1
|
Littlecott H, Krishnaratne S, Burns J, Rehfuess E, Sell K, Klinger C, Strahwald B, Movsisyan A, Metzendorf MI, Schoenweger P, Voss S, Coenen M, Müller-Eberstein R, Pfadenhauer LM. Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 5:CD015029. [PMID: 38695826 PMCID: PMC11064884 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015029.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/04/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND More than 767 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6.9 million deaths with COVID-19 have been recorded as of August 2023. Several public health and social measures were implemented in schools to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent onward transmission. We built upon methods from a previous Cochrane review to capture current empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of school measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. OBJECTIVES To provide an updated assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to keep schools open safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Educational Resources Information Center, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program COVID-19 Evidence Reviews on 18 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA Eligible studies focused on measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, among students (aged 4 to 18 years) or individuals relating to the school, or both. We categorized studies that reported quantitative measures of intervention effectiveness, and studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures as either 'main' or 'supporting' studies based on design and approach to handling key confounders. We were interested in transmission-related outcomes and intended or unintended consequences. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts. We extracted minimal data for supporting studies. For main studies, one review author extracted comprehensive data and assessed risk of bias, which a second author checked. We narratively synthesized findings for each intervention-comparator-outcome category (body of evidence). Two review authors assessed certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS The 15 main studies consisted of measures to reduce contacts (4 studies), make contacts safer (7 studies), surveillance and response measures (6 studies; 1 assessed transmission outcomes, 5 assessed performance of surveillance measures), and multicomponent measures (1 study). These main studies assessed outcomes in the school population (12), general population (2), and adults living with a school-attending child (1). Settings included K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12; 9 studies), secondary (3 studies), and K-8 (kindergarten to grade 8; 1 study) schools. Two studies did not clearly report settings. Studies measured transmission-related outcomes (10), performance of surveillance measures (5), and intended and unintended consequences (4). The 15 main studies were based in the WHO Regions of the Americas (12), and the WHO European Region (3). Comparators were more versus less intense measures, single versus multicomponent measures, and measures versus no measures. We organized results into relevant bodies of evidence, or groups of studies relating to the same 'intervention-comparator-outcome' categories. Across all bodies of evidence, certainty of evidence ratings limit our confidence in findings. Where we describe an effect as 'beneficial', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention; a 'harmful' effect does not favour the intervention and 'null' shows no effect either way. Measures to reduce contact (4 studies) We grouped studies into 21 bodies of evidence: moderate- (10 bodies), low- (3 bodies), or very low-certainty evidence (8 bodies). The evidence was very low to moderate certainty for beneficial effects of remote versus in-person or hybrid teaching on transmission in the general population. For students and staff, mostly harmful effects were observed when more students participated in remote teaching. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that in the general population there was probably no effect on deaths and a beneficial effect on hospitalizations for remote versus in-person teaching, but no effect for remote versus hybrid teaching. The effects of hybrid teaching, a combination of in-person and remote teaching, were mixed. Very low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a harmful effect on risk of infection among adults living with a school student for closing playgrounds and cafeterias, a null effect for keeping the same teacher, and a beneficial effect for cancelling extracurricular activities, keeping the same students together and restricting entry for parents and caregivers. Measures to make contact safer (7 studies) We grouped studies into eight bodies of evidence: moderate- (5 bodies), and low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a beneficial effect of mask mandates on transmission-related outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence showed full mandates were probably more beneficial than partial or no mandates. Evidence of a beneficial effect of physical distancing on risk of infection among staff and students was mixed. