A Test-to-Stay Modified Quarantine Program for COVID-19 in Schools

Real-world utilisation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing to enable face-to-face learning in Australian schools, an ecological study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the use of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing of COVID-19 contacts in New South Wales schools to determine return to in-person school attendance instead of home quarantine, between 6 November and 21 December 2021.

METHODS

COVID-19 school contacts were required to quarantine for two weeks postexposure to the case. Students who opted into daily rapid antigen testing logged their results in a database, prior to school attendance, and obtained SARS-CoV-2 nucleic amplification acid testing on day 12-16. Secondary attack rates (SARs) in schools utilising rapid antigen testing (Test-to-Stay schools) and those not utilising rapid antigen testing (non-Test-to-Stay school) were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 9,887 people in 293 schools who reported performing at least one rapid antigen test (RAT). The SAR in RAT schools was 3.4% (95% confidence interval: 2.7-4.1) and non-RAT schools was 2.8% (95% confidence interval: 2.4-3.3). A total of 30,535 school days were preserved through this program.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of RATs preserved in-person learning without a significant increase to SAR.

IMPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

Disruptions in face-to-face learning have long-term detrimental impacts on children and adolescents. Rapid antigen testing has been shown to be beneficial to maintain face-to-face learning in Australian schools and may be a useful method to safeguard from school disruptions in future pandemics.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Test-to-Stay in Daycare

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Test-to-stay concepts apply serial testing of children in daycare after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 without use of quarantine. This study aims to assess the safety of a test-to-stay screening in daycare facilities.

METHODS

714 daycare facilities and approximately 50 000 children ≤6 years in Cologne, Germany participated in a SARS-CoV-2 Pool-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening from March 2021 to April 2022. The screening initially comprised post-exposure quarantine and was adapted to a test-to-stay approach during its course. To assess safety of the test-to-stay approach, we explored potential changes in frequencies of infections among children after the adaptation to the test-to-stay approach by applying regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) analyses. To this end, PCR-test data were linked with routinely collected data on reported infections in children and analyzed using ordinary least squares regressions.

RESULTS

219 885 Pool-PCRs and 352 305 Single-PCRs were performed. 6440 (2.93%) Pool-PCRs tested positive, and 17 208 infections in children were reported. We estimated that during a period of 30 weeks, the test-to-stay concept avoided between 7 and 20 days of quarantine per eligible daycare child. RDiT revealed a 26% reduction (Exp. Coef: 0.74, confidence interval 0.52-1.06) in infection frequency among children and indicated no significant increase attributable to the test-to-stay approach. This result was not sensitive to adjustments for 7-day incidence, season, SARS-CoV-2 variant, and socioeconomic status.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses provide evidence that suggest safety of the test-to-stay approach compared with quarantine measures. This approach offers a promising option to avoid use of quarantine after exposure to respiratory pathogens in daycare settings.

What is the specific role of schools and daycares in COVID-19 transmission? A final report from a living rapid review

Due to rapidly evolving conditions, the question of how to safely operate schools and daycares remained a top priority throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to growing and changing evidence, the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools in Canada maintained a living rapid review on the role of schools and daycares in COVID-19 transmission to guide evidence-informed decision making. This Review presents the final iteration of this living rapid review. 31 sources were searched until Oct 17, 2022. In the final version, eligible studies reported data from Jan 1, 2021 onward on transmission of COVID-19 in school or daycare settings, the effect of infection prevention and control measures on transmission, or the effect of operating schools or daycares on community-level COVID-19 rates. As a rapid review, titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer with artificial intelligence integrated into later versions. Full-text screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were completed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The Johanna Briggs Institute tools were used for critical appraisal. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and results were synthesised narratively. Three citizen partners provided input for the final interpretation. This final update includes 73 primary studies. Secondary attack rates were low within school settings when infection prevention and control measures were in place (moderate certainty). Masks might reduce transmission, test-to-stay policies might not increase transmission risk compared with mandatory quarantine, cohorting and hybrid learning might make little to no difference in transmission (low certainty), and the effect of surveillance testing within schools remained inconclusive (very low certainty). Findings indicate that school settings do not substantially contribute to community incidence, hospitalisations, or mortality (low certainty). This living review provides a synthesis of global evidence for the role of schools and daycares during COVID-19, which might be helpful in future pandemics.

