Changes in behavior and quality of life in German young children during the COVID-19 pandemic-results from the COVID kids bavaria study.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic with its containment measures such as closures of schools and daycare facilities led to numerous restrictions in daily life, putting developmental opportunities and health-related quality of life in children at risk. However, studies show that not every family was impacted equally by the pandemic and that this exceptional health and societal situation reinforced pre-existing health inequalities among the vulnerable. Our study aimed at analyzing changes in behavior and health-related quality of life of children attending elementary schools and daycare facilities in Bavaria, Germany in spring 2021. We also sought to identify associated factors contributing to inequalities in quality of life. Methods: Data from a multi-center, open cohort study ("COVID Kids Bavaria") conducted in 101 childcare facilities and 69 elementary schools across all electoral districts of Bavaria were analyzed. Children attending these educational settings (aged 3-10 years) were eligible for participation in a survey on changes in behavior and health-related quality of life. The KINDLR questionnaire (based on children's self-report and parental report) was administered about one year after the onset of the pandemic (spring 2021). Descriptive and logistic regression analyses and comparisons to pre-pandemic KiGGS (German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents) data were undertaken. Results: Among respondents, a high percentage of parents reported changes in their children's eating and sleeping behavior, sports and outdoor activities as well as altered screen time. Health-related quality of life in KINDLR analyses compared to pre-pandemic population averages were lower in all age groups (for 3-6-year-old KINDLR-total score: COVID Kids Bavaria MD 74.78 ± 10.57 vs KiGGS data 80.0 ± 8.1; 7-10 years-old KINDLR-total score: COVID Kids Bavaria MD 73.88 ± 12.03 vs KiGGS data 79.30 ± 9.0). No significant differences were detected with regard to associated factors, namely type of institution, sex of the child, migration background, household size and parental education. Conclusion: These findings suggest a relevant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children's behavior and health-related quality of life one year after the onset of the pandemic. Further analyses in large-scale longitudinal studies are needed to determine the effects of specific pandemic or crisis associated factors contributing to health inequalities.

Rapid development of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools during a public health emergency - A process evaluation.

Introduction: Different measures to prevent and control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 have been implemented in German schools. Decisions regarding such measures should be informed by evidence regarding their effectiveness, and their unintended consequences for health and society. A multi-stakeholder panel was convened to develop an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for school measures, using the novel WHO-INTEGRATE framework. Developing a guideline to inform decision-making outside of the clinical realm during a public health emergency was unprecedented in Germany. This study aims to identify lessons learnt for similar endeavours by addressing the following research question: What were the strengths and weaknesses of the guideline development process as perceived by the different groups involved? Methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually. We recruited participants aiming to include the perspectives of all groups contributing to the guideline development, including both panel members (scientists, practitioners, school family and observers) and the guideline secretariat. For analysis, we carried out deductive-inductive thematic qualitative text analysis according to Kuckartz, structuring findings using a category system. Results: Due to time pressure, the guideline secretariat was heavily involved not only in synthesising the evidence but also in developing and drafting recommendations. Participants critically reflected on certain methods-related decisions, including the development of draft recommendations and application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework by scientists only. The full potential of the framework might not have been harnessed. Participants' understanding of relevant and valid evidence varied, and the available evidence base was limited. Participants represented different types of expertise, notably expertise informed by scientific evidence and expertise grounded in lived experience, influencing their involvement in the guideline development process and discussions during meetings. Conclusion: Developing an evidence- and consensus-based public health guideline in only three months was challenging, notably because of the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders and the use of a novel Evidence-to-Decision framework, both unprecedented in Germany. Learning from this process with a view to "institutionalising" the development of public health guidelines and refining methods can contribute to more evidence-informed public health decision-making in Germany and beyond, in general and during a public health emergency.

Public health and social measures during health emergencies such as the COVID‐19 pandemic: An initial framework to conceptualize and classify measures

Background Public health and social measures (PHSM) intend to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases and to reduce the burden on health systems, economies and societies. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, PHSM have been selected, combined and implemented in a variable manner and inconsistently categorized in policy trackers. This paper presents an initial conceptual framework depicting how PHSM operate in a complex system, enabling a wide‐reaching description of these measures and their intended and unintended outcomes. Methods In a multi‐stage development process, we combined (i) a complexity perspective and systems thinking;(ii) literature on existing COVID‐19 PHSM frameworks, taxonomies and policy trackers;(iii) expert input and (iv) application to school and international travel measures. Results The initial framework reflects our current understanding of how PHSM are intended to achieve transmission‐related outcomes in a complex system, offering visualizations, definitions and worked examples. First, PHSM operate through two basic mechanisms, that is, reducing contacts and/or making contacts safer. Second, PHSM are defined not only by the measures themselves but by their stringency and application to specific populations and settings. Third, PHSM are critically influenced by contextual factors. The framework provides a tool for structured thinking and further development, rather than a ready‐to‐use tool for practice. Conclusions This conceptual framework seeks to facilitate coordinated, interdisciplinary research on PHSM effectiveness, impact and implementation;enable consistent, coherent PHSM monitoring and evaluