Parents' perspectives on SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations for children: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years has been lower than anticipated in Canada. Although research has explored parental intentions toward SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for children, parental decisions regarding vaccinations have not been studied in-depth. We sought to explore reasons why parents chose to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children against SARS-CoV-2 to better understand their decisions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving in-depth individual interviews with a purposive sample of parents in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada. We conducted interviews via telephone or video call from February to April 2022 and analyzed the data using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 parents. We found that parental attitudes toward SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations for their children represented a complex continuum of concern. We identified 4 cross-cutting themes: the newness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the evidence supporting their use; the perceived politicization of guidance for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; the social pressure surrounding SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations; and the weighing of individual versus collective benefits of vaccination. Parents found making a decision about vaccinating their child challenging and expressed difficulty sourcing and evaluating evidence, determining the trustworthiness of guidance, and balancing their own conceptions of health care decisions with societal expectations and political messaging. INTERPRETATION: Parents' experiences making decisions regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for their children were complex, even for those who were supportive of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. These findings provide some explanation for the current patterns of uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among children in Canada; health care providers and public health authorities can consider these insights when planning future vaccine rollouts.

Changes in Pediatric Movement Behaviors During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Stages of Lockdown in Ontario, Canada: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Children's movement behaviors have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; however, little is known regarding movement behavior patterns over time by government-issued lockdowns. Our primary objective was to evaluate how children's movement behaviors changed by stages of lockdown/reopening in Ontario, Canada, from 2020 to 2021. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study with repeated measures of exposure and outcomes was conducted. The exposure variables were dates from before and during COVID-19 when child movement behavior questionnaires were completed. Lockdown/reopening dates were included as knot locations in the spline model. The outcomes were daily screen, physical activity, outdoor, and sleep time. RESULTS: A total of 589 children with 4805 observations were included (53.1% boys, 5.9 [2.6] y). On average, screen time increased during the first and second lockdowns and decreased during the second reopening. Physical activity and outdoor time increased during the first lockdown, decreased during the first reopening, and increased during the second reopening. Younger children (<5 y) had greater increases in screen time and lower increases in physical activity and outdoor time than older children (≥5 y). CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers should consider the impact of lockdowns on child movement behaviors, especially in younger children.

Priority topics for child and family health research in community-based paediatric health care according to caregivers and health care professionals.

Background: Patient-oriented research (POR) aligns research with stakeholders' priorities to improve health services and outcomes. Community-based health care settings offer an opportunity to engage stakeholders to determine the most important research topics to them. Our objectives were to identify unanswered questions that stakeholders had regarding any aspect of child and family health and prioritize their 'top 10' questions. Methods: We followed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting methodology in partnership with stakeholders from the Northeast Community Health Centre (NECHC; Edmonton, Canada). We partnered with stakeholders (five caregivers, five health care professionals [HCPs]) to create a steering committee. Stakeholders were surveyed in two rounds (n = 125 per survey) to gather and rank-order unanswered questions regarding child and family health. A final priority setting workshop was held to finalize the 'top 10' list. Results: Our initial survey generated 1,265 submissions from 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Out of scope submissions were removed and similar questions were combined to create a master list of questions (n = 389). Only unanswered questions advanced (n = 108) and were rank-ordered through a second survey by 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Stakeholders (n = 12) gathered for the final workshop to discuss and finalize the 'top 10' list. Priority questions included a range of topics, including mental health, screen time, COVID-19, and behaviour. Conclusion: Our stakeholders prioritized diverse questions within our 'top 10' list; questions regarding mental health were the most common. Future patient-oriented research at this site will be guided by priorities that were most important to caregivers and HCPs.

Parent Engagement in a COVID-19 Cohort Study of Children and Families: Successes, Challenges and Next Steps.

This article describes the methods, successes and challenges of engaging parents while studying the impacts of COVID-19 on healthy children and families. Parent partners in a Parent and Clinician Team (PACT) informed study aims, supported feasibility and recommended changes to enhance participation. PACT members stated that they felt a sense of connectedness and purpose by contributing to COVID-19 research. Engagement increased by parents acquiring new roles, attending more frequent meetings and co-creating alternative methods of engagement. Recruiting new PACT members was challenging, likely due to limited time and resources available to parents of young children during a pandemic.

