From April 2020 participants from our main Understanding Society sample have been asked to complete a short web-survey. This survey covers the changing impact of the pandemic on the welfare of UK individuals, families and wider communities. Participants complete a regular survey, which includes core content designed to track changes, alongside variable content adapted as the coronavirus situation develops. Researchers will be able to link the data from this web survey to answers respondents have given in previous (and future) waves of the annual Understanding Society survey.

Understanding Society, (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Verian Group (formerly Kantar Public) and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991.

Understanding Society (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Kantar Public and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991.

The Understanding Society COVID-19 Study, 2020-2021 is a regular survey of households in the UK. The aim of the study is to enable research on the socio-economic and health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the short and long term. The surveys started in April 2020 and took place monthly until July 2020. From September 2020 they took place every other month until March 2021 and the final wave was fielded in September 2021. They complement the annual interviews of the Understanding Society study. The data can be linked to data on the same individuals from previous waves of the annual interviews (SN 6614) using the personal identifier pidp. However, the most recent pre-pandemic (2019) annual interviews for all respondents who have taken part in the COVID-19 Study are included as part of this data release. Please refer to the User Guide for further information on linking in this way and for geographical information options.

Latest edition information

For the eleventh edition (December 2021), revised April, May, June, July, September, November 2020, January 2021 and March 2021 data files for the adult survey have been deposited. These files have been amended to address issues identified during ongoing quality assurance activities. All documentation has been updated to explain the revisions, and users are advised to consult the documentation for details. In addition new data from the September 2021 web survey have been deposited.

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) Press Briefings Corpus is a work in progress to collect and present in a machine readable text dataset of the daily briefings from around the world by government authorities. During the peak of the pandemic, most countries around the world informed their citizens of the status of the pandemic (usually involving an update on the number of infection cases, number of deaths) and other policy-oriented decisions about dealing with the health crisis, such as advice about what to do to reduce the spread of the epidemic.

Usually daily briefings did not occur on a Sunday.

At the moment the dataset includes:

UK/England: Daily Press Briefings by UK Government between 12 March 2020 - 01 June 2020 (70 briefings in total)

Scotland: Daily Press Briefings by Scottish Government between 3 March 2020 - 01 June 2020 (76 briefings in total)

Wales: Daily Press Briefings by Welsh Government between 23 March 2020 - 01 June 2020 (56 briefings in total)

Northern Ireland: Daily Press Briefings by N. Ireland Assembly between 23 March 2020 - 01 June 2020 (56 briefings in total)

World Health Organisation: Press Briefings occuring usually every 2 days between 22 January 2020 - 01 June 2020 (63 briefings in total)

More countries will be added in due course, and we will be keeping this updated to cover the latest daily briefings available.

The corpus is compiled to allow for further automated political discourse analysis (classification).

The COVID-19 dashboard includes data on city/town COVID-19 activity, confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19, confirmed and probable deaths related to COVID-19, and the demographic characteristics of cases and deaths.

At the end of 2020 the GLA commissioned the University of Essex to analyse the impact on Londoners of the Covid-19 crisis, of the emergency policies put in place since March 2020 and of some counterfactual policy options, including the continuation of the £20 weekly uplift in Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit. The researchers used UKMOD, the UK tax-benefit microsimulation model, to conduct their analysis.

Files to replicate "Internet and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the UK", published in the Oxford Open Economics journal: https://doi.org/10.1093/ooec/odac007 The replication files use data from Understanding Society. Understanding Society is an initiative funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and various Government Departments, with scientific leadership by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, and survey delivery by NatCen Social Research and Kantar Public. The research data are distributed by the UK Data Service. Researchers who would like to use Understanding Society need to register with the UK Data Service before being allowed to apply for or download datasets. For more information visit: https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/documentation/access-data

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. There has been a fall in the number of spells for some trusts due to COVID-19 impacting on activity from March 2020 onwards and this appears to be an accurate reflection of hospital activity rather than a case of missing data. Contextual indicators on the number of provider spells which are excluded from the SHMI due to them being related to COVID-19 and on the number of provider spells as a percentage of pre-pandemic activity (January 2019 – December 2019) are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. These indicators are being published as experimental statistics. Experimental statistics are official statistics which are published in order to involve users and stakeholders in their development and as a means to build in quality at an early stage. Notes: 1. A large proportion of records for Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RAJ) have missing or incorrect information for the main condition the patient was in hospital for (their primary diagnosis) and this will have affected the calculation of the expected number of deaths. Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 2. Day cases and regular day attenders are excluded from the SHMI. However, some day cases for University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRV) have been incorrectly classified as ordinary admissions meaning that they have been included in the SHMI. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (trust code RWF) has submitted a number of records with a patient classification of ‘day case’ or ‘regular day attender’ and an intended management value of ‘patient to stay in hospital for at least one night’. This mismatch has resulted in the patient classification being updated to ‘ordinary admission’ by the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data cleaning rules. This may have resulted in the number of ordinary admissions being overstated. The trust has been contacted to clarify what the correct patient classification is for these records. Values for these trusts should therefore be interpreted with caution. 3. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

