Disparities in the Implementation of School-Based Mental Health Supports Among K-12 Public Schools.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to explore the availability of mental health supports within public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic by using survey data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. K-12 public schools collected in October-November 2021. METHODS: The prevalence of 11 school-based mental health supports was examined within the sample (N=437 schools). Chi-square tests and adjusted logistic regression models were used to identify associations between school-level characteristics and mental health supports. School characteristics included level (elementary, middle, or high school), locale (city, town, suburb, or rural area), poverty level, having a full-time school nurse, and having a school-based health center. RESULTS: Universal mental health programs were more prevalent than more individualized and group-based supports (e.g., therapy groups); however, prevalence of certain mental health supports was low among schools (e.g., only 53% implemented schoolwide trauma-informed practices). Schools having middle to high levels of poverty or located in rural areas or towns and elementary schools and schools without a health infrastructure were less likely to implement mental health supports, even after analyses were adjusted for school-level characteristics. For example, compared with low-poverty schools, mid-poverty schools had lower odds of implementing prosocial skills training for students (adjusted OR [AOR]=0.49, 95% CI=0.27-0.88) and providing confidential mental health screening (AOR=0.42, 95% CI=0.22-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation levels of school-based mental health supports leave substantial room for improvement, and numerous disparities existed by school characteristics. Higher-poverty areas, schools in rural areas or towns, and elementary schools and schools without a health infrastructure may require assistance in ensuring equitable access to mental health supports.

Disparities in Implementing COVID-19 Prevention Strategies in Public Schools, United States, 2021-22 School Year.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US schools have been encouraged to take a layered approach to prevention, incorporating multiple strategies to curb transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Using survey data representative of US public K-12 schools (N = 437), we determined prevalence estimates of COVID-19 prevention strategies early in the 2021-22 school year and describe disparities in implementing strategies by school characteristics. Prevalence of prevention strategies ranged from 9.3% (offered COVID-19 screening testing to students and staff) to 95.1% (had a school-based system to report COVID-19 outcomes). Schools with a full-time school nurse or school-based health center had significantly higher odds of implementing several strategies, including those related to COVID-19 vaccination. We identified additional disparities in prevalence of strategies by locale, school level, and poverty. Advancing school health workforce and infrastructure, ensuring schools use available COVID-19 funding effectively, and promoting efforts in schools with the lowest prevalence of infection prevention strategies are needed for pandemic preparedness.

Ventilation Improvements Among K-12 Public School Districts - United States, August-December 2022.

Improving ventilation has been one of several COVID-19 prevention strategies implemented by kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) schools to stay open for safe in-person learning. Because transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs through inhalation of infectious viral particles, it is important to reduce the concentration of and exposure time to infectious aerosols (1-3). CDC examined reported ventilation improvement strategies among U.S. K-12 public school districts using telephone survey data collected during August-December 2022. Maintaining continuous airflow through school buildings during active hours was the most frequently reported strategy by school districts (50.7%); 33.9% of school districts reported replacement or upgrade of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; 28.0% reported installation or use of in-room air cleaners with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters; and 8.2% reported installation of ultraviolet (UV) germicidal irradiation (UVGI) devices, which use UV light to kill airborne pathogens, including bacteria and viruses. School districts in National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) city locales, the West U.S. Census Bureau region, and those designated by U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) as high-poverty districts reported the highest percentages of HVAC system upgrades and HEPA-filtered in-room air cleaner use, although 28%-60% of all responses were unknown or missing. Federal funding remains available to school districts to support ventilation improvements. Public health departments can encourage K-12 school officials to use available funding to improve ventilation and help reduce transmission of respiratory diseases in K-12 settings.

Evaluation of self-administered antigen testing in a college setting.