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that ventilation measures probably reduce cases among staff and students. One study (very low-certainty evidence) found that there may be a beneficial effect of not sharing supplies and increasing desk space on risk of infection for adults living with a school student, but showed there may be a harmful effect of desk shields. Surveillance and response measures (6 studies) We grouped studies into seven bodies of evidence: moderate- (3 bodies), low- (1 body), and very low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Daily testing strategies to replace or reduce quarantine probably helped to reduce missed school days and decrease the proportion of asymptomatic school contacts testing positive (moderate-certainty evidence). For studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures, the proportion of cases detected by rapid antigen detection testing ranged from 28.6% to 95.8%, positive predictive value ranged from 24.0% to 100.0% (very low-certainty evidence). There was probably no onward transmission from contacts of a positive case (moderate-certainty evidence) and replacing or shortening quarantine with testing may have reduced missed school days (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent measures (1 study) Combining multiple measures may have led to a reduction in risk of infection among adults living with a student (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS A range of measures can have a beneficial effect on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilization and school attendance. We rated the current findings at a higher level of certainty than the original review. Further high-quality research into school measures to control SARS-CoV-2 in a wider variety of contexts is needed to develop a more evidence-based understanding of how to keep schools open safely during COVID-19 or a similar public health emergency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah Littlecott
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Shari Krishnaratne
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
- Department of Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Jacob Burns
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Eva Rehfuess
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Kerstin Sell
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Carmen Klinger
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Brigitte Strahwald
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Ani Movsisyan
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Maria-Inti Metzendorf
- Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Petra Schoenweger
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Stephan Voss
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Michaela Coenen
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Roxana Müller-Eberstein
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Lisa M Pfadenhauer
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology - IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Soriano-Arandes A, Brett A, Buonsenso D, Emilsson L, de la Fuente Garcia I, Gkentzi D, Helve O, Kepp KP, Mossberg M, Muka T, Munro A, Papan C, Perramon-Malavez A, Schaltz-Buchholzer F, Smeesters PR, Zimmermann P. Policies on children and schools during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Western Europe. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1175444. [PMID: 37564427 PMCID: PMC10411527 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1175444] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 08/12/2023] Open
Abstract
During the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), mitigation policies for children have been a topic of considerable uncertainty and debate. Although some children have co-morbidities which increase their risk for severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome and long COVID, most children only get mild COVID-19. On the other hand, consistent evidence shows that mass mitigation measures had enormous adverse impacts on children. A central question can thus be posed: What amount of mitigation should children bear, in response to a disease that is disproportionally affecting older people? In this review, we analyze the distinct child versus adult epidemiology, policies, mitigation trade-offs and outcomes in children in Western Europe. The highly heterogenous European policies applied to children compared to adults did not lead to significant measurable differences in outcomes. Remarkably, the relative epidemiological importance of transmission from school-age children to other age groups remains uncertain, with current evidence suggesting that schools often follow, rather than lead, community transmission. Important learning points for future pandemics are summarized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antoni Soriano-Arandes
- Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunodeficiencies Unit, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ana Brett
- Infectious Diseases Unit and Emergency Service, Hospital Pediátrico, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Danilo Buonsenso
- Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Louise Emilsson
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden
- Department of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Isabel de la Fuente Garcia
- Pediatric Infectious Diseases, National Pediatric Center, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
| | - Despoina Gkentzi
- Department of Paediatrics, Patras Medical School, Patras, Greece
| | - Otto Helve
- Department of Health Security, Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland
- Pediatric Research Center, Children's Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Kasper P. Kepp
- Section of Biophysical and Biomedicinal Chemistry, DTU Chemistry, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
| | - Maria Mossberg
- Department of Pediatrics, Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Taulant Muka
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Epistudia, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Alasdair Munro
- NIHR Southampton Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
- Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Cihan Papan