This is the Zenodo archive for the manuscript "Likely community transmission of COVID-19 infections between neighboring, persistent hotspots in Ontario, Canada" (Mucaki EJ, Shirley BC and Rogan PK. F1000Research 2021, 10:1312, DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.75891.1). This study aimed to produce community-level geo-spatial mapping of patterns and clusters of symptoms, and of confirmed COVID-19 cases, in near real-time in order to support decision-making. This was accomplished by area-to-area geostatistical analysis, space-time integration, and spatial interpolation of COVID-19 positive individuals. This archive will contain data and image files from this study, which were too numerous to be included in the manuscript for this study. It also provides all program files pertaining to the Geostatistical Epidemiology Toolbox (Geostatistical analysis software package to be used in ArcGIS), as well as all other scripts described in this manuscript and other software developed (cluster, outlier, streak identification and pairing)..

We also provide a guide which provides a general description of the contents of the four sections in this archive (Documentation_for_Sections_of_Zenodo_Archive.docx). If you have any intent to utilize the data provided in Section 3, we greatly advise you to review this document as it describes the output of all geostatistical analyses performed in this study in detail.

Data Files:

Section 1. "Section_1.Tables_S1_S7.Figures_S1_S11.zip"

This section contains all additional tables and figures described in the manuscript "Likely community transmission of COVID-19 infections between neighboring, persistent hotspots in Ontario, Canada". Additional tables S1 to S7 are presented in an Excel document. These 7 tables provide summary statistics of various geostatistical tests described in the study (“Section 1 – Tables S1-S4”) and lists all identified single and paired high-case cluster streaks (“Section 1 – Tables S5-S7”). This section also contains 11 additional figures referred to in the manuscript (“Section 1 – Figures S1-S11”) both individually and within a Word document which describes them.

Section 2. "Section_2.Localized_Hotspot_Lists.zip"

All localized hotspots (identified through kriging analysis) were catalogued for each municipality evaluated (Hamilton, Kitchener/Waterloo, London, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor/Essex). These files indicate the FSA in which the hotspot was identified, the date in which it was identified (utilizing 3-day case data at the postal code level), the amount of cases which occurred within the FSA within these 3 dates, the range of cases interpolated by kriging analysis (between 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, 20-25, 25-30, 30-35, 35-40, 40-50, >50), and whether or not the FSA was deemed a hotspot by Gi* relative to the rest of Ontario on any of the three dates evaluated. Please see Section 4 for map images of these localized hotspots.

Section 3. "Section_3.All-Data_Files.Kriging_GiStar_Local_and_GlobalMorans.2020_2021"

Section 3 – All output files from the geostatistical tests performed in this study are provided in this section. This includes the output from Ontario-wide FSA-level Gi* and Cluster and Outlier analyses, and PC-level Cluster and Outlier, Spatial Autocorrelation, and kriging analysis of 6 municipal regions. It also includes kriging analysis of 7 other municipal regions adjacent to Toronto (Ajax, Brampton, Markham, Mississauga, Pickering, Richmond Hill and Vaughan). This section also provides data files from our analyses of stratified case data (by age, gender, and at-risk condition). All coordinates presented in these data files are given in “PCS_Lambert_Conformal_Conic” format. Case values between 1-5 were masked (appear as “NA”).

Section 4. "Section_4.All_Map_Images_of_Geostat_Analyses.zip"

Sets of image files which map the results of our geostatistical analyses onto a map of Ontario or within the municipalities evaluated (Hamilton, Kitchener/Waterloo, London, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor/Essex) are provided. This includes: Kriging analysis (PC-level), Local Moran's I cluster and outlier analysis (FSA and PC-level), normal and space-time Gi* analysis, and all images for all analyses performed on stratified data (by age, gender and at-risk condition). Kriging contour maps are also included for 7 other municipal regions adjacent to Toronto (Ajax, Brampton, Markham, Mississauga, Pickering, Richmond Hill and Vaughan).

