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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [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), Europe (2), and Eastern Mediterranean (1). 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
|
De Santis KK, Helmer S, Barnes B, Kraywinkel K, Imhoff M, Müller-Eberstein R, Kirstein M, Quatmann A, Simke J, Stiens L, Christianson L, Zeeb H. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological care in Germany: rapid review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2023; 149:14329-14340. [PMID: 37507594 PMCID: PMC10590309 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-05063-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2023] [Accepted: 06/29/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The COVID-19 pandemic affected medical care for chronic diseases. This study aimed to systematically assess the pandemic impact on oncological care in Germany using a rapid review. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, study and preprint registries and study bibliographies were searched for studies published between 2020 and 2 November 2022. Inclusion was based on the PCC framework: population (cancer), concept (oncological care) and context (COVID-19 pandemic in Germany). Studies were selected after title/abstract and full-text screening by two authors. Extracted data were synthesized using descriptive statistics or narratively. Risk of bias was assessed and summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS Overall, 77 records (59 peer-reviewed studies and 18 reports) with administrative, cancer registry and survey data were included. Disruptions in oncological care were reported and varied according to pandemic-related factors (e.g., pandemic stage) and other (non-pandemic) factors (e.g., care details). During higher restriction periods fewer consultations and non-urgent surgeries, and delayed diagnosis and screening were consistently reported. Heterogeneous results were reported for treatment types other than surgery (e.g., psychosocial care) and aftercare, while ongoing care remained mostly unchanged. The risk of bias was on average moderate. CONCLUSIONS Disruptions in oncological care were reported during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Such disruptions probably depended on factors that were insufficiently controlled for in statistical analyses and evidence quality was on average only moderate. Research focus on patient outcomes (e.g., longer term consequences of disruptions) and pandemic management by healthcare systems is potentially relevant for future pandemics or health emergencies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karina Karolina De Santis
- Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
| | - Stefanie Helmer
- Faculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
| | - Benjamin Barnes
- German Center for Cancer Registry Data, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany
| | - Klaus Kraywinkel
- German Center for Cancer Registry Data, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany
| | - Maren Imhoff
- German Center for Cancer Registry Data, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Mathia Kirstein
- Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany
| | - Anna Quatmann
- Faculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
| | - Julia Simke
- Faculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
| | - Lisa Stiens
- Faculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
| | - Lara Christianson
- Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany
| | - Hajo Zeeb
- Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology- BIPS, Bremen, Germany
- Faculty 11 Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Robinson N, Ploner A, Müller-Eberstein R, Lichtenstein P, Kendler KS, Bergen SE. Migration and risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: A Swedish national study. Schizophr Res 2023; 260:160-167. [PMID: 37666061 DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2023.08.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2023] [Revised: 05/18/2023] [Accepted: 08/26/2023] [Indexed: 09/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Prior studies report increased risk of schizophrenia (SCZ) in migrants relative to the native-born population; however, few have investigated bipolar disorder (BD) and migrant characteristics which may influence risk. We aimed to examine the risk of SCZ and BD in migrants and their children relative to those of Swedish ancestry, and whether risk varied by age at migration, region of origin, sex, and parental migrant status. METHODS We conducted a nested case-control study using 5539 SCZ cases and 20,577 BD cases diagnosed 1988-2013, individually matched to five population-based controls by birth year and sex. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the risk of SCZ and BD by migrant status, region of origin and age at migration, with models stratified by sex. RESULTS First-generation migrants had increased risk of SCZ and decreased risk of BD. There was a distinct pattern of risk for SCZ by age at migration. Childhood migrants from all regions had increased risk of SCZ, particularly those from Africa. In contrast, risk for BD declined with age at migration, with increased risk only in Nordic child migrants. SCZ and BD diagnoses were decreased in adult migrants, elevated in second-generation migrants (with risk differing by number of migrant parents and greater for those with migrant fathers) and higher in male migrants (vs. female). CONCLUSIONS Age at migration, sex, and region of origin affect risk of SCZ and BD. Further research is required to determine how migration-related factors influence disease etiology and the receipt of these diagnoses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natassia Robinson
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Alexander Ploner
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Roxana Müller-Eberstein
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Paul Lichtenstein
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Kenneth S Kendler
- Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States of America
| | - Sarah E Bergen
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kunzler AM, Lindner S, Röthke N, Schäfer SK, Metzendorf MI, Sachkova A, Müller-Eberstein R, Klinger C, Burns J, Coenen M, Lieb K. Mental Health Impact of Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Individuals with Pre-Existing Mental Disorders: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Research. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 20:948. [PMID: 36673705 PMCID: PMC9858748 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20020948] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2022] [Revised: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 01/01/2023] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
In view of disease-related threats, containment measures, and disrupted healthcare, individuals with pre-existing mental illness might be vulnerable to adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous reviews indicated increased mental distress, with limited information on peri-pandemic changes. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify longitudinal research investigating pre- to peri-pandemic and/or peri-pandemic changes of mental health in patients, focusing on the early phase and considering specific diagnoses. PsycINFO, Web of Science, the WHO Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register weresearched through 31 May 2021. Studies were synthesized using vote counting based on effect direction. We included 40 studies mostly from Western, high-income countries. Findings were heterogeneous, with improving and deteriorating mental health observed compared to pre-pandemic data, partly depending on underlying diagnoses. For peri-pandemic changes, evidence was limited, with some suggestion of recovery of mental distress. Study quality was heterogeneous; only few studies investigated potential moderators (e.g., chronicity of mental illness). Mental health effects on people with pre-existing conditions are heterogeneous within and across diagnoses for pre- to peri-pandemic and peri-pandemic comparisons. To improve mental health services amid future global crises, forthcoming research should understand medium- and long-term effects, controlling for containment measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela M. Kunzler
- Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), 55122 Mainz, Germany
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center—University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, 79110 Freiburg, Germany
| | - Saskia Lindner
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany
| | - Nikolaus Röthke
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany
| | - Sarah K. Schäfer
- Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), 55122 Mainz, Germany
| | - Maria-Inti Metzendorf
- Institute of General Practice (ifam), Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Alexandra Sachkova
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Georg August University Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
| | - Roxana Müller-Eberstein
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Carmen Klinger
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Jacob Burns
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Michaela Coenen
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Klaus Lieb
- Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), 55122 Mainz, Germany
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany
| |
Collapse
|