RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect access to condoms, chlamydia and HIV testing, and cervical cancer screening at a population level in Britain? (Natsal-COVID)
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.04.29.22274486
DO 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274486
A1 Dema, Emily
A1 Sonnenberg, Pam
A1 Gibbs, Jo
A1 Conolly, Anne
A1 Willis, Malachi
A1 Riddell, Julie
A1 Perez, Raquel Boso
A1 Copas, Andrew J.
A1 Tanton, Clare
A1 Bonell, Chris
A1 Oeser, Clarissa
A1 Clifton, Soazig
A1 Unemo, Magnus
A1 Mercer, Catherine H
A1 Mitchell, Kirstin R
A1 Field, Nigel
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/01/2022.04.29.22274486.abstract
AB Objectives To investigate how differential access to key interventions to reduce sexually transmitted infections (STI), HIV, and their sequelae changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods British participants (18-59y) completed a cross-sectional web survey one year (March to April 2021) after the initial lockdown in Britain. Quota-based sampling and weighting resulted in a quasi-representative population sample. We compared Natsal-COVID data with Natsal-3, a household-based probability sample cross-sectional survey (16-74y) conducted in 2010-12. Reported unmet need for condoms because of the pandemic and uptake of chlamydia testing/HIV testing/cervical cancer screening were analysed among sexually-experienced participants (18-44y) (n=2869, Natsal-COVID; n=8551, Natsal-3). Odds ratios adjusted for age (aOR) and other potential confounders (AOR) describe associations with demographic and behavioural factors.Results In 2021, 6.9% of women and 16.2% of men reported unmet need for condoms because of the pandemic. This was more likely among participants: aged 18-24 years, of Black or Black British ethnicity, and reporting same-sex sex (past five years) or one or more new relationships (past year). Chlamydia and HIV testing were more commonly reported by younger participants, those reporting condomless sex with new sexual partners, and men reporting same-sex partners; a very similar distribution to 10 years previously (Natsal-3). However, there were differences during the pandemic, including stronger associations with chlamydia testing for men reporting same-sex partners; with HIV testing for women reporting new sexual partners; and with cervical screening among smokers.Conclusions Our study suggests differential access to key primary and secondary STI/HIV prevention interventions continued during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the available evidence does not suggest substantial changes in inequalities in since 2010–12. While the pandemic might not have exacerbated inequalities in access to primary and secondary prevention, it is clear that large inequalities persisted, typically among those at greatest STI/HIV risk.Key MessagesMany MSM, people of Black ethnicity and young people (i.e. groups most impacted by STIs) reported unmet need for condoms because of the pandemicWe compared inequalities in access to key interventions using Natsal-COVID (2021) and Natsal-3 (2010-12).During the pandemic (Natsal-COVID), there were stronger associations with chlamydia testing for MSM and with HIV testing for women reporting new sexual partners.There were stronger associations with cervical screening among smokers during the pandemic compared to 2010-12 (Natsal-3).However, we did not find strong evidence that vulnerable groups were at additional risk during the pandemic when compared to 2010-12.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNatsal is a collaboration between University College London (UCL), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), the University of Glasgow, Orebro University Hospital, and NatCen Social Research. The Natsal Resource, which is supported by a grant from the Wellcome Trust (212931/Z/18/Z), with contributions from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), supports the Natsal-COVID study in addition to funding from the UCL Coronavirus Response Fund and the MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (Core funding, MC_UU_00022/3; SPHSU18). We thank the study participants and Margaret Blake and Reuben Balfour (Ipsos MORI).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:We obtained ethics approval from University of Glasgow MVLS College Ethics Committee (reference 20019174) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics committee (reference 22565). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAn anonymised dataset will be deposited with the UK Data Archive.