Software:

This Zenodo archive also provides all program files pertaining to the Geostatistical Epidemiology Toolbox (Geostatistical analysis software package to be used in ArcGIS), as well as all other scripts described in this manuscript. This geostatistical toolbox was developed by CytoGnomix Inc., London ON, Canada and is distributed freely under the terms of the GNU General Public License v3.0. It can be easily modified to accommodate other Canadian provinces and, with some additional effort, other countries.

This distribution of the Geostatistical Epidemiology Toolbox does not include postal code (PC) boundary files (which are required for some of the tools included in the toolbox). The PC boundary shapefiles used to test the toolbox were obtained from DMTI (https://www.dmtispatial.com/canmap/) through the Scholar's Geoportal at the University of Western Ontario (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/). The distribution of these files (through sharing, sale, donation, transfer, or exchange) is strictly prohibited. However, any equivalent PC boundary shape file should suffice, provided it contains polygon boundaries representing postal code regions (see guide for more details).

Software File 1. "Software.GeostatisticalEpidemiologyToolbox.zip"

The Geostatistical Epidemiology Toolbox is a set of custom Python-based geoprocessing tools which function as any built-in tool in the ArcGIS system. This toolbox implements data preprocessing, geostatistical analysis and post-processing software developed to evaluate the distribution and progression of COVID-19 cases in Canada. The purpose of developing this toolbox is to allow external users without programming knowledge to utilize the software scripts which generated our analyses and was intended to be used to evaluate Canadian datasets. While the toolbox was developed for evaluating the distribution of COVID-19, it could be utilized for other purposes.

The toolbox was developed to evaluate statistically significant distributions of COVID-19 case data at Canadian Forward Sortation Area (FSA) and Postal Code-level in the province of Ontario utilizing geostatistical tools available through the ArcGIS system. These tools include: 1) Standard Gi* analysis (finds areas where cases are significantly spatially clustered), 2) spacetime based Gi* analysis (finds areas where cases are both spatially and temporally clustered), 3) cluster and outlier analysis (determines if high case regions are an regional outlier or part of a case cluster), 4) spatial autocorrelation (determines the cases in a region are clustered overall) and, 5) Empirical Bayesian Kriging analysis (creates contour maps which define the interpolation of COVID-19 cases in measured and unmeasured areas). Post-processing tools are included that import these all of the preceding results into the ArcGIS system and automatically generate PNG images.

This archive also includes a guide ("UserManual_GeostatisticalEpidemiologyToolbox_CytoGnomix.pdf") which describes in detail how to set up the toolbox, how to format input case data, and how to use each tool (describing both the relevant input parameters and the structure of the resultant output files).

Software File 2: “Software.Additional_Programs_for_Cluster_Outlier_Streak_Idendification_and_Pairing.zip"

In the manuscript associated with this archive, Perl scripts were utilized to evaluate postal code-level Cluster and Outlier analysis to identify significantly, highly clustered postal codes over consecutive periods (i.e., high-case cluster “streaks”). The identified streaks are then paired to those in close proximity, based on the neighbors of each postal code from PC centroid data ("paired streaks"). Multinomial logistic regression models were then derived in the R programming language to measure the correlation between the number of cases reported in each paired streak, the interval of time separating each streak, and the physical distance between the two postal codes. Here, we provide the 3 Perl scripts and the R markdown file which perform these tasks:

“Ontario_City_Closest_Postal_Code_Identification.pl”

Using an input file with postal code coordinates (by centroid), this program identifies the nearest neighbors to all postal codes for a given municipal region (the name of this region is entered on the command line). Postal code centroids were calculated in ArcGIS using the “Calculate Geometry” function against DMTI postal code boundary files (not provided). Input from other sources could be used, however, as long as the input includes a list of coordinates with a unique label associated with a particular municipality.

