In-Home COVID-19 Testing for Children With Medical Complexity: Feasibility and Association With School Attendance and Safety Perceptions.

The REstarting Safe Education and Testing program for children with medical complexity was implemented in May 2021 at the University of Wisconsin to evaluate the feasibility of in-home rapid antigen COVID-19 testing among neurocognitively affected children. Parents or guardians administered BinaxNOW rapid antigen self-tests twice weekly for three months and changed to symptom and exposure testing or continued surveillance. In-home testing was feasible: nearly all (92.5%) expected tests were conducted. Symptomatic testing identified seven of nine COVID-19 cases. School safety perceptions were higher among those opting for symptom testing. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT04895085. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S9):S878-S882. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306971).

COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions for Children With Medical Complexity.

OBJECTIVES: The chronic conditions and functional limitations experienced by children with medical complexity (CMC) place them at disproportionate risk for COVID-19 transmission and poor outcomes. To promote robust vaccination uptake, specific constructs associated with vaccine hesitancy must be understood. Our objective was to describe demographic, clinical, and vaccine perception variables associated with CMC parents' intention to vaccinate their child against COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey (June-August 2021) for primary caregivers of CMC between ages 5 to 17 at an academic medical center in the Midwest. Multivariable logistic regression examined associations between vaccination intent and selected covariates. RESULTS: Among 1330 families, 65.8% indicated vaccination intent. In multivariable models, demographics had minimal associations with vaccination intent; however, parents of younger children (<12 years) had significantly lower adjusted odds of vaccination intent (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.26 [0.17-0.3]) compared to parents of older children (≥12 years). CMC with higher severity of illness, ie, those with ≥1 hospitalization in the previous year (versus none) or >1 complex chronic condition (vs 1), had higher adjusted odds of vaccination intent (1.82 [1.14-2.92] and 1.77 [1.16-2.71], respectively). Vaccine perceptions associated with vaccine intention included "My doctor told me to get my child a COVID-19 vaccine" (2.82 [1.74-4.55]); and "I'm concerned about my child's side effects from the vaccine" (0.18 [0.12-0.26]). CONCLUSIONS: One-third of CMC families expressed vaccine hesitation; however, constructs strongly associated with vaccination intent are potentially modifiable. Pediatrician endorsement of COVID-19 vaccination and careful counseling on side effects might be promising strategies to encourage uptake.

Caregiver perceptions of in-home COVID-19 testing for children with medical complexity: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In-home direct antigen rapid testing (DART) plays a major role in COVID-19 mitigation and policy. However, perceptions of DART within high-risk, intellectually impaired child populations are unknown. This lack of research could negatively influence DART uptake and utility among those who stand to benefit most from DART. The purpose of this study was to describe caregivers' perceptions of an in-home COVID-19 DART regimen in children with medical complexity, including the benefits and limitations of DART use. METHODS: This qualitative study was a subproject of the NIH Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics Underserved Populations research program at the University of Wisconsin. We combined survey data and the thematic analysis of semi-structured interview data to understand caregivers' perceptions of in-home COVID-19 testing and motivators to perform testing. Caregivers of children with medical complexity were recruited from the Pediatric Complex Care Program at the University of Wisconsin (PCCP). Data were collected between May and August 2021. RESULTS: Among n = 20 caregivers, 16/20 (80%) of their children had neurologic conditions and 12/20 (60%) used home oxygen. Survey data revealed that the largest caregiver motivators to test their child were to get early treatment if positive (18/20 [90%] of respondents agreed) and to let the child's school know if the child was safe to attend (17/20 [85%] agreed). Demotivators to testing included that the child could still get COVID-19 later (7/20 [35%] agreed), and the need for officials to reach out to close contacts (6/20 [30%] agreed). From interview data, four overarching themes described perceptions of in-home COVID-19 testing: Caregivers perceived DART on a spectrum of 1) benign to traumatic and 2) simple to complex. Caregivers varied in the 3) extent to which DART contributed to their peace of mind and 4) implications of test results for their child. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants often described DART as easy to administer and contributing to peace of mind, they also faced critical challenges and limitations using DART. Future research should investigate how to minimize the complexity of DART within high-risk populations, while leveraging DART to facilitate safe school attendance for children with medical complexity and reduce caregiver burden.

A Protocol to Assess Adult Outcomes at 30 Years Following Preterm Birth.