- Institute for Hygiene and Public Health, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Aida Perramon-Malavez
- Computational Biology and Complex Systems (BIOCOM-SC) Group, Department of Physics, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC·BarcelonaTech), Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Pierre R. Smeesters
- Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Brussels, Academic Children’s Hospital Queen Fabiola, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
- Molecular Bacteriology Laboratory, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Petra Zimmermann
- Department of Community Health, Faculty of Science and Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
- Department of Paediatrics, Fribourg Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ludwig-Walz H, Dannheim I, Pfadenhauer LM, Fegert JM, Bujard M. Anxiety increased among children and adolescents during pandemic-related school closures in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2023; 17:74. [PMID: 37344892 DOI: 10.1186/s13034-023-00612-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 05/10/2023] [Indexed: 06/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Considering the heterogenous evidence, a systematic review of the change in anxiety in European children and adolescents associated with the COVID-19 pandemic is lacking. We therefore assessed the change compared with pre-pandemic baselines stratified by gender and age as well as evaluated the impact of country-specific restriction policies. METHODS A registration on the 'International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews' (PROSPERO) occurred and an a priori protocol was published. We searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19) using a peer-reviewed search string with citation tracking and grey literature screening. Primary outcomes were: (1) general anxiety symptoms; and (2) clinically relevant anxiety rates. We used the Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index as an indicator of pandemic-related restrictions. Screening of title/abstract and full text as well as assessing risk of bias (using the 'Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Exposure' [ROBINS-E]) and certainty of evidence (using the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' [GRADE]) was done in duplicate. We pooled data using a random effects model. Reporting is in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS Of 7,422 non-duplicate records, 18 studies with data from 752,532 pre-pandemic and 763,582 pandemic participants met full inclusion criteria. For general anxiety symptoms the total change effect estimate yielded a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.51) and for clinically relevant anxiety rates we observed an odds ratio of 1.08 (95%-CI, 0.98-1.19). Increase in general anxiety symptoms was highest in the 11-15 years age group. Effect estimates were higher when pandemic-related restrictions were more stringent (Oxford Stringency Index > 60: SMD, 0.52 [95%-CI, 0.30-0.73]) and when school closures (School Closure Index ≥ 2: SMD, 0.44 [95%-CI, 0.23-0.65]) occurred. CONCLUSION General anxiety symptoms among children and adolescents in Europe increased in a pre/during comparison of the COVID-19 pandemic; particularly for males aged 11-15 years. In periods of stringent pandemic-related restrictions and/or school closures a considerable increase in general anxiety symptoms could be documented. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022303714.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Indra Dannheim
- Regional Innovative Centre of Health and Quality of Live Fulda (RIGL), Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Fulda, Germany
- Department of Nutritional, Food and Consumer Sciences, Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Fulda, Germany
| | - Lisa M Pfadenhauer
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, IBE, Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Jörg M Fegert
- Department for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Competence Domain Mental Health Prevention, Ulm, Germany
| | - Martin Bujard
- Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB), Wiesbaden, Germany
- Institute of Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Asadullah MN, Bouhlila DS, Chan SJ, Draxler A, Ha W, Heyneman SP, Luschei TF, Semela T, Yemini M. A year of missed opportunity: Post-Covid learning loss - A renewed call to action. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2023; 99:102770. [PMID: 36987508 PMCID: PMC10036080 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Donia Smaali Bouhlila
- University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia
| | | | - Alexandra Draxler
- Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Wei Ha
- Peking University, Beijing, China
| | | | | | - Tesfaye Semela
- Hawassa University Institute of Policy and Development Research, Hawassa, Ethiopia
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ryan J, Koehler N, Cruickshank T, Rogers SL, Stanley M. 'Teachers are the guinea pigs': teacher perspectives on a sudden reopening of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. AUSTRALIAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 2023:1-17. [PMID: 36817650 PMCID: PMC9924849 DOI: 10.1007/s13384-022-00577-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Accepted: 09/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