The output of this program (for the same municipal region being evaluated) is required for the following two Perl scripts:

“Local_Morans_Analysis.Recurrent_Clustered_PC_Identifier.pl”

This program uses the output of postal code-level Cluster and Outlier analysis for a municipality (these files are available in a second Zenodo archive: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5585812) and the output from “Ontario_City_Closest_Postal_Code_Identification.pl” (for the same municipal region) as input to identify high-case clustered postal codes that occur consecutively over a course of several dates (referred to as high-case cluster “streaks”). The script allows for a single day in which the PC was either not clustered or did not meet the minimum case count threshold of ≥ 6 cases within the 3-day sliding window (i.e. if

Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, the daily lives of software engineers were heavily disrupted as they were abruptly forced to work remotely from home. To better understand and contrast typical working days in this new reality with work in pre-pandemic times, we conducted one exploratory ($N$ = 192) and one confirmatory study ($N$ = 290) with software engineers recruited remotely. Specifically, we build on self-determination theory to evaluate whether and how specific activities are associated with software engineers' satisfaction and productivity. To explore the subject domain, we first ran a two-wave longitudinal study. We found that the time software engineers spent on specific activities (e.g., coding, bugfixing, helping others) while working from home was similar to pre-pandemic times. Also, the amount of time developers spent on each activity was unrelated to their general well-being, perceived productivity, and other variables such as basic needs. Our confirmatory study found that activity-specific variables (e.g., how much autonomy software engineers had during coding) do predict activity satisfaction and productivity but not by activity-independent variables such as general resilience or a good work-life balance. Interestingly, we found that satisfaction and autonomy were significantly higher when software engineers were helping others and lower when they were bugfixing. Finally, we discuss implications for software engineers, management, and researchers. In particular, active company policies to support developers' need for autonomy, relatedness, and competence appear particularly effective in a WFH context.

Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, software engineers' daily life was disrupted and abruptly forced into remote working from home. This change deeply impacted typical working routines, affecting both well-being and productivity. Moreover, this pandemic will have long-lasting effects in the software industry, with several tech companies allowing their employees to work from home indefinitely if they wish to do so. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze and understand how a typical working day looks like when working from home and how individual activities affect software developers' well-being and productivity. We performed a two-wave longitudinal study involving almost 200 globally carefully selected software professionals, inferring daily activities with perceived well-being, productivity, and other relevant psychological and social variables. Results suggest that the time software engineers spent doing specific activities from home was similar when working in the office. (e.g., coding > emails > code review > networking). However, we also found some meaningful mean differences. The amount of time developers spent on each activity was unrelated to their well-being, perceived productivity, and other variables. We conclude that working remotely is not per se a challenge for organizations or developers.

Understanding Society (the UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex, and the survey research organisations Verian Group (formerly Kantar Public) and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991.

The Understanding Society: Calendar Year Dataset, 2020, is designed to enable cross-sectional analysis of individuals and households relating specifically to their annual interviews conducted in the year 2020, and, therefore, combine data collected in three waves (Waves 10, 11 and 12). It has been produced from the same data collected in the main Understanding Society study and released in the longitudinal datasets SN 6614 (End User Licence) and SN 6931 (Special Licence). Such cross-sectional analysis can, however, only involve variables that are collected in every wave in order to have data for the full sample panel. The 2020 dataset is the first of a series of planned Calendar Year Datasets to facilitate cross-sectional analysis of specific years. Full details of the Calendar Year Dataset sample structure (including why some individual interviews from 2021 are included), data structure and additional supporting information can be found in the document '8987_calendar_year_dataset_2020_user_guide'.

As multi-topic studies, the purpose of Understanding Society is to understand short- and long-term effects of social and economic change in the UK at the household and individual levels. The study has a strong emphasis on domains of family and social ties, employment, education, financial resources, and health. Understanding Society is an annual survey of each adult member of a nationally representative sample. The same individuals are re-interviewed in each wave approximately 12 months apart. When individuals move they are followed within the UK and anyone joining their households are also interviewed as long as they are living with them. The fieldwork period for a single wave is 24 months. Data collection uses computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and web interviews (from wave 7), and includes a telephone mop up. From March 2020 (the end of wave 10 and 2nd year of wave 11), due to the coronavirus pandemic, face-to-face interviews were suspended and the survey has been conducted by web and telephone only, but otherwise has continued as before. One person completes the household questionnaire. Each person aged 16 or older participates in the individual adult interview and self-completed questionnaire. Youths aged 10 to 15 are asked to respond to a paper self-completion questionnaire. In 2020 an additional frequent web survey was separately issued to sample members to capture data on the rapid changes in people’s lives due to the COVID-19 pandemic (see SN 8644). The COVID-19 Survey data are not included in this dataset.

Further information may be found on the "https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/documentation/mainstage"> Understanding Society main stage webpage and links to publications based on the study can be found on the Understanding Society Latest Research webpage.

Understanding Society, (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Verian Group (formerly Kantar Public) and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991.

