School closures due to seasonal influenza: a prospective data collection-based study of eleven influenza seasons-United States, 2011-2022

Background

While numerous studies explore pandemic-associated school closures, literature is scant regarding seasonal influenza-associated closures. We previously reported summaries on COVID-19 pandemic-related school closures in the United States (US), which affected virtually all schools in the nation. The current prospective study aims to address the knowledge gap for seasonal influenza-related closures in the United States.

Methods

We conducted systematic daily online searches from August 1, 2011 to June 30, 2022, to identify public announcements of unplanned school closures in the US lasting ≥1 day, selecting those that mentioned influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI) as reason for school closure (ILI-SCs). We studied ILI-SC temporal patterns and compared them with reported outpatient ILI-related healthcare visits.

Findings

We documented that ILI-SCs occurred annually, with yearly totals ranging from 11 ILI-SCs in both the 2013-2014 and 2020-2021 school years to 2886 ILI-SCs in the 2019-2020 school year among more than 100,000 kindergarten through twelfth grade schools in the US. ILI-SCs occurred concurrently with widespread illness and the strongest correlations were observed during influenza A (H3N2)-dominant seasons, most notably in the 2016-2017 (Spearman rank correlation (rs) = 0.83) and the 2017-2018 (rs = 0.84) school years. ILI-SCs were heavily centered in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Region 4 (states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) [60% (6040/9166, Region 4/Total school closures)] and disproportionately impacted rural and lower-income communities.

Interpretation

Outside of a pandemic, disease-related school closures are extreme and generally rare events for US schools and communities. Timely compilation of publicly available ILI-SC announcements could enhance influenza surveillance, particularly in severe influenza seasons or pandemics when ILI-SCs are prevalent.

Funding

This work was supported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Co-authors (NZ, YZ, HG, AU) were or are US CDC employees, and FJ was a contractor through Cherokee Nation Operational Solutions, LLC, which supported FJ's salary, but had no additional role in the study.

Systematic review of empiric studies on lockdowns, workplace closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in non-healthcare workplaces during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic: benefits and selected unintended consequences

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions within non-healthcare workplaces and community-level workplace closures and lockdowns on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, selected mental disorders, and employment outcomes in workers or the general population.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The exclusion criteria included modeling studies. Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from January 1, 2020, through May 11, 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis and sign tests were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 60 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 40 studies on COVID-19 outcomes, 15 on anxiety and depression symptoms, and five on unemployment and labor force participation. There was a paucity of studies on physical distancing, physical barriers, and symptom and temperature screening within workplaces. The sign test indicated that lockdown reduced COVID-19 incidence or case growth rate (23 studies, p < 0.001), reproduction number (11 studies, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 mortality or death growth rate (seven studies, p < 0.05) in the general population. Lockdown did not have any effect on anxiety symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.02). Lockdown had a small effect on increasing depression symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.21), but publication bias could account for the observed effect. Lockdown increased unemployment (pooled mean difference = 4.48 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.79, 7.17) and decreased labor force participation (pooled mean difference = -2.46 percentage points, 95% CI: -3.16, -1.77). The risk of bias for most of the studies on COVID-19 or employment outcomes was moderate or serious. The risk of bias for the studies on anxiety or depression symptoms was serious or critical.

CONCLUSIONS

Empiric studies indicated that lockdown reduced the impact of COVID-19, but that it had notable unwanted effects. There is a pronounced paucity of studies on the effect of interventions within still-open workplaces. It is important for countries that implement lockdown in future pandemics to consider strategies to mitigate these unintended consequences.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182660.

COVID-19-Related School Closures, United States, July 27, 2020-June 30, 2022

As part of a multiyear project that monitored illness-related school closures, we conducted systematic daily online searches during July 27, 2020-June 30, 2022, to identify public announcements of COVID-19-related school closures (COVID-SCs) in the United States lasting >1 day. We explored the temporospatial patterns of COVID-SCs and analyzed associations between COVID-SCs and national COVID-19 surveillance data. COVID-SCs reflected national surveillance data: correlation was highest between COVID-SCs and both new PCR test positivity (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.84) and new cases (r = 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.83) during 2020-21 and with hospitalization rates among all ages (r = 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.89) during 2021-22. The numbers of reactive COVID-SCs during 2020-21 and 2021-22 greatly exceeded previously observed numbers of illness-related reactive school closures in the United States, notably being nearly 5-fold greater than reactive closures observed during the 2009 influenza (H1N1) pandemic.

Productivity costs associated with reactive school closures related to influenza or influenza-like illness in the United States from 2011 to 2019

INTRODUCTION

Schools close in reaction to seasonal influenza outbreaks and, on occasion, pandemic influenza. The unintended costs of reactive school closures associated with influenza or influenza-like illness (ILI) has not been studied previously. We estimated the costs of ILI-related reactive school closures in the United States over eight academic years.

