Sky Survey Results. 2020. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/k6h1g211k5/Sky_CoronaBrexit_201005.pdf
  25. 25.↵
    Zewude B, Addis E. Changing Patterns of Compliance with Protective Behavioral Recommendations in the Post First-Round COVID-19 Vaccine Period Among Healthcare Workers in Southern Ethiopia. 2021 3575–87 https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S325699
  26. 26.↵
    Wright L, Steptoe A, Mak HW, Fancourt D. Do people reduce compliance with COVID-19 guidelines following vaccination? A longitudinal analysis of matched UK adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2021 76:109–115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-217179
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Maclure M. The case-crossover design: A method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1991 1174–83 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115853
  28. 28.
    Maclure M, Mittleman MA. Should we use a case-crossover design? Annual Review of Public Health. 2000 193–221 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.193
  29. 29.↵
    Mittleman MA, Mostofsky E. Exchangeability in the case-crossover design. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2014 43(5):1645–55 https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu081
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Mostofsky E, Coull BA, Mittleman MA. Analysis of Observational Self-matched Data to Examine Acute Triggers of Outcome Events with Abrupt Onset. Epidemiology. 2018 29(6):804–16 https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0000000000000904
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Hayward A, Fragaszy E, Kovar J, Nguyen V, Beale S, Byrne T, et al. Risk factors, symptom reporting, healthcare-seeking behaviour and adherence to public health guidance: Protocol for Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study. BMJ Open. 2021 11(6):1–8 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    UK Health Security Agency. Guidance for contacts of people with confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) infection who do not live with the person. 2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-contacts-of-people-with-possible-or-confirmed-coronavirus-covid-19-infection-who-do-not-live-with-the-person
  33. 33.↵
    Warner L, Macaluso M, Austin HD, Kleinbaum DK, Artz L, Fleenor ME, et al. Application of the case-crossover design to reduce unmeasured confounding in studies of condom effectiveness. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2005 15;161(8):765–73 https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: advice on priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination. 2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-30-december-2020/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation-advice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination-30-december-2020
  35. 35.↵
    Bish A, Michie S. Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: A review. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2010 15(4):797–824 https://doi.org/10.1348/135910710X485826
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    Andrews N, Tessier E, Stowe J, Gower C, Kirsebom F, Simmons R, et al. Vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection of Comirnaty, Vaxzevria and Spikevax against mild and severe COVID-19 in the UK. MedRxiv 2021 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.15.21263583
  37. 37.
    Mizrahi B, Lotan R, Kalkstein N, Peretz A, Galit Perez, Ma MN, et al. Correlation of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections to time-from-vaccine; Preliminary Study. MedRxiv 2021 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.29.21261317
  38. 38.
    Goldberg Y, Mandel M, Bar-On YM, Bodenheimer O, Freedman L, Haas EJ, et al. Waning immunity of the BNT162b2 vaccine: A nationwide study from Israel. MedRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262423
  39. 39.↵
    GOV.UK. JCVI statement regarding a COVID-19 booster vaccine programme for winter 2021 to 2022. 2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-booster-vaccine-programme-for-winter-2021-to-2022/jcvi-statement-regarding-a-covid-19-booster-vaccine-programme-for-winter-2021-to-2022
  40. 40.↵
    Ferguson N, Ghani A, Cori A, Hogan A, Hinsley W, Volz E. population distribution and immune escape of Omicron in England. Imperial College London (16-12-2021) 2021 https://doi.org/10.25561/93038
  41. 41.↵
    Emma B. Hodcroft. 2021. “CoVariants: SARS-CoV-2 Mutations and Variants of Interest.” https://covariants.org/
  42. 42.↵
    L.E. Smith, R. AmlOt, H. Lambert, I. Oliver, C. Robin, L. Yardley, G.J. Rubin. Factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures in the UK: a cross-sectional survey. Public Health. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.07.024
  43. 43.↵
    Smith LE, Mottershaw AL, Egan M, Waller J, Marteau TM, Rubin GJ. The impact of believing you have had COVID-19 on self-reported behaviour: Cross-sectional survey. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2020 15:1–13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240399