The Understanding Society: Calendar Year Dataset, 2021, is designed to enable cross-sectional analysis of individuals and households relating specifically to their annual interviews conducted in the year 2021, and, therefore, combine data collected in three waves (Waves 11, 12 and 13). It has been produced from the same data collected in the main Understanding Society study and released in the longitudinal datasets SN 6614 (End User Licence) and SN 6931 (Special Licence). Such cross-sectional analysis can, however, only involve variables that are collected in every wave in order to have data for the full sample panel. The 2021 dataset is the second of a series of planned Calendar Year Datasets to facilitate cross-sectional analysis of specific years. Full details of the Calendar Year Dataset sample structure (including why some individual interviews from 2022 are included), data structure and additional supporting information can be found in the document '9193_calendar_year_dataset_2021_user_guide'.

As multi-topic studies, the purpose of Understanding Society is to understand the short- and long-term effects of social and economic change in the UK at the household and individual levels. The study has a strong emphasis on domains of family and social ties, employment, education, financial resources, and health. Understanding Society is an annual survey of each adult member of a nationally representative sample. The same individuals are re-interviewed in each wave approximately 12 months apart. When individuals move, they are followed within the UK, and anyone joining their households is also interviewed as long as they are living with them. The fieldwork period for a single wave is 24 months. Data collection uses computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and web interviews (from wave 7) and includes a telephone mop-up. From March 2020 (the end of wave 10 and 2nd year of wave 11), due to the coronavirus pandemic, face-to-face interviews were suspended, and the survey has been conducted by web and telephone only but otherwise has continued as before. One person completes the household questionnaire. Each person aged 16 or older participates in the individual adult interview and self-completed questionnaire. Youths aged 10 to 15 are asked to respond to a paper self-completion questionnaire. In 2020, an additional frequent web survey was separately issued to sample members to capture data on the rapid changes in people’s lives due to the COVID-19 pandemic (see SN 8644). The COVID-19 Survey data are not included in this dataset.

Further information may be found on the Understanding Society main stage webpage and links to publications based on the study can be found on the Understanding Society Latest Research webpage.

Co-funders

In addition to the Economic and Social Research Council, co-funders for the study included the Department of Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, the Department for Transport, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Community and Local Government, the Department of Health, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs, and the Food Standards Agency.

End User Licence and Special Licence versions:

There are two versions of the Calendar Year 2021 data. One is available under the standard End User Licence (EUL) agreement, and the other is a Special Licence (SL) version. The SL version contains month and year of birth variables instead of just age, more detailed country and occupation coding for a number of variables and various income variables have not been top-coded (see the document '9194_eul_vs_sl_variable_differences' for more details). Users are advised to first obtain the standard EUL version of the data to see if they are sufficient for their research requirements. The SL data have more restrictive access conditions; prospective users of the SL version will need to complete an extra application form and demonstrate to the data owners exactly why they need access to the additional variables in order to get permission to use that version. The main longitudinal versions of the Understanding Society study may be found under SNs 6614 (EUL) and 6931 (SL).

Low- and Medium-level geographical identifiers produced for the mainstage longitudinal dataset can be used with this Calendar Year 2021 dataset, subject to SL access conditions. See the User Guide for further details.

Suitable data analysis software

These data are provided by the depositor in Stata format. Users are strongly advised to analyse them in Stata. Transfer to other formats may result in unforeseen issues. Stata SE or MP software is needed to analyse the larger files, which contain about 1,900 variables.

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has been leading the management of the Tuition Partners (TP) pillar of the National Tutoring Programme (NTP) in 2020/2021, funded as part of the government coronavirus catch-up package. The TP programme allows schools to access subsidised tuition from a list of 33 tuition partners, quality approved by the EEF, to support pupils who have missed out the most as a result of school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus is on supporting disadvantaged pupils, in particular those eligible for Pupil Premium, but with flexibility for schools to select those pupils who they feel were most in need of the support. The EEF commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) to run a reach and engagement nimble randomised controlled trial (RCT) with EM Tuition, an approved NTP Tuition Partner. The RCT explored the impact of two distinctive types of recruitment emails on school sign-up to the TP programme provided by EM Tuition: one email included a testimonial from a headteacher on the benefits of tutoring, the other included a summary of the research evidence of the benefits of tutoring. EM Tuition sent recruitment emails during February and March 2021 to 1,949 primary, secondary, and special schools in areas of England where they offer tutoring provision, including Hertfordshire, Essex, North London, the East of England, and Suffolk. Schools were randomly allocated to receive one of the two types of email messages. A team from NFER analysed the impact of the different recruitment emails on the proportion of schools signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or providing an Expression of Interest (EoI) for their pupils to receive tutoring from EM Tuition as part of the TP programme.