METHODS

We used prospectively collected data on ILI-related reactive school closures from August 1, 2011 to June 30, 2019 to estimate the costs of the closures, which included productivity costs for parents, teachers, and non-teaching school staff. Productivity cost estimates were evaluated by multiplying the number of days for each closure by the state- and year-specific average hourly or daily wage rates for parents, teachers, and school staff. We subdivided total cost and cost per student estimates by school year, state, and urbanicity of school location.

RESULTS

The estimated productivity cost of the closures was $476 million in total during the eight years, with most (90%) of the costs occurring between 2016-2017 and 2018-2019, and in Tennessee (55%) and Kentucky (21%). Among all U.S. public schools, the annual cost per student was much higher in Tennessee ($33) and Kentucky ($19) than any other state ($2.4 in the third highest state) or the national average ($1.2). The cost per student was higher in rural areas ($2.9) or towns ($2.5) than cities ($0.6) or suburbs ($0.5). Locations with higher costs tended to have both more closures and closures with longer durations.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, we found significant heterogeneity in year-to-year costs of ILI-associated reactive school closures. These costs have been greatest in Tennessee and Kentucky and been elevated in rural or town areas relative to cities or suburbs. Our findings might provide evidence to support efforts to reduce the burden of seasonal influenza in these disproportionately impacted states or communities.

COVID-19 prevention at institutions of higher education, United States, 2020-2021: implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions

BACKGROUND

In early 2020, following the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, institutions of higher education (IHEs) across the United States rapidly pivoted to online learning to reduce the risk of on-campus virus transmission. We explored IHEs' use of this and other nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during the subsequent pandemic-affected academic year 2020-2021.

METHODS

From December 2020 to June 2021, we collected publicly available data from official webpages of 847 IHEs, including all public (n = 547) and a stratified random sample of private four-year institutions (n = 300). Abstracted data included NPIs deployed during the academic year such as changes to the calendar, learning environment, housing, common areas, and dining; COVID-19 testing; and facemask protocols. We performed weighted analysis to assess congruence with the October 29, 2020, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance for IHEs. For IHEs offering ≥50% of courses in person, we used weighted multivariable linear regression to explore the association between IHE characteristics and the summated number of implemented NPIs.

RESULTS

Overall, 20% of IHEs implemented all CDC-recommended NPIs. The most frequently utilized NPI was learning environment changes (91%), practiced as one or more of the following modalities: distance or hybrid learning opportunities (98%), 6-ft spacing (60%), and reduced class sizes (51%). Additionally, 88% of IHEs specified facemask protocols, 78% physically changed common areas, and 67% offered COVID-19 testing. Among the 33% of IHEs offering ≥50% of courses in person, having < 1000 students was associated with having implemented fewer NPIs than IHEs with ≥1000 students.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 1 in 5 IHEs implemented all CDC recommendations, while a majority implemented a subset, most commonly changes to the classroom, facemask protocols, and COVID-19 testing. IHE enrollment size and location were associated with degree of NPI implementation. Additional research is needed to assess adherence to NPI implementation in IHE settings.

Causes, characteristics, and patterns of prolonged unplanned school closures prior to the COVID-19 pandemic—United States, 2011–2019

Introduction

Outside of pandemics, there is little information about occurrence of prolonged unplanned K-12 school closures (PUSC). We describe here the reasons, characteristics, and patterns of PUSC in the United States during 8 consecutive inter-pandemic academic years, 2011–2019.

Methods

From August 1, 2011 through June 30, 2019, daily systematic online searches were conducted to collect data on publicly announced unplanned school closures lasting ≥1 school days in the United States. Closures were categorized as prolonged when schools were closed for ≥5 unplanned days (approximating one full workweek), excluding weekends and scheduled days off per school calendars.

Results

During the eight academic years, a total of 22,112 PUSCs were identified, affecting over 800,000 teachers and 13 million students that resulted in 91.5 million student-days lost. A median of 62.9% of students in PUSC-affected schools were eligible for subsidized school meals. Most affected schools were in cities (35%) and suburban areas (33%). Natural disasters (47%), adverse weather conditions (35%), and budget/teacher strikes (15%) were the most frequently cited reasons for PUSC; illness accounted for 1%, and building/facility issues, environmental issues and violence together accounted for the remaining 2%. The highest number of PUSCs occurred in Health and Human Services Regions 2, 3, 4, and 6 encompassing areas that are frequently in the path of hurricanes and tropical storms. The majority of PUSCs in these regions were attributed to a handful of hurricanes during the fall season, including hurricanes Sandy, Irma, Harvey, Florence, and Matthew.

Conclusions

PUSCs occur annually in the United States due to a variety of causes and are associated with a substantive loss of student-days for in-school learning. Both these prior experiences with PUSCs and those during the current COVID-19 pandemic illustrate a need for creating sustainable solutions for high-quality distance learning and innovative supplemental feeding programs nationwide, especially in disaster-prone areas.