Primary and secondary education systems experienced substantial disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little is known about how public health policy has affected Australian teachers during the pandemic. This study examines teacher perspectives on a sudden change of policy, whereby schools were abruptly opened to students at the beginning of the pandemic. At the same time, strict social distancing rules applied to the remainder of the population. Qualitative data from 372 Western Australian schoolteachers were analysed using thematic analysis. Results highlight substantial impacts on teachers' workloads and adverse effects on wellbeing. Perceptions that they were acting as guinea pigs and subjected to different social distancing rules than other citizens were particular stressors. Findings highlight substantial consequences of public health policies on the roles and wellbeing of teachers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jillian Ryan
- School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA Australia
| | - Nicole Koehler
- School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA Australia
| | - Travis Cruickshank
- Centre for Precision Health, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA Australia
| | - Shane L. Rogers
- School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA Australia
| | - Mandy Stanley
- School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Wabnitz K, Rueb M, Pfadenhauer LM, Strahwald B, Rehfuess EA. Rapid development of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools during a public health emergency - A process evaluation. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1075210. [PMID: 37064706 PMCID: PMC10097910 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1075210] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2022] [Accepted: 03/09/2023] [Indexed: 04/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Different measures to prevent and control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 have been implemented in German schools. Decisions regarding such measures should be informed by evidence regarding their effectiveness, and their unintended consequences for health and society. A multi-stakeholder panel was convened to develop an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for school measures, using the novel WHO-INTEGRATE framework. Developing a guideline to inform decision-making outside of the clinical realm during a public health emergency was unprecedented in Germany. This study aims to identify lessons learnt for similar endeavours by addressing the following research question: What were the strengths and weaknesses of the guideline development process as perceived by the different groups involved? Methods Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually. We recruited participants aiming to include the perspectives of all groups contributing to the guideline development, including both panel members (scientists, practitioners, school family and observers) and the guideline secretariat. For analysis, we carried out deductive-inductive thematic qualitative text analysis according to Kuckartz, structuring findings using a category system. Results Due to time pressure, the guideline secretariat was heavily involved not only in synthesising the evidence but also in developing and drafting recommendations. Participants critically reflected on certain methods-related decisions, including the development of draft recommendations and application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework by scientists only. The full potential of the framework might not have been harnessed. Participants' understanding of relevant and valid evidence varied, and the available evidence base was limited. Participants represented different types of expertise, notably expertise informed by scientific evidence and expertise grounded in lived experience, influencing their involvement in the guideline development process and discussions during meetings. Conclusion Developing an evidence- and consensus-based public health guideline in only three months was challenging, notably because of the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders and the use of a novel Evidence-to-Decision framework, both unprecedented in Germany. Learning from this process with a view to "institutionalising" the development of public health guidelines and refining methods can contribute to more evidence-informed public health decision-making in Germany and beyond, in general and during a public health emergency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katharina Wabnitz
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
- *Correspondence: Katharina Wabnitz,
| | - Mike Rueb
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Lisa M. Pfadenhauer
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Brigitte Strahwald
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Eva A. Rehfuess
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ludwig-Walz H, Dannheim I, Pfadenhauer LM, Fegert JM, Bujard M. Increase of depression among children and adolescents after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2022; 16:109. [PMID: 36587221 PMCID: PMC9805372 DOI: 10.1186/s13034-022-00546-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2022] [Accepted: 12/13/2022] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Research points to a high depression burden among youth during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, a lack of systematic evidence exists. We determine the change in depression symptoms among children and adolescents during COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic baselines. By using country differences in pandemic-related restrictions and school closures in Europe as quasi-experimental design, we evaluate policy impacts on depression. METHODS In this systematic review and meta-analysis, following the PRISMA statement, we searched six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19) using a peer-reviewed search string up until March 18, 2022 with citation tracking and grey literature