Delay in childhood vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: In many jurisdictions, routine medical care was reduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to determine whether the frequency of on-time routine childhood vaccinations among children age 0-2 years was lower following the COVID-19 declaration of emergency in Ontario, Canada, on March 17, 2020, compared to prior to the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of healthy children aged 0-2 years participating in the TARGet Kids! primary care research network in Toronto, Canada. A logistic mixed effects regression model was used to determine odds ratios (ORs) for delayed vaccination (> 30 days vs. ≤ 30 days from the recommended date) before and after the COVID-19 declaration of emergency, adjusted for confounding variables. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to explore the relationship between the declaration of emergency and time to vaccination. RESULTS: Among 1277 children, the proportion of on-time vaccinations was 81.8% prior to the COVID-19 declaration of emergency and 62.1% after (p < 0.001). The odds of delayed vaccination increased (odds ratio = 3.77, 95% CI: 2.86-4.96), and the hazard of administration of recommended vaccinations decreased after the declaration of emergency (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.60-0.92). The median vaccination delay time was 5 days (95% CI: 4-5 days) prior to the declaration of emergency and 17 days (95% CI: 12-22 days) after. CONCLUSION: The frequency of on-time routine childhood vaccinations was lower during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustained delays in routine vaccinations may lead to an increase in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Dans plusieurs juridictions, les soins médicaux systématiques étaient réduits à cause de la pandémie de COVID-19. L'objectif de cette étude était de déterminer si la fréquence de donner les vaccinations systématiques aux enfants de l'âge de 0 à 2 ans était réduite en conséquence de la déclaration d'urgence de COVID-19 en Ontario, Canada dès le 17 mars 2020, comparer avec la fréquence avant la pandémie. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une étude de cohorte longitudinale des enfants en bonne santé âgés de 0 à 2 ans qui participent dans le réseau de recherche en soins primaires TARGet Kids! à Toronto, Canada. Un modèle de régression logistique à effets mixtes était utilisé pour déterminer le rapport de cotes (RC) pour les vaccinations retardées (> 30 jours c. ≤ 30 jours de la date recommandée) et était équilibré pour les variables confondantes. Le modèle à risques proportionnels de Cox était utilisé pour examiner le lien entre la déclaration d'urgence et le temps jusqu'à la vaccination. RéSULTATS: Parmi 1 277 enfants, la proportion de vaccination à l'heure était 81,8 % avant la déclaration d'urgence de COVID-19 et 62,1 % après (p < 0,001). La possibilité de vaccination retardée était augmentée (RC = 3,77; IC95% : 2,86­4,96), et le taux d'administration recommandé pour les vaccinations était réduit après la déclaration d'urgence (ratio de hasard = 0,75; IC95% : 0,60­0,92). Le médian temps de retard pour les vaccinations était 5 jours (IC95% : 4­5 jours) avant la déclaration d'urgence et 17 jours (IC95% : 12­22 jours) après. CONCLUSION: La fréquence de vaccinations systématiques aux enfants à l'heure était inférieure pendant la première vague de la pandémie COVID-19. Des retards soutenus pour recevoir les vaccinations systématiques peuvent entrainer une augmentation des taux de maladies évitables par la vaccination.

Delay in childhood vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives In many jurisdictions, routine medical care was reduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to determine whether the frequency of on-time routine childhood vaccinations among children age 0–2 years was lower following the COVID-19 declaration of emergency in Ontario, Canada, on March 17, 2020, compared to prior to the pandemic. Methods We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of healthy children aged 0–2 years participating in the TARGet Kids! primary care research network in Toronto, Canada. A logistic mixed effects regression model was used to determine odds ratios (ORs) for delayed vaccination (> 30 days vs. ≤ 30 days from the recommended date) before and after the COVID-19 declaration of emergency, adjusted for confounding variables. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to explore the relationship between the declaration of emergency and time to vaccination. Results Among 1277 children, the proportion of on-time vaccinations was 81.8% prior to the COVID-19 declaration of emergency and 62.1% after (p < 0.001). The odds of delayed vaccination increased (odds ratio = 3.77, 95% CI: 2.86–4.96), and the hazard of administration of recommended vaccinations decreased after the declaration of emergency (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.60–0.92). The median vaccination delay time was 5 days (95% CI: 4–5 days) prior to the declaration of emergency and 17 days (95% CI: 12–22 days) after. Conclusion The frequency of on-time routine childhood vaccinations was lower during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustained delays in routine vaccinations may lead to an increase in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.17269/s41997-021-00601-9.