COVID-19 test-to-stay program for K-12 schools: Opt-in versus opt-out consent model

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promoted the Test-to-Stay (TTS) program to facilitate in-person instruction in K-12 schools during COVID-19. This program delineates guidelines for schools to regularly test students and staff to minimize risks of infection transmission. TTS enrollment can be implemented via two different consent models: opt-in, in which students do not test regularly by default, and the opposite, opt-out model. We study the impacts of the two enrollment approaches on testing and positivity rates with data from 259 schools in Illinois. Our results indicate that after controlling for other covariates, schools following the opt-out model are associated with 84% higher testing rate and 30% lower positivity rate. If all schools adopted the opt-out model, 20% of the total lost school days could have been saved. The lower positivity rate among the opt-out group is largely explained by the higher testing rate in these schools, a manifestation of status quo bias.

Recognizing the 2023 Fellows of the National Academy of School Nursing

Membership as a Fellow in the National Academy of School Nursing (FNASN) is the NASN's highest recognition award. At the 2023 NASN Conference, five new Fellows were inducted and now add FNASN to their credentials. This group of exemplary school nurse professionals contributes to school nursing practice in many ways that crisscross NASN's Framework for 21st Century School Nursing Practice™. They each have chosen unique pathways to provide service. The 2023 NASN Fellows are: Eileen Gavin, New Jersey; Jenny Gormley, Massachusetts; Lynne Meadows, Georgia; Kathy Reiner, Colorado; and Sharonlee Trefry, Vermont. The following article outlines each Fellow's unique path to attaining FNASN.

Embracing dynamic public health policy impacts in infectious diseases responses: leveraging implementation science to improve practice

Rationale

The host-pathogen relationship is inherently dynamic and constantly evolving. Applying an implementation science lens to policy evaluation suggests that policy impacts are variable depending upon key implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness costs) and conditions and contexts.

COVID-19 case study

Experiences with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) including masking, testing, and social distancing/business and school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic response highlight the importance of considering public health policy impacts through an implementation science lens of constantly evolving contexts, conditions, evidence, and public perceptions. As implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability) changed, the effectiveness of these interventions changed thereby altering public health policy impact. Sustainment of behavioral change may be a key factor determining the duration of effectiveness and ultimate impact of pandemic policy recommendations, particularly for interventions that require ongoing compliance at the level of the individual.

Practical framework for assessing and evaluating pandemic policy

Updating public health policy recommendations as more data and alternative interventions become available is the evidence-based policy approach and grounded in principles of implementation science and dynamic sustainability. Achieving the ideal of real-time policy updates requires improvements in public health data collection and analysis infrastructure and a shift in public health messaging to incorporate uncertainty and the necessity of ongoing changes. In this review, the Dynamic Infectious Diseases Public Health Response Framework is presented as a model with a practical tool for iteratively incorporating implementation outcomes into public health policy design with the aim of sustaining benefits and identifying when policies are no longer functioning as intended and need to be adapted or de-implemented.

Conclusions and implications

Real-time decision making requires sensitivity to conditions on the ground and adaptation of interventions at all levels. When asking about the public health effectiveness and impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions, the focus should be on when, how, and for how long they can achieve public health impact. In the future, rather than focusing on models of public health intervention effectiveness that assume static impacts, policy impacts should be considered as dynamic with ongoing re-evaluation as conditions change to meet the ongoing needs of the ultimate end-user of the intervention: the public.

Prevalence and Risk Factors for School-Associated Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Importance

School-associated SARS-CoV-2 transmission is described as uncommon, although the true transmission rate is unknown.