BACKGROUND: The objective of our investigation was to better understand barriers to implementation of self-administered antigen screening testing for SARS-CoV-2 at institutions of higher education (IHE). METHODS: Using the Quidel QuickVue At-Home COVID-19 Test, 1347 IHE students and staff were asked to test twice weekly for seven weeks. We assessed seroconversion using baseline and endline serum specimens. Online surveys assessed acceptability. RESULTS: Participants reported 9971 self-administered antigen test results. Among participants who were not antibody positive at baseline, the median number of tests reported was eight. Among 324 participants seronegative at baseline, with endline antibody results and ≥ 1 self-administered antigen test results, there were five COVID-19 infections; only one was detected by self-administered antigen test (sensitivity = 20%). Acceptability of self-administered antigen tests was high. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-weekly serial self-administered antigen testing in a low prevalence period had low utility in this investigation. Issues of testing fatigue will be important to address in future testing strategies.

Modifications to student quarantine policies in K-12 schools implementing multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies restores in-person education without increasing SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk, January-March 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether modified K-12 student quarantine policies that allow some students to continue in-person education during their quarantine period increase schoolwide SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk following the increase in cases in winter 2020-2021. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 cases and close contacts among students and staff (n = 65,621) in 103 Missouri public schools. Participants were offered free, saliva-based RT-PCR testing. The projected number of school-based transmission events among untested close contacts was extrapolated from the percentage of events detected among tested asymptomatic close contacts and summed with the number of detected events for a projected total. An adjusted Cox regression model compared hazard rates of school-based SARS-CoV-2 infections between schools with a modified versus standard quarantine policy. RESULTS: From January-March 2021, a projected 23 (1%) school-based transmission events occurred among 1,636 school close contacts. There was no difference in the adjusted hazard rates of school-based SARS-CoV-2 infections between schools with a modified versus standard quarantine policy (hazard ratio = 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.97-1.03). DISCUSSION: School-based SARS-CoV-2 transmission was rare in 103 K-12 schools implementing multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies. Modified student quarantine policies were not associated with increased school incidence of COVID-19. Modifications to student quarantine policies may be a useful strategy for K-12 schools to safely reduce disruptions to in-person education during times of increased COVID-19 community incidence.

An Examination of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Based on Classroom Distancing in Schools With Other Preventive Measures in Place-Missouri, January-March 2021.

OBJECTIVES: Classroom layout plays a central role in maintaining physical distancing as part of a multicomponent prevention strategy for safe in-person learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a school investigation to assess layouts and physical distancing in classroom settings with and without in-school SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODS: We assessed, measured, and mapped 90 K-12 (kindergarten through grade 12) classrooms in 3 Missouri public school districts during January-March 2021, prior to widespread prevalence of the Delta variant; distances between students, teachers, and people with COVID-19 and their contacts were analyzed. We used whole-genome sequencing to further evaluate potential transmission events. RESULTS: The investigation evaluated the classrooms of 34 students and staff members who were potentially infectious with COVID-19 in a classroom. Of 42 close contacts (15 tested) who sat within 3 ft of possibly infectious people, 1 (2%) probable transmission event occurred (from a symptomatic student with a longer exposure period [5 days]); of 122 contacts (23 tested) who sat more than 3 ft away from possibly infectious people with shorter exposure periods, no transmission events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced student physical distancing is one component of mitigation strategies that can allow for increased classroom capacity and support in-person learning. In the pre-Delta variant period, limited physical distancing (<6 ft) among students in K-12 schools was not associated with increased SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Ventilation Improvement Strategies Among K-12 Public Schools - The National School COVID-19 Prevention Study, United States, February 14-March 27, 2022.

