Persistent Disparities in Pediatric Health Care Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted traditional health care, including pediatric health care. We described the impact of the pandemic on disparities in pediatric health care engagement. METHODS: Using a population-based cross-sectional time-series design, we compared monthly ambulatory care visit volume and completion rates (completed vs no-show and cancelled visits) among pediatric patients aged 0-21 years in 4 states in the mid-Atlantic United States during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-February 2021) with the same period before the pandemic (March 2019-February 2020). We used unadjusted odds ratios, stratified by visit type (telehealth or in-person) and sociodemographic characteristics (child race and ethnicity, caregiver primary language, geocoded Child Opportunity Index, and rurality). RESULTS: We examined 1 556 548 scheduled ambulatory care visits for a diverse pediatric patient population. Visit volume and completion rates (mean, 70.1%) decreased during the first months of the pandemic but returned to prepandemic levels by June 2020. Disparities in in-person visit completion rates among non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White patients (64.9% vs 74.3%), patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged versus advantaged communities as measured by Child Opportunity Index (65.8% vs 76.4%), and patients in rural versus urban neighborhoods (66.0% vs 70.8%) were the same during the remainder of the first year of the pandemic as compared with the previous year. Concurrent with large increases in telehealth (0.5% prepandemic, 19.0% during the pandemic), telehealth completion rates increased. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in pediatric visit completion rates that existed before the pandemic persisted during the pandemic. These findings underscore the need for culturally tailored practices to reduce disparities in pediatric health care engagement.

COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Scales for Adolescents and Young Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on adolescents and young adults (AYAs), we adapted the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Scales (CEFIS; Kazak et al., 2021) for AYAs. Here, we report on the development, structure, and psychometric properties of the CEFIS-AYA. METHODS: The CEFIS-AYA was developed by a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team using a rapid iterative process. Data from 3,912 AYAs from 21 programs at 16 institutions across the United States were collected from May 2020 to April 2021. We examined the underlying structure of the CEFIS-AYA using principal component analysis (PCA), calculated internal consistencies, and explored differences in scores by gender and age. RESULTS: Participants reported exposure to a range of COVID-19-related events (M = 9.08 events, of 28). On the bidirectional 4-point Impact scale, mean item scores were mostly above the midpoint, indicating a slightly negative impact. Kuder-Richardson 20/Cronbach's Alpha was good for Exposure (α = .76) and excellent for Impact (α = .93). PCA identified seven factors for Exposure (Severe COVID-19, Loss of Income, Limited Access to Essentials, COVID-19 Exposure, Disruptions to Activities, Disruptions to Living Conditions, and Designation as an Essential Worker) and five for Impact (Self and Family Relationships, Physical Well-Being, Emotional Well-Being, Social Well-Being, and Distress). Gender and age differences in CEFIS-AYA scores were identified. DISCUSSION: Initial reliability data are strong and support use of the CEFIS-AYA for measuring the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on AYAs in research and clinical care.

Validation of the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Scales.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Scales (CEFIS) were developed in Spring 2020 to assess effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on families and caregivers. Initial psychometric properties were promising. The current study examined the factor structure and evaluated convergent and criterion validity of the CEFIS in a new sample. METHODS: In October and November 2020, caregivers (N = 2,531) of youth (0-21 years) scheduled for an ambulatory care visit at Nemours Children's Hospital, Delaware completed the CEFIS and measures of convergent (PROMIS Global Mental Health Scale, Family Assessment Device) and criterion validity (PTSD Checklist-Civilian). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the CEFIS. Bivariate correlations and logistic regression were used to examine convergent and criterion validity. RESULTS: Factor analysis supported the original six- and three-factor structures for the Exposure and Impact scales, respectively. Second-order factor analyses supported the use of Exposure, Impact, and Distress total scores. Higher scores on the CEFIS Exposure, Impact, and Distress scales were associated with increased mental health concerns and poorer family functioning. Higher scores on all CEFIS scales were also associated with greater odds of having clinically significant posttraumatic stress symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The CEFIS is a psychometrically sound measure of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on family and caregiver functioning and may also be useful in identifying families who would benefit from psychological supports.