Objective

To identify the SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rate (SAR) in schools and factors associated with transmission.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study examined the risk of school-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among kindergarten through grade 12 students and staff in 10 Massachusetts school districts during 2 periods: fall 2020/spring 2021 (F20/S21) and fall 2021 (F21). School staff collected data on SARS-CoV-2 index cases and school-based contacts, and SAR was defined as the proportion of contacts acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Exposure

SARS-CoV-2.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Potential factors associated with transmission, including grade level, masking, exposure location, vaccination history, and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), were analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

Results

For F20/S21, 8 school districts (70 schools, >33 000 students) were included and reported 435 index cases (151 staff, 216 students, and 68 missing role) with 1771 school-based contacts (278 staff, 1492 students, and 1 missing role). For F21, 5 districts (34 schools, >18 000 students) participated and reported 309 index cases (37 staff, 207 students, and 65 missing role) with 1673 school-based contacts (107 staff and 1566 students). The F20/S21 SAR was 2.2% (lower bound, 1.6%; upper bound, 26.7%), and the F21 SAR was 2.8% (lower bound, 2.6%; upper bound, 7.4%). In multivariable analysis, during F20/S21, masking was associated with a lower odds of transmission compared with not masking (odds radio [OR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.40; P < .001). In F21, classroom exposure vs out-of-classroom exposure was associated with increased odds of transmission (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.07-5.66; P = .02); a fully vaccinated vs unvaccinated contact was associated with a lower odds of transmission (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00-0.62; P < .001). In both periods, a higher SVI was associated with a greater odds of transmission.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study of Massachusetts schools, the SAR for SARS-CoV-2 among school-based contacts was low during 2 periods, and factors associated with transmission risk varied over time. These findings suggest that ongoing surveillance efforts may be essential to ensure that both targeted resources and mitigation practices remain optimal and relevant for disease prevention.

At-Home Versus Onsite COVID-19 School-based Testing: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

OBJECTIVES

Equitable access to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) screening is important to reduce transmission and maintain in-person learning for middle school communities, particularly in disadvantaged schools. Rapid antigen testing, and at-home testing in particular, could offer substantial advantages over onsite testing from a school district's perspective, but it is unknown if engagement in at-home testing can be initiated and sustained. We hypothesized that an at-home COVID-19 school testing program would be noninferior to an onsite school COVID-19 testing program with regard to school participation rates and adherence to a weekly screening testing schedule.

METHODS

We enrolled 3 middle schools within a large, predominantly Latinx-serving, independent school district into a noninferiority trial from October 2021 to March 2022. Two schools were randomized to onsite and 1 school to at-home COVID-19 testing programs. All students and staff were eligible to participate.

RESULTS

Over the 21-week trial, at-home weekly screening testing participation rates were not inferior to onsite testing. Similarly, adherence to the weekly testing schedule was not inferior in the at-home arm. Participants in the at-home testing arm were able to test more consistently during and before returning from school breaks than those in the onsite arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the noninferiority of at-home testing versus onsite testing both in terms of participation in testing and adherence to weekly testing. Implementation of at-home COVID-19 screening testing should be part of schools' routine COVID-19 prevention efforts nationwide; however, adequate support is essential to ensure participation and persistence in regular at-home testing.

A Multi-Study Synthesis of Facilitators and Barriers to SARS-CoV-2 Testing Enrollment in School Settings

OBJECTIVES

Understanding the motivators and barriers to testing enrollment from different stakeholder perspectives is essential to increasing participation in school-based testing programs, particularly among underserved populations. This multistudy analysis aimed to identify facilitators and barriers to enrollment in school-based testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Four independent studies collected and analyzed qualitative data from study participants regarding: (1) motivators, benefits, and/or reasons for enrolling and/or participating in COVID-19 testing in schools; and/or (2) concerns, barriers, and/or negative outcomes related to COVID-19 testing in schools. Study authors conducted a retrospective review of findings from the independent studies to identify themes related to testing motivators and concerns that emerged across the studies.