Effective COVID-19 prevention in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) schools requires multicomponent prevention strategies in school buildings and school-based transportation, including improving ventilation (1). Improved ventilation can reduce the concentration of infectious aerosols and duration of potential exposures (2,3), is linked to lower COVID-19 incidence (4), and can offer other health-related benefits (e.g., better measures of respiratory health, such as reduced allergy symptoms) (5). Whereas ambient wind currents effectively dissipate SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) outdoors,* ventilation systems provide protective airflow and filtration indoors (6). CDC examined reported ventilation improvement strategies among a nationally representative sample of K-12 public schools in the United States using wave 4 (February 14-March 27, 2022) data from the National School COVID-19 Prevention Study (NSCPS) (420 schools), a web-based survey administered to school-level administrators beginning in summer 2021.† The most frequently reported ventilation improvement strategies were lower-cost strategies, including relocating activities outdoors (73.6%), inspecting and validating existing heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (70.5%), and opening doors (67.3%) or windows (67.2%) when safe to do so. A smaller proportion of schools reported more resource-intensive strategies such as replacing or upgrading HVAC systems (38.5%) or using high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration systems in classrooms (28.2%) or eating areas (29.8%). Rural and mid-poverty-level schools were less likely to report several resource-intensive strategies. For example, rural schools were less likely to use portable HEPA filtration systems in classrooms (15.6%) than were city (37.7%) and suburban schools (32.9%), and mid-poverty-level schools were less likely than were high-poverty-level schools to have replaced or upgraded HVAC systems (32.4% versus 48.8%). Substantial federal resources to improve ventilation in schools are available.§ Ensuring their use might reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. Focusing support on schools least likely to have resource-intensive ventilation strategies might facilitate equitable implementation of ventilation improvements.

Acceptance of Saliva-Based Specimen Collection for SARS-CoV-2 Testing Among K-12 Students, Teachers, and Staff.

OBJECTIVE: Saliva specimens collected in school populations may offer a more feasible, noninvasive alternative to nasal swabs for large-scale COVID-19 testing efforts in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) schools. We investigated acceptance of saliva-based COVID-19 testing among quarantined K-12 students and their parents, teachers, and staff members who recently experienced a SARS-CoV-2 exposure in school. METHODS: We surveyed 719 participants, in person or by telephone, who agreed to or declined a free saliva-based COVID-19 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test as part of a surveillance investigation about whether they would have consented to testing if offered a nasal swab instead. We conducted this investigation in 6 school districts in Greene County (n = 3) and St. Louis County (n = 3), Missouri, from January 25 through March 23, 2021. RESULTS: More than one-third (160 of 446) of K-12 students (or their parents or guardians), teachers, and staff members who agreed to a saliva-based COVID-19 test indicated they would have declined testing if specimen collection were by nasal swab. When stratified by school level, 51% (67 of 132) of elementary school students or their parents or guardians would not have agreed to testing if a nasal swab was offered. CONCLUSIONS: Some students, especially those in elementary school, preferred saliva-based COVID-19 testing to nasal swab testing. Use of saliva-based testing might increase voluntary participation in screening efforts in K-12 schools to help prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Point-of-Care Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 in Asymptomatic College Students.

We used the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card to screen 1,540 asymptomatic college students for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in a low-prevalence setting. Compared with reverse transcription PCR, BinaxNOW showed 20% overall sensitivity; among participants with culturable virus, sensitivity was 60%. BinaxNOW provides point-of-care screening but misses many infections.

Adolescent Mental Health, Connectedness, and Mode of School Instruction During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Because COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, nearly 93% of U.S. students engaged in some distance learning. These school disruptions may negatively influence adolescent mental health. Protective factors, like feeling connected to family or school may demonstrate a buffering effect, potentially moderating negative mental health outcomes. The purpose of the study is to test our hypothesis that mode of school instruction influences mental health and determine if school and family connectedness attenuates these relationships. METHODS: The COVID Experiences Survey was administered online or via telephone from October to November 2020 in adolescents ages 13-19 using National Opinion Research Center's AmeriSpeak Panel, a probability-based panel recruited using random address-based sampling with mail and telephone nonresponse follow-up. The final sample included 567 adolescents in grades 7-12 who received virtual, in-person, or combined instruction. Unadjusted and adjusted associations among four mental health outcomes and instruction mode were measured, and associations with school and family connectedness were explored for protective effects. RESULTS: Students attending school virtually reported poorer mental health than students attending in-person. Adolescents receiving virtual instruction reported more mentally unhealthy days, more persistent symptoms of depression, and a greater likelihood of seriously considering attempting suicide than students in other modes of instruction. After demographic adjustments school and family connectedness each mitigated the association between virtual versus in-person instruction for all four mental health indicators. CONCLUSION: As hypothesized, mode of school instruction was associated with mental health outcomes, with adolescents receiving in-person instruction reporting the lowest prevalence of negative mental health indicators. School and family connectedness may play a critical role in buffering negative mental health outcomes.

Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements - United States, July 1-September 4, 2021.

Consistent and correct mask use is a critical strategy for preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). CDC recommends that schools require universal indoor mask use for students, staff members, and others in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) school settings (2). As U.S. schools opened for the 2021-22 school year in the midst of increasing community spread of COVID-19, some states, counties, and school districts implemented mask requirements in schools. To assess the impact of masking in schools on COVID-19 incidence among K-12 students across the United States, CDC assessed differences between county-level pediatric COVID-19 case rates in schools with and without school mask requirements.

COVID-19-Related School Closures and Learning Modality Changes - United States, August 1-September 17, 2021.

Beginning in January 2021, the U.S. government prioritized ensuring continuity of learning for all students during the COVID-19 pandemic (1). To estimate the extent of COVID-19-associated school disruptions, CDC and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory used a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) (2) statistical approach to estimate the most likely actual learning modality based on patterns observed in past data, accounting for conflicting or missing information and systematic Internet searches (3) for COVID-19-related school closures. This information was used to assess how many U.S. schools were open, and in which learning modalities, during August 1-September 17, 2021. Learning modalities included 1) full in-person learning, 2) a hybrid of in-person and remote learning, and 3) full remote learning.

Pilot Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 Secondary Transmission in Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools Implementing Mitigation Strategies - St. Louis County and City of Springfield, Missouri, December 2020.

Many kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) schools offering in-person learning have adopted strategies to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). These measures include mandating use of face masks, physical distancing in classrooms, increasing ventilation with outdoor air, identification of close contacts,* and following CDC isolation and quarantine guidance† (2). A 2-week pilot investigation was conducted to investigate occurrences of SARS-CoV-2 secondary transmission in K-12 schools in the city of Springfield, Missouri, and in St. Louis County, Missouri, during December 7-18, 2020. Schools in both locations implemented COVID-19 mitigation strategies; however, Springfield implemented a modified quarantine policy permitting student close contacts aged ≤18 years who had school-associated contact with a person with COVID-19 and met masking requirements during their exposure to continue in-person learning.§ Participating students, teachers, and staff members with COVID-19 (37) from 22 schools and their school-based close contacts (contacts) (156) were interviewed, and contacts were offered SARS-CoV-2 testing. Among 102 school-based contacts who received testing, two (2%) had positive test results indicating probable school-based SARS-CoV-2 secondary transmission. Both contacts were in Springfield and did not meet criteria to participate in the modified quarantine. In Springfield, 42 student contacts were permitted to continue in-person learning under the modified quarantine; among the 30 who were interviewed, 21 were tested, and none received a positive test result. Despite high community transmission, SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools implementing COVID-19 mitigation strategies was lower than that in the community. Until additional data are available, K-12 schools should continue implementing CDC-recommended mitigation measures (2) and follow CDC isolation and quarantine guidance to minimize secondary transmission in schools offering in-person learning.

Association of Children's Mode of School Instruction with Child and Parent Experiences and Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic - COVID Experiences Survey, United States, October 8-November 13, 2020.