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Yan Y, Bayham J, Richter A, Fenichel EP. Risk compensation and face mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific Reports. 2021 11(1):1–11 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82574-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    Nguyen V, Liu Y, Mumford R, Flanagan B, Patel P, Braithwaite I, et al. Changes in mobility pre and post first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: findings from a prospective community cohort study including GPS movement tracking in England and Wales (Virus Watch). MedRxiv. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.21.21259237
  46. 46.↵
    Majid U, Wasim A, Bakshi S, Truong J. Knowledge, (mis-)conceptions, risk perception, and behavior change during pandemics: A scoping review of 149 studies. Public Understanding of Science. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520963365
  47. 47.↵
    Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey technical article waves and lags of COVID-19 in England, June 2021. 2021 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticle/wavesandlagsofcovid19inenglandjune2021
  48. 48.↵
    Mishra S, Mindermann S, Sharma M, Whittaker C, Mellan TA, Wilton T, et al. Changing composition of SARS-CoV-2 lineages and rise of Delta variant in England. eClinicalMedicine. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101064
  49. 49.↵
    Volz E, Mishra S, Chand M, Barrett JC, Johnson R, Geidelberg L, et al. Assessing transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England. Nature. 2021 13;593(7858):266–9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03470-x
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey technical article: waves and lags of COVID-19 in England, June 2021. 2021 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticle/wavesandlagsofcovid19inenglandjune2021
  51. 51.↵
    Aldridge RW. Household overcrowding and risk of SARS-CoV-2: analysis of the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales. MedRxiv 2021 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256912
  52. 52.↵
    Public Health England. Disparities in the risk and outcomes of COVID-19 2020 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908434/Disparities_in_the_risk_and_outcomes_of_COVID_August_2020_update.pdf
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted August 30, 2022.
Download PDF
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.
A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales
(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
A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales
Aimee Serisier, Sarah Beale, Yamina Boukari, Susan Hoskins, Vincent Nguyen, Thomas Byrne, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Ellen Fragaszy, Cyril Geismar, Jana Kovar, Alexei Yavlinsky, Andrew Hayward, Robert W Aldridge
medRxiv 2022.08.29.22279333; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.29.22279333
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales
Aimee Serisier, Sarah Beale, Yamina Boukari, Susan Hoskins, Vincent Nguyen, Thomas Byrne, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Ellen Fragaszy, Cyril Geismar, Jana Kovar, Alexei Yavlinsky, Andrew Hayward, Robert W Aldridge
medRxiv 2022.08.29.22279333; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.29.22279333

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 (271)
  • Allergy and Immunology (553)
  • Anesthesia (135)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1761)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (238)
  • Dermatology (173)
  • Emergency Medicine (312)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (660)
  • Epidemiology (10803)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (593)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2953)
  • Geriatric Medicine (287)
  • Health Economics (534)
  • Health Informatics (1930)
  • Health Policy (836)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (745)
  • Hematology (293)
  • HIV/AIDS (631)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12520)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (693)
  • Medical Education (299)
  • Medical Ethics (86)
  • Nephrology (324)
  • Neurology (2801)
  • Nursing (151)
  • Nutrition (433)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (559)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (597)
  • Oncology (1469)
  • Ophthalmology (444)
  • Orthopedics (172)
  • Otolaryngology (257)
  • Pain Medicine (190)
  • Palliative Medicine (56)
  • Pathology (381)
  • Pediatrics (867)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (366)
  • Primary Care Research (338)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2641)
  • Public and Global Health (5374)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1014)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (596)
  • Respiratory Medicine (726)
  • Rheumatology (330)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (289)
  • Sports Medicine (279)
  • Surgery (327)
  • Toxicology (47)
  • Transplantation (150)
  • Urology (126)