RESULTS

The analysis identified 10 distinct themes regarding the perceived motivators of COVID-19 testing in schools and 15 distinct themes regarding concerns and barriers to COVID-19 testing in schools. Common motivators across multiple studies included convenience of testing in school and the desire to keep self and others safe from COVID-19. Concerns about the implications of receiving a positive test result was a barrier identified by multiple studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Themes from 4 independent studies revealed insights about the motivations and barriers to enrolling and participating in COVID-19 testing programs in kindergarten through 12th grade school settings. Study findings can be used to improve enrollment and participation in new and existing school-based testing programs to reduce transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases in schools.

Implementation of rapid COVID-19 testing at Massachusetts trial courts

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 shut down trial courts across the country, prolonging case resolution of charged, detained, and incarcerated people. We report on the implementation of rapid COVID-19 testing at Trial Courts in Massachusetts (MA), focusing on the outcomes of adoption and acceptability.

METHODS

Guided by the Expert Recommendations in Implementing Change (ERIC) framework, we chose six strategies to guide implementation. After assembling a group of stakeholders, including representatives of the Trial Court, Department of Public Health (DPH) and vendors providing COVID-19 testing, we implemented rapid COVID-19 testing at Trial Court locations in December 2021. We collected data on (1) adoption of COVID-19 testing, (2) number of stakeholders who attended meetings, (3) number of tests performed at Trial Court sites, and (4) acceptability of COVID-19 testing using a QR-code anonymous survey.

RESULTS

There was a high percentage of attendance at stakeholder meetings (> 70% at each meeting). 243 COVID-19 tests were conducted on eight occasions at four Trial Court sites between December 2021 and February 2022. Participants who responded to the QR-code survey reflected favorably on COVID-19 testing at MA Trial Court sites.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 testing at Massachusetts Trial Court sites was possible through stakeholder engagement. Several cases of COVID-19 were identified prior to entry into the Trial Court. Funding for rapid COVID-19 testing should be provided to help keep trial courts open as the pandemic continues to evolve.

Positive Predictive Value of Rapid Antigen Tests in School During SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Surge

In Korea, we conducted a national observational study to calculate the positive predictive value of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in K-12 schools during the Omicron variant surge in March 2022. The weekly positive predictive value ranged from 86.4% to 93.2%. The positive predictive value was the highest among elementary school students with symptoms (95.7%) and lowest among teachers/staff without symptoms (70.9%).

Test-to-Stay Implementation in 4 Pre-K-12 School Districts

OBJECTIVES

Globally, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected how children learn. We evaluated the impact of Test to Stay (TTS) on secondary and tertiary transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and potential impact on in-person learning in 4 school districts in the United States from September 13 to November 19, 2021.

METHODS

Implementation of TTS varied across school districts. Data on index cases, school-based close contacts, TTS participation, and testing results were obtained from 4 school districts in diverse geographic regions. Descriptive statistics, secondary and tertiary attack risk, and a theoretical estimate of impact on in-person learning were calculated.

RESULTS

Fifty-one schools in 4 school districts reported 374 coronavirus disease COVID-19 index cases and 2520 school-based close contacts eligible for TTS. The proportion participating in TTS ranged from 22% to 79%. By district, the secondary attack risk and tertiary attack risk among TTS participants ranged between 2.2% to 11.1% and 0% to 17.6%, respectively. Nine clusters were identified among secondary cases and 2 among tertiary cases. The theoretical maximum number of days of in-person learning saved by using TTS was 976 to 4650 days across jurisdictions.

CONCLUSIONS

TTS preserves in-person learning. Decisions to participate in TTS may have been influenced by ease of access to testing, communication between schools and families, testing logistics, and school resources. Tertiary attack risk determination became more complicated when numbers of close contacts increased. Minimizing exposure through continued layered prevention strategies is imperative. To ensure adequate resources for TTS, community transmission levels should be considered.