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has been leading the management of the Tuition Partners (TP) pillar of the National Tutoring Programme (NTP) in 2020/2021, funded as part of the government coronavirus catch-up package. The TP programme allows schools to access subsidised tuition from a list of 33 tuition partners, quality approved by the EEF, to support pupils who have missed out the most as a result of school closures due to the COVID 19 pandemic. The focus is on supporting disadvantaged pupils, in particular those eligible for Pupil Premium, but with flexibility for schools to select those pupils who they feel were most in need of the support. The EEF commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) to run a reach and engagement nimble randomised controlled trial (RCT) with EM Tuition, an approved NTP Tuition Partner. The RCT explored the impact of two distinctive types of recruitment emails on school sign-up to the TP programme provided by EM Tuition: one email included a testimonial from a headteacher on the benefits of tutoring, the other included a summary of the research evidence of the benefits of tutoring. EM Tuition sent recruitment emails during February and March 2021 to 1,949 primary, secondary, and special schools in areas of England where they offer tutoring provision, including Hertfordshire, Essex, North London, the East of England, and Suffolk. Schools were randomly allocated to receive one of the two types of email messages. A team from NFER analysed the impact of the different recruitment emails on the proportion of schools signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or providing an Expression of Interest (EoI) for their pupils to receive tutoring from EM Tuition as part of the TP programme.

This indicator is designed to accompany the SHMI publication. The SHMI includes all deaths reported of patients who were admitted to non-specialist acute trusts in England and either died while in hospital or within 30 days of discharge. Deaths related to COVID-19 are excluded from the SHMI. A contextual indicator on the percentage of deaths reported in the SHMI which occurred in hospital and the percentage which occurred outside of hospital is produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there was a fall in the overall number of spells from March 2020 due to COVID-19 impacting on activity for England and the number has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Further information at Trust level is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. There is a shortfall in the number of records for East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RXR) and The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust (trust code RQW). Values for these trusts are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU) stopped submitting data to the Secondary Uses Service (SUS) during June 2022 and did not start submitting data again until April 2023 due to an issue with their patient records system. This is causing a large shortfall in records and values for this trust should be viewed in the context of this issue. 5. Due to a problem with the process which links Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) death registrations data, some in-hospital deaths have been counted as survivals in a small number of trusts. This affects 80 spells in the current time period for Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RAJ) meaning that the number of observed deaths has been underestimated and so the results for this trust should be interpreted with caution. For the other trusts, the number of affected spells is 5 or fewer and so the impact will be small. 6. A number of trusts are now submitting Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) data to the Emergency Care Data Set (ECDS) rather than the Admitted Patient Care (APC) dataset. The SHMI is calculated using APC data. Removal of SDEC activity from the APC data may impact a trust’s SHMI value and may increase it. More information about this is available in the Background Quality Report. 7. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of this page.