Screen Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Canadian Children and Youth During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Longitudinal research on specific forms of electronic screen use and mental health symptoms in children and youth during COVID-19 is minimal. Understanding the association may help develop policies and interventions targeting specific screen activities to promote healthful screen use and mental health in children and youth. Objective: To determine whether specific forms of screen use (television [TV] or digital media, video games, electronic learning, and video-chatting time) were associated with symptoms of depression, anxiety, conduct problems, irritability, hyperactivity, and inattention in children and youth during COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: A longitudinal cohort study with repeated measures of exposures and outcomes was conducted in children and youth aged 2 to 18 years in Ontario, Canada, between May 2020 and April 2021 across 4 cohorts of children or youth: 2 community cohorts and 2 clinically referred cohorts. Parents were asked to complete repeated questionnaires about their children's health behaviors and mental health symptoms during COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The exposure variables were children's daily TV or digital media time, video game time, electronic-learning time, and video-chatting time. The mental health outcomes were parent-reported symptoms of child depression, anxiety, conduct problems and irritability, and hyperactivity/inattention using validated standardized tools. Results: This study included 2026 children with 6648 observations. In younger children (mean [SD] age, 5.9 [2.5] years; 275 male participants [51.7%]), higher TV or digital media time was associated with higher levels of conduct problems (age 2-4 years: ß, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.10-0.35]; P < .001; age ≥4 years: ß, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02-0.11]; P = .007) and hyperactivity/inattention (ß, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.006-0.14]; P = .04). In older children and youth (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [3.3] years; 844 male participants [56.5%]), higher levels of TV or digital media time were associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety, and inattention; higher levels of video game time were associated with higher levels of depression, irritability, inattention, and hyperactivity. Higher levels of electronic learning time were associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, higher levels of screen use were associated poor mental health of children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest that policy intervention as well as evidence-informed social supports are needed to promote healthful screen use and mental health in children and youth during the pandemic and beyond.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.