BACKGROUND: Among the most intense adversity experiences for infants is premature birth. Early birth marks the beginning of a life course that broadly affects families, healthcare, education, social systems, and the survivors themselves. For many, the transition to adulthood is challenging and often hampered by cognitive, physical and mental health, and motor and independence difficulties. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to share a comprehensive protocol of a 10th follow-up study of premature infants in their 30s. The protocol accounts for stress during the neonatal period, the cumulative context (risk and protection) of development, biological and epigenetic mechanisms, and individual resilience. METHODS: The prospective, five-group longitudinal design includes 215 term-born and preterm-born individuals with various neonatal morbidities at ages 30-35 years. Adult outcomes include health, adaptive, executive function, work, and social competence. Novel measures are four system indicators of allostatic load (AL) and epigenetics. Contextual measures include socioeconomic risk and individual resilience. All measures were selected based on coherence with constructs of the scientific aims, strong psychometrics, continuity for repeated measures, and minimal subject burden. Objective assessments include body composition imaging, exercise testing, blood and saliva collection, and actigraphy. The two-phase protocol takes approximately 8 hours. DISCUSSION: After an 11-month COVID-19 pause, participant response has been strong. As of May 2022, 75 participants have completed the full protocol, and 99 have consented to participate. When socioeconomic risk is controlled, we hypothesize that life course trajectories in physical and psychological health, adaptive function, and executive function will differ between term and preterm neonatal morbidity groups. AL will vary across groups and contribute to outcomes. We expect proximal protection and resilience to mediate the cumulative medical and socioeconomic risk and AL. Epigenome-wide DNA methylation, with estimates of age acceleration, will be examined across groups and explored in longitudinal associations with medical risk, socioeconomic status, and protection. To our knowledge, this is the only U.S. study of premature infants aged 30-35 years. With millions of preterm-born individuals reaching adulthood, the protocol incorporates molecular and genetic biomarkers in a life course developmental examination to inform the timing and content of interventions.

Priorities for Safer In-Person School for Children With Medical Complexity During COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To establish statewide consensus priorities for safer in-person school for children with medical complexity (CMC) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using a rapid, replicable, and transparent priority-setting method. METHODS: We adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative Method, which allows for crowdsourcing ideas from diverse stakeholders and engages technical experts in prioritizing these ideas using predefined scoring criteria. Crowdsourcing surveys solicited ideas from CMC families, school staff, clinicians and administrators through statewide distribution groups/listservs using the prompt: "It is safe for children with complex health issues and those around them (families, teachers, classmates, etc.) to go to school in-person during the COVID-19 pandemic if/when…" Ideas were aggregated and synthesized into a unique list of candidate priorities. Thirty-four experts then scored each candidate priority against 5 criteria (equity, impact on COVID-19, practicality, sustainability, and cost) using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores were weighted and predefined thresholds applied to identify consensus priorities. RESULTS: From May to June 2021, 460 stakeholders contributed 1166 ideas resulting in 87 candidate priorities. After applying weighted expert scores, 10 consensus CMC-specific priorities exceeded predetermined thresholds. These priorities centered on integrating COVID-19 safety and respiratory action planning into individualized education plans, educating school communities about CMC's unique COVID-19 risks, using medical equipment safely, maintaining curricular flexibility, ensuring masking and vaccination, assigning seats during transportation, and availability of testing and medical staff at school. CONCLUSIONS: Priorities for CMC, identified by statewide stakeholders, complement and extend existing recommendations. These priorities can guide implementation efforts to support safer in-person education for CMC.

Nursing Faculty Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic Response.

AIM: The specific aim of the study was to describe nursing faculty experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: Academic nursing experiences were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is concern that the resulting stress threatens nursing faculty emotional well-being. METHOD: A descriptive, quantitative study was conducted, exploring faculty academic and clinical roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, including perception of institutional support provided; faculty burnout, satisfaction, and well-being; and student support needs and well-being. RESULTS: Analyses were performed on 117 quantitative and 49 qualitative responses. Participants perceived support from academic institutions and increased need to provide emotional support to students. Most reported negative effects on well-being but did not report high levels of burnout. CONCLUSION: Nursing faculty are essential to the profession. Stress responses from the COVID-19 pandemic may not be fully realized. Nursing faculty require proactive and sustained institutional and personal support to provide exceptional ongoing education, build resilience, and support students.