The SHMI is the ratio between the actual number of patients who die following hospitalisation at the trust and the number that would be expected to die on the basis of average England figures, given the characteristics of the patients treated there. It includes deaths which occurred in hospital and deaths which occurred outside of hospital within 30 days (inclusive) of discharge. Deaths related to COVID-19 are excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI gives an indication for each non-specialist acute NHS trust in England whether the observed number of deaths within 30 days of discharge from hospital was 'higher than expected' (SHMI banding=1), 'as expected' (SHMI banding=2) or 'lower than expected' (SHMI banding=3) when compared to the national baseline. Trusts may be located at multiple sites and may be responsible for 1 or more hospitals. A breakdown of the data by site of treatment is also provided. The SHMI is composed of 142 different diagnosis groups and these are aggregated to calculate the overall SHMI value for each trust. The number of finished provider spells, observed deaths and expected deaths at diagnosis group level for each trust is available in the SHMI diagnosis group breakdown files. For a subset of diagnosis groups, an indication of whether the observed number of deaths within 30 days of discharge from hospital was 'higher than expected', 'as expected' or 'lower than expected' when compared to the national baseline is also provided. Details of the 142 diagnosis groups can be found in Appendix A of the SHMI specification. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there has been a fall in the number of spells for most trusts due to COVID-19 impacting on activity from March 2020 onwards and this appears to be an accurate reflection of hospital activity rather than a case of missing data. Further information is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. A large proportion of records for Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RAJ) have missing or incorrect information for the main condition the patient was in hospital for (their primary diagnosis) and this will have affected the calculation of the expected number of deaths. Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. Day cases and regular day attenders are excluded from the SHMI. However, some day cases for University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRV) have been incorrectly classified as ordinary admissions meaning that they have been included in the SHMI. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (trust code RWF) has submitted a number of records with a patient classification of ‘day case’ or ‘regular day attender’ and an intended management value of ‘patient to stay in hospital for at least one night’. This mismatch has resulted in the patient classification being updated to ‘ordinary admission’ by the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data cleaning rules. This may have resulted in the number of ordinary admissions being overstated. The trust has been contacted to clarify what the correct patient classification is for these records. Values for these trusts should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. There is a shortfall in the number of records for North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RNN) meaning that values for this trust are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 6. An issue with HES reference data has resulted in some records for Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RJ1) being flagged as invalid. This has led to a shortfall in spells, meaning that values for this trust are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 7. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. As well as information on the main condition the patient is in hospital for (the primary diagnosis), the SHMI data contain up to 19 secondary diagnosis codes for other conditions the patient is suffering from. This information is used to calculate the expected number of deaths. 'Depth of coding' is defined as the number of secondary diagnosis codes for each record in the data. A higher mean depth of coding may indicate a higher proportion of patients with multiple conditions and/or comorbidities, but may also be due to differences in coding practices between trusts. Contextual indicators on the mean depth of coding for elective and non-elective admissions are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there has been a fall in the number of spells for some trusts due to COVID-19 impacting on activity from March 2020 onwards and this appears to be an accurate reflection of hospital activity rather than a case of missing data. Further information is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. A large proportion of records for Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RAJ) have missing or incorrect information for the main condition the patient was in hospital for (their primary diagnosis) and this will have affected the calculation of the expected number of deaths. Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. Day cases and regular day attenders are excluded from the SHMI. However, some day cases for University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRV) have been incorrectly classified as ordinary admissions meaning that they have been included in the SHMI. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (trust code RWF) has submitted a number of records with a patient classification of ‘day case’ or ‘regular day attender’ and an intended management value of ‘patient to stay in hospital for at least one night’. This mismatch has resulted in the patient classification being updated to ‘ordinary admission’ by the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data cleaning rules. This may have resulted in the number of ordinary admissions being overstated. The trust has been contacted to clarify what the correct patient classification is for these records. Values for these trusts should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. The SHMI methodology does not make any adjustment for patients who are recorded as receiving palliative care. This is because there is considerable variation between trusts in the way that palliative care is recorded. Contextual indicators on the percentage of provider spells and deaths reported in the SHMI where palliative care was recorded at either treatment or specialty level are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there has been a fall in the overall number of spells due to COVID-19 impacting on activity from March 2020 onwards and this appears to be an accurate reflection of hospital activity rather than a case of missing data. Further information is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. On 1 October 2021 Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RW6) merged with Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RM3). The new trust is called Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RM3). This new organisation structure is reflected from this publication onwards. 4. A previous issue where Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RAJ) had missing or incorrect information for the patients’ primary diagnosis has now been corrected in the underlying data. This trust is now included in the SHMI again from this publication onwards. 5. Day cases and regular day attenders are excluded from the SHMI. However, some day cases for University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRV) have been incorrectly classified as ordinary admissions meaning that they have been included in the SHMI. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (trust code RWF) has submitted a number of records with a patient classification of ‘day case’ or ‘regular day attender’ and an intended management value of ‘patient to stay in hospital for at least one night’. This mismatch has resulted in the patient classification being updated to ‘ordinary admission’ by the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data cleaning rules. This may have resulted in the number of ordinary admissions being overstated. The trust has been contacted to clarify what the correct patient classification is for these records. Values for these trusts should therefore be interpreted with caution. 6. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