Public health preventive measures and child health behaviours during COVID-19: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to determine the association between public health preventive measures and children's outdoor time, sleep duration, and screen time during COVID-19. METHODS: A cohort study using repeated measures of exposures and outcomes was conducted in healthy children (0 to 10 years) through The Applied Research Group for Kids (TARGet Kids!) COVID-19 Study of Children and Families in Toronto, Canada, between April 14 and July 15, 2020. Parents were asked to complete questionnaires about adherence to public health measures and children's health behaviours. The primary exposure was the average number of days that children practiced public health preventive measures per week. The three outcomes were children's outdoor time, total screen time, and sleep duration during COVID-19. Linear mixed-effects models were fitted using repeated measures of primary exposure and outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 554 observations from 265 children. The mean age of participants was 5.5 years, 47.5% were female and 71.6% had mothers of European ethnicity. Public health preventive measures were associated with shorter outdoor time (-17.2; 95% CI -22.07, -12.40; p < 0.001) and longer total screen time (11.3; 95% CI 3.88, 18.79; p = 0.003) during COVID-19. The association with outdoor time was stronger in younger children (<5 years), and the associations with total screen time were stronger in females and in older children (≥5 years). CONCLUSION: Public health preventive measures during COVID-19 were associated with a negative impact on the health behaviours of Canadian children living in a large metropolitan area.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'objectif principal était de déterminer la relation entre les mesures préventives de la santé publique et le temps passé en plein air, la durée du sommeil ainsi que le temps passé devant l'écran par les enfants pendant COVID-19. MéTHODES: Une étude de cohorte utilisant des mesures répétées des expositions et des effets a été menée chez des enfants en bonne santé (0 à 10 ans) par l'entremise de l'Étude COVID-19 sur les Enfants et Familles du Groupe de Recherche Appliquée pour les Enfants (TARGet Kids!) à Toronto, au Canada, entre le 14 avril et le 15 juillet 2020. Les parents ont été invités à remplir des questionnaires sur adhésion aux mesures préventives de la santé publique et les comportements de santé des enfants. La principale exposition était le nombre moyen de jours par semaine durant lesquels les enfants pratiquaient des mesures préventives de la santé publique. Les trois effets étaient le temps passé en plein air par les enfants, le temps total passé devant l'écran et la durée du sommeil pendant le COVID-19. Des modèles linéaires à effets mixtes ont été ajustés en utilisant des mesures répétées d'exposition primaire et des effets. RéSULTATS: Cette étude comprend 554 observations sur 265 enfants. L'âge moyen des participants était de 5,5 ans, 47,5 % étaient des femmes et 71,6 % avaient des mères d'origine européenne. Les mesures préventives de la santé publique ont été associées à un temps passé en plein air plus court (-17,2 ; IC 95% -22,07, -12,40; p < 0,001) et à un temps total devant l'écran plus long (11,3 ; IC 95% 3,88, 18,79; p = 0,003) pendant la COVID-19. La relation avec le temps passé en plein air était plus importante chez les jeunes enfants (<5 ans), et les relations avec le temps total passé devant l'écran étaient plus importantes chez les enfants de sexe féminin et les enfants plus âgés (≥5 ans). CONCLUSION: Les mesures préventives de la santé publique prises lors de COVID-19 ont été associées à un impact négatif sur les comportements de santé des enfants canadiens vivant dans une grande région métropolitaine.

The social determinants of health as predictors of adherence to public health preventive measures among parents and young children during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether social determinants of health (SDOH) are predictive of adherence to public health preventive measures and to describe changes in adherence over time among parents and children. METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted in children aged 0-10 years and their parents through the TARGet Kids! COVID-19 Study in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada (April-July 2020). This study included 335 parents (2108 observations) and 416 children (2632 observations). Parents completed weekly questionnaires on health, family functioning, socio-demographics, and public health practices. The outcome was adherence to public health preventive measures measured separately for parents and children. Marginal log-binomial models were fitted using repeated measures of the outcome and predictors. RESULTS: Unemployment (RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.97), apartment living (RR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.99), and essential worker in the household (RR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55, 1.00) were associated with decreased likelihood of adherence among parents; however, no associations were observed for other SDOH, including family income and ethnicity. Furthermore, there was no strong evidence that SDOH were associated with child adherence. The mean number of days/week that parents and children adhered at the start of the study was 6.45 (SD = 0.93) and 6.59 (SD = 0.86), respectively, and this decreased to 5.80 (SD = 1.12) and 5.84 (SD = 1.23) by study end. Children consistently had greater adherence than parents. CONCLUSION: SDOH were predictive of adherence to public health preventive measures among parents but less so in children among our sample of relatively affluent urban families. Adherence was high among parents and children but decreased over time. Equitable approaches to support the implementation of public health guidelines may improve adherence.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Voir si les déterminants sociaux de la santé (DSS) sont des prédicteurs de conformité aux mesures de prévention sanitaire et décrire l'évolution de la conformité des parents et des enfants au fil du temps. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude longitudinale auprès d'enfants de 0 à 10 ans et de leurs parents dans le cadre de l'étude sur la COVID-19 menée par le groupe de recherche TARGet Kids! dans la région du Grand Toronto, au Canada (avril à juillet 2020). L'étude incluait 335 parents (2 108 observations) et 416 enfants (2 632 observations). Les parents ont rempli un questionnaire hebdomadaire sur la santé, le fonctionnement familial, le profil sociodémographique et les pratiques sanitaires. Le résultat était la conformité aux mesures de prévention sanitaire, mesurée séparément pour les parents et les enfants. Des modèles log-binomiaux marginaux ont été ajustés à l'aide de mesures répétées du résultat et des prédicteurs. RéSULTATS: Le chômage (RR 0,67, IC de 95 % : 0,47, 0,97), la vie en appartement (RR 0,72, IC de 95 % : 0,53, 0,99) et la présence d'un travailleur essentiel dans le ménage (RR 0,74, IC de 95 % : 0,55, 1,00) étaient associés à une probabilité réduite de conformité chez les parents; par contre, aucune association n'a été observée pour les autres DSS, dont le revenu familial et l'ethnicité. Il n'y avait pas non plus d'indications convaincantes d'une association entre les DSS et la conformité chez les enfants. Le nombre moyen de jours/semaine où parents et enfants s'étaient conformés aux mesures de prévention sanitaire au début de l'étude était de 6,45 (S = 0,93) et de 6,59 (S = 0,86), respectivement; ce nombre a diminué pour atteindre 5,80 (S = 1,12) et 5,84 (S = 1,23) à la fin de l'étude. La conformité des enfants était uniformément supérieure à celle des parents. CONCLUSION: Dans notre échantillon de familles urbaines relativement aisées, les DSS étaient des prédicteurs de conformité aux mesures de prévention sanitaire chez les parents, mais dans une moindre mesure chez les enfants. La conformité était élevée chez les parents comme chez les enfants, mais elle a diminué avec le temps. Des stratégies équitables d'appui à l'application des directives sanitaires pourraient améliorer le respect de ces directives.