COVID-19-associated school closures and related efforts to sustain education and subsidized meal programs, United States, February 18-June 30, 2020

Pre-emptive school closures are frontline community mitigation measures recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for implementation during severe pandemics. This study describes the spatiotemporal patterns of publicly announced school closures implemented in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and assesses how public K-12 districts adjusted their methods of education delivery and provision of subsidized meals. During February 18–June 30, 2020, we used daily systematic media searches to identify publicly announced COVID-19–related school closures lasting ≥1 day in the United States (US). We also collected statewide school closure policies from state government websites. Data on distance learning and subsidized meal programs were collected from a stratified sample of 600 school districts. The first COVID-19–associated school closure occurred on February 27, 2020 in Washington state. By March 30, 2020, all but one US public school districts were closed, representing the first-ever nearly synchronous nationwide closure of public K-12 schools in the US. Approximately 100,000 public schools were closed for ≥8 weeks because of COVID-19, affecting >50 million K-12 students. Of 600 districts sampled, the vast majority offered distance learning (91.0%) and continued provision of subsidized meal programs (78.8%) during the closures. Despite the sudden and prolonged nature of COVID-19–associated school closures, schools demonstrated flexibility by implementing distance learning and alternate methods to continue subsidized meal programs.

Timing of Community Mitigation and Changes in Reported COVID-19 and Community Mobility - Four U.S. Metropolitan Areas, February 26-April 1, 2020

Community mitigation activities (also referred to as nonpharmaceutical interventions) are actions that persons and communities can take to slow the spread of infectious diseases. Mitigation strategies include personal protective measures (e.g., handwashing, cough etiquette, and face coverings) that persons can use at home or while in community settings; social distancing (e.g., maintaining physical distance between persons in community settings and staying at home); and environmental surface cleaning at home and in community settings, such as schools or workplaces. Actions such as social distancing are especially critical when medical countermeasures such as vaccines or therapeutics are not available. Although voluntary adoption of social distancing by the public and community organizations is possible, public policy can enhance implementation. The CDC Community Mitigation Framework (1) recommends a phased approach to implementation at the community level, as evidence of community spread of disease increases or begins to decrease and according to severity. This report presents initial data from the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; New Orleans, Louisiana; and New York City, New York* to describe the relationship between timing of public policy measures, community mobility (a proxy measure for social distancing), and temporal trends in reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Community mobility in all four locations declined from February 26, 2020 to April 1, 2020, decreasing with each policy issued and as case counts increased. This report suggests that public policy measures are an important tool to support social distancing and provides some very early indications that these measures might help slow the spread of COVID-19.

Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Social distancing is one of the community mitigation measures that may be recommended during influenza pandemics. Social distancing can reduce virus transmission by increasing physical distance or reducing frequency of congregation in socially dense community settings, such as schools or workplaces. We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence that social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces reduces or slows influenza transmission.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC-2, and EconLit to identify studies published in English from January 1, 2000, through May 3, 2017. Data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, representing 12 modeling and three epidemiological, met the eligibility criteria. The epidemiological studies showed that social distancing was associated with a reduction in influenza-like illness and seroconversion to 2009 influenza A (H1N1). However, the overall risk of bias in the epidemiological studies was serious. The modeling studies estimated that workplace social distancing measures alone produced a median reduction of 23% in the cumulative influenza attack rate in the general population. It also delayed and reduced the peak influenza attack rate. The reduction in the cumulative attack rate was more pronounced when workplace social distancing was combined with other nonpharmaceutical or pharmaceutical interventions. However, the effectiveness was estimated to decline with higher basic reproduction number values, delayed triggering of workplace social distancing, or lower compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Modeling studies support social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces, but there is a paucity of well-designed epidemiological studies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration # CRD42017065310.

Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Social distancing is one of the community mitigation measures that may be recommended during influenza pandemics. Social distancing can reduce virus transmission by increasing physical distance or reducing frequency of congregation in socially dense community settings, such as schools or workplaces. We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence that social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces reduces or slows influenza transmission.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC-2, and EconLit to identify studies published in English from January 1, 2000, through May 3, 2017. Data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, representing 12 modeling and three epidemiological, met the eligibility criteria. The epidemiological studies showed that social distancing was associated with a reduction in influenza-like illness and seroconversion to 2009 influenza A (H1N1). However, the overall risk of bias in the epidemiological studies was serious. The modeling studies estimated that workplace social distancing measures alone produced a median reduction of 23% in the cumulative influenza attack rate in the general population. It also delayed and reduced the peak influenza attack rate. The reduction in the cumulative attack rate was more pronounced when workplace social distancing was combined with other nonpharmaceutical or pharmaceutical interventions. However, the effectiveness was estimated to decline with higher basic reproduction number values, delayed triggering of workplace social distancing, or lower compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Modeling studies support social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces, but there is a paucity of well-designed epidemiological studies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration # CRD42017065310.