This indicator is designed to accompany the SHMI data at site of treatment level. The SHMI is calculated at the level of the provider spell, which is a continuous period of time spent as a patient within a single trust (provider). A spell may be composed of more than 1 episode (a single period of care under 1 consultant). If a patient is moved between hospitals or sites within the same trust, the provider spell continues. Most spells consist of a single episode and so there is no complication when presenting SHMI data at site level because the entire provider spell occurred at a single site. However, spells consisting of multiple episodes may have occurred over multiple sites and only 1 of these sites can be associated with the spell. This has been chosen to be the site of the 1st episode in the spell. This may result in hospital deaths being attributed to a site other than the one in which they occurred, with an impact on the SHMI values presented for the sites concerned. This impact is likely to be greater for sites within trusts showing higher percentages for this contextual indicator. This indicator is being published as an experimental statistic. Experimental statistics are official statistics which are published in order to involve users and stakeholders in their development and as a means to build in quality at an early stage. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there has been a fall in the number of spells for some trusts due to COVID-19 impacting on activity from March 2020 onwards and this appears to be an accurate reflection of hospital activity rather than a case of missing data. Further information is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. A large proportion of records for Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RAJ) have missing or incorrect information for the main condition the patient was in hospital for (their primary diagnosis) and this will have affected the calculation of the expected number of deaths. Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. Day cases and regular day attenders are excluded from the SHMI. However, some day cases for University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRV) have been incorrectly classified as ordinary admissions meaning that they have been included in the SHMI. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (trust code RWF) has submitted a number of records with a patient classification of ‘day case’ or ‘regular day attender’ and an intended management value of ‘patient to stay in hospital for at least one night’. This mismatch has resulted in the patient classification being updated to ‘ordinary admission’ by the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data cleaning rules. This may have resulted in the number of ordinary admissions being overstated. The trust has been contacted to clarify what the correct patient classification is for these records. Values for these trusts should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. There is a shortfall in the number of records for North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RNN) and Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RW6) meaning that values for these trusts are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 6. An issue with HES reference data has resulted in some records for Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RJ1) being flagged as invalid. This has led to a shortfall in spells, meaning that values for this trust are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 7. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. The SHMI methodology does not make any adjustment for deprivation. This is because adjusting for deprivation might create the impression that a higher death rate for those who are more deprived is acceptable. Patient records are assigned to 1 of 5 deprivation groups (called quintiles) using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The deprivation quintile cannot be calculated for some records e.g. because the patient's postcode is unknown or they are not resident in England. Contextual indicators on the percentage of provider spells and deaths reported in the SHMI belonging to each deprivation quintile are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there has been a fall in the number of spells for some trusts due to COVID-19 impacting on activity from March 2020 onwards and this appears to be an accurate reflection of hospital activity rather than a case of missing data. Further information is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. A large proportion of records for Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RAJ) have missing or incorrect information for the main condition the patient was in hospital for (their primary diagnosis) and this will have affected the calculation of the expected number of deaths. Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. Day cases and regular day attenders are excluded from the SHMI. However, some day cases for University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRV) have been incorrectly classified as ordinary admissions meaning that they have been included in the SHMI. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (trust code RWF) has submitted a number of records with a patient classification of ‘day case’ or ‘regular day attender’ and an intended management value of ‘patient to stay in hospital for at least one night’. This mismatch has resulted in the patient classification being updated to ‘ordinary admission’ by the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data cleaning rules. This may have resulted in the number of ordinary admissions being overstated. The trust has been contacted to clarify what the correct patient classification is for these records. Values for these trusts should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. There is a shortfall in the number of records for North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RNN) meaning that values for this trust are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 6. An issue with HES reference data has resulted in some records for Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RJ1) being flagged as invalid. This has led to a shortfall in spells, meaning that values for this trust are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 7. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. The SHMI methodology includes an adjustment for admission method. This is because crude mortality rates for elective admissions tend to be lower than crude mortality rates for non-elective admissions. Contextual indicators on the crude percentage mortality rates for elective and non-elective admissions where a death occurred either in hospital or within 30 days (inclusive) of being discharged from hospital are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there has been a fall in the number of spells for some trusts due to COVID-19 impacting on activity from March 2020 onwards and this appears to be an accurate reflection of hospital activity rather than a case of missing data. Further information is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. A large proportion of records for Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RAJ) have missing or incorrect information for the main condition the patient was in hospital for (their primary diagnosis) and this will have affected the calculation of the expected number of deaths. Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. Day cases and regular day attenders are excluded from the SHMI. However, some day cases for University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRV) have been incorrectly classified as ordinary admissions meaning that they have been included in the SHMI. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (trust code RWF) has submitted a number of records with a patient classification of ‘day case’ or ‘regular day attender’ and an intended management value of ‘patient to stay in hospital for at least one night’. This mismatch has resulted in the patient classification being updated to ‘ordinary admission’ by the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data cleaning rules. This may have resulted in the number of ordinary admissions being overstated. The trust has been contacted to clarify what the correct patient classification is for these records. Values for these trusts should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. There is a shortfall in the number of records for North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RNN) and Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RW6) meaning that values for these trusts are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 6. An issue with HES reference data has resulted in some records for Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RJ1) being flagged as invalid. This has led to a shortfall in spells, meaning that values for this trust are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 7. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.