Mostly worse, occasionally better: impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of Canadian children and adolescents.

This large cross-sectional study examined the impact of COVID-19 emergency measures on child/adolescent mental health for children/adolescents with and without pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses. Using adapted measures from the CRISIS questionnaire, parents of children aged 6-18 (N = 1013; 56% male; 62% pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis) and self-reporting children/adolescents aged 10-18 (N = 385) indicated changes in mental health across six domains: depression, anxiety, irritability, attention, hyperactivity, and obsessions/compulsions. Changes in anxiety, irritability, and hyperactivity were calculated for children aged 2-5 years using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. COVID-19 exposure, compliance with emergency measures, COVID-19 economic concerns, and stress from social isolation were measured with the CRISIS questionnaire. Prevalence of change in mental health status was estimated for each domain; multinomial logistic regression was used to determine variables associated with mental health status change in each domain. Depending on the age group, 67-70% of children/adolescents experienced deterioration in at least one mental health domain; however, 19-31% of children/adolescents experienced improvement in at least one domain. Children/adolescents without and with psychiatric diagnoses tended to experience deterioration during the first wave of COVID-19. Rates of deterioration were higher in those with a pre-exiting diagnosis. The rate of deterioration was variable across different age groups and pre-existing psychiatric diagnostic groups: depression 37-56%, anxiety 31-50%, irritability 40-66%, attention 40-56%, hyperactivity 23-56%, obsessions/compulsions 13-30%. Greater stress from social isolation was associated with deterioration in all mental health domains (all ORs 11.12-55.24). The impact of pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis was heterogenous, associated with deterioration in depression, irritability, hyperactivity, obsession/compulsions for some children (ORs 1.96-2.23) but also with improvement in depression, anxiety, and irritability for other children (ORs 2.13-3.12). Economic concerns were associated with improvement in anxiety, attention, and obsessions/compulsions (ORs 3.97-5.57). Children/adolescents with and without pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses reported deterioration. Deterioration was associated with increased stress from social isolation. Enhancing social interactions for children/adolescents will be an important mitigation strategy for current and future COVID-19 waves.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). FINDINGS: We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). INTERPRETATION: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. FUNDING: None.

Family perspectives of COVID-19 research.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has uniquely affected children and families by disrupting routines, changing relationships and roles, and altering usual child care, school and recreational activities. Understanding the way families experience these changes from parents' perspectives may help to guide research on the effects of COVID-19 among children. MAIN BODY: As a multidisciplinary team of child health researchers, we assembled a group of nine parents to identify concerns, raise questions, and voice perspectives to inform COVID-19 research for children and families. Parents provided a range of insightful perspectives, ideas for research questions, and reflections on their experiences during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Including parents as partners in early stages of COVID-19 research helped determine priorities, led to more feasible data collection methods, and hopefully has improved the relevance, applicability and value of research findings to parents and children.