searches. No limitations regarding language and effect measures existed. We included studies that compared (1) general depression symptoms or (2) clinically relevant depression rates in children and adolescents (≤ 19 years) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The validated Oxford Stringency Index was used as indicator for pandemic-related restrictions. Screening for eligibility, extracting data from published reports and from unpublished data requested directly from study authors, assessing the study risk of bias and grading certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, were all done in duplicate. Data were pooled in a random-effects model. PROSPERO CRD42022303714. RESULTS Of 7,422 nonduplicate records, 22 studies with data from 868,634 participants pre-pandemic and 807,480 during pandemic, met full inclusion criteria. For the comparison of depression symptoms before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, moderate certainty of evidence was observed for general depression symptoms (standardized mean difference, 0.21 [95%CI, 0.12-0.30]; I2 = 94%) and low certainty of evidence for clinically relevant depression rates (odds ratio, 1.36 [95%CI, 1.05-1.76]; I2 = 95%) for total population. Increase in general depression symptoms was higher for male adolescents, whereas increase in clinically relevant depression rates was higher for females. Effect estimates were significantly higher when pandemic-related restrictions were more stringent or school closure occurred. CONCLUSION An increase in depression symptoms occurred in a pre-pandemic vs. during-pandemic comparison within the COVID-19 pandemic, whereby pandemic-related restrictions (such as school closures) resulted in a considerable effect increase. Ensuring adequate supply of mental health recovery services and long-term monitoring is of high public health relevance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Indra Dannheim
- grid.430588.2Regional Innovative Centre of Health and Quality of Live Fulda (RIGL), Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Fulda, Germany ,grid.430588.2Department of Nutritional, Food and Consumer Sciences, Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Fulda, Germany
| | - Lisa M. Pfadenhauer
- grid.5252.00000 0004 1936 973XInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology-IBE, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany ,Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Jörg M. Fegert
- Department for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Competence Domain Mental Health Prevention, Ulm, Germany
| | - Martin Bujard
- grid.506146.00000 0000 9445 5866Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB), Wiesbaden, Germany ,grid.7700.00000 0001 2190 4373 Institute for Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Meintrup D, Nowak-Machen M, Borgmann S. A Comparison of Germany and the United Kingdom Indicates That More SARS-CoV-2 Circulation and Less Restrictions in the Warm Season Might Reduce Overall COVID-19 Burden. LIFE (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2022; 12:life12070953. [PMID: 35888043 PMCID: PMC9322333 DOI: 10.3390/life12070953] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2022] [Revised: 06/17/2022] [Accepted: 06/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022]
Abstract
(1) Background: Between March 2020 and January 2022 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused five infection waves in Europe. The first and the second wave was caused by wildtype SARS-CoV-2, while the following waves were caused by the variants of concern Alpha, Delta, and Omicron respectively. (2) Methods: In the present analysis, the first four waves were compared in Germany and the UK, in order to examine the COVID-19 epidemiology and its modulation by non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI). (3) Results: The number of COVID-19 patients on intensive care units and the case fatality rate were used to estimate disease burden, the excess mortality to assess the net effect of NPI and other measures on the population. The UK was more severely affected by the first and the third wave while Germany was more affected by the second wave. The UK had a higher excess mortality during the first wave, afterwards the excess mortality in both countries was nearly identical. While most NPI were lifted in the UK in July 2021, the measures were kept and even aggravated in Germany. Nevertheless, in autumn 2021 Germany was much more affected, nearly resulting in a balanced sum of infections and deaths compared to the UK. Within the whole observation period, in Germany the number of COVID-19 patients on ICUs was up to four times higher than in the UK. Our results show that NPI have a limited effect on COVID-19 burden, seasonality plays a crucial role, and a higher virus circulation in a pre-wave situation could be beneficial. (4) Conclusions: Although Germany put much more effort and resources to fight the pandemic, the net balance of both countries was nearly identical, questioning the benefit of excessive ICU treatments and of the implementation of NPI, especially during the warm season.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Meintrup
- Faculty of Engineering and Management, University of Applied Sciences Ingolstadt, 85049 Ingolstadt, Germany
- Correspondence:
| | - Martina Nowak-Machen
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Ingolstadt Hospital, 85049 Ingolstadt, Germany;
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Teaching Faculty, University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls-University, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Stefan Borgmann
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Ingolstadt Hospital, 85049 Ingolstadt, Germany;
| |
Collapse
|