In March 2020, efforts to slow transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, resulted in widespread closures of school buildings, shifts to virtual educational models, modifications to school-based services, and disruptions in the educational experiences of school-aged children. Changes in modes of instruction have presented psychosocial stressors to children and parents that can increase risks to mental health and well-being and might exacerbate educational and health disparities (1,2). CDC examined differences in child and parent experiences and indicators of well-being according to children's mode of school instruction (i.e., in-person only [in-person], virtual-only [virtual], or combined virtual and in-person [combined]) using data from the COVID Experiences nationwide survey. During October 8-November 13, 2020, parents or legal guardians (parents) of children aged 5-12 years were surveyed using the NORC at the University of Chicago AmeriSpeak panel,* a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population. Among 1,290 respondents with a child enrolled in public or private school, 45.7% reported that their child received virtual instruction, 30.9% in-person instruction, and 23.4% combined instruction. For 11 of 17 stress and well-being indicators concerning child mental health and physical activity and parental emotional distress, findings were worse for parents of children receiving virtual or combined instruction than were those for parents of children receiving in-person instruction. Children not receiving in-person instruction and their parents might experience increased risk for negative mental, emotional, or physical health outcomes and might need additional support to mitigate pandemic effects. Community-wide actions to reduce COVID-19 incidence and support mitigation strategies in schools are critically important to support students' return to in-person learning.

Observed Face Mask Use at Six Universities - United States, September-November 2020.

Approximately 41% of adults aged 18-24 years in the United States are enrolled in a college or university (1). Wearing a face mask can reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2), and many colleges and universities mandate mask use in public locations and outdoors when within six feet of others. Studies based on self-report have described mask use ranging from 69.1% to 86.1% among adults aged 18-29 years (3); however, more objective measures are needed. Direct observation by trained observers is the accepted standard for monitoring behaviors such as hand hygiene (4). In this investigation, direct observation was used to estimate the proportion of persons wearing masks and the proportion of persons wearing masks correctly (i.e., covering the nose and mouth and secured under the chin*) on campus and at nearby off-campus locations at six rural and suburban universities with mask mandates in the southern and western United States. Trained student observers recorded mask use for up to 8 weeks from fixed sites on campus and nearby. Among 17,200 observed persons, 85.5% wore masks, with 89.7% of those persons wearing the mask correctly (overall correct mask use: 76.7%). Among persons observed indoors, 91.7% wore masks correctly. The proportion correctly wearing masks indoors varied by mask type, from 96.8% for N95-type masks and 92.2% for cloth masks to 78.9% for bandanas, scarves, and similar face coverings. Observed indoor mask use was high at these six universities with mask mandates. Colleges and universities can use direct observation findings to tailor training and messaging toward increasing correct mask use.

Time from Start of Quarantine to SARS-CoV-2 Positive Test Among Quarantined College and University Athletes - 17 States, June-October 2020.

To safely resume sports, college and university athletic programs and regional athletic conferences created plans to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Mitigation measures included physical distancing, universal masking, and maximizing outdoor activity during training; routine testing; 10-day isolation of persons with COVID-19; and 14-day quarantine of athletes identified as close contacts* of persons with confirmed COVID-19. Regional athletic conferences created testing and quarantine policies based on National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) guidance (1); testing policies varied by conference, school, and sport. To improve compliance with quarantine and reduce the personal and economic burden of quarantine adherence, the quarantine period has been reduced in several countries from 14 days to as few as 5 days with testing (2) or 10 days without testing (3). Data on quarantined athletes participating in NCAA sports were used to characterize COVID-19 exposures and assess the amount of time between quarantine start and first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. Despite the potential risk for transmission from frequent, close contact associated with athletic activities (4), more athletes reported exposure to COVID-19 at social gatherings (40.7%) and from roommates (31.7%) than they did from exposures associated with athletic activities (12.7%). Among 1,830 quarantined athletes, 458 (25%) received positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results during the 14-day quarantine, with a mean of 3.8 days from quarantine start (range = 0-14 days) until the positive test result. Among athletes who had not received a positive test result by quarantine day 5, the probability of having a positive test result decreased from 27% after day 5 to <5% after day 10. These findings support new guidance from CDC (5) in which different options are provided to shorten quarantine for persons such as collegiate athletes, especially if doing so will increase compliance, balancing the reduced duration of quarantine against a small but nonzero risk for postquarantine transmission. Improved adherence to mitigation measures (e.g., universal masking, physical distancing, and hand hygiene) at all times could further reduce exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and disruptions to athletic activities because of infections and quarantine (1,6).