Social mixing patterns in the UK following the relaxation of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions: a cross-sectional online survey

  1. Jessica RE Bridgen
  2. Chris P Jewell
  3. Jonathan M Read

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Since 23 March 2020, social distancing measures have been implemented in the UK to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to quantify and characterize non-household contact and to identify the effect of shielding and isolating on contact patterns.

Methods

Through an online questionnaire, the CoCoNet study measured daily interactions and mobility of 5143 participants between 28 July and 14 August 2020. Negative binomial regression modelling identified participant characteristics associated with contact rates.

Results

The mean rate of non-household contacts per person was 2.9 d -1 . Participants attending a workplace (adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) 3.33, 95%CI 3.02 to 3.66), self-employed (aIRR 1.63, 95%CI 1.43 to 1.87) or working in healthcare (aIRR 5.10, 95%CI 4.29 to 6.10) reported significantly higher non-household contact rates than those working from home. Participants self-isolating as a precaution or following Test and Trace instructions had a lower non-household contact rate than those not self-isolating (aIRR 0.58, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.79). We found limited evidence that those shielding had reduced non-household contacts compared to non-shielders.

Conclusion

The daily rate of non-household interactions remains lower than pre-pandemic levels, suggesting continued adherence to social distancing guidelines. Individuals attending a workplace in-person or employed as healthcare professionals were less likely to maintain social distance and had a higher non-household contact rate, possibly increasing their infection risk. Shielding and self-isolating individuals required greater support to enable them to follow the government guidelines and reduce non-household contact and therefore their risk of infection.

Summary box

What is already known on this subject?

  • The introduction of social distancing guidelines in March 2020 reduced social contact rates in the UK.

  • Evidence of low levels of adherence to self-isolation.

What does this study add?

  • This study provides quantitative insight into the social mixing patterns in the UK at the beginning of the second wave of SARS-CoV2 infection.

  • Healthcare professionals and individuals attending their workplace in-person were less able to follow social distancing guidelines and made more contact with people outside their household than those working from home.

  • Shielding individuals did not make fewer non-household contacts than those not shielding.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.22.21265371: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.0.2.[18] Ethics Statement: This study was approved by the Faculty of Health and Medicine Ethics Committee at Lancaster University (reference FHMREC19135).
    Consent: Participation in the study was voluntary, with each participant (and where appropriate parent or guardian) giving their consent before proceeding.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.22.21265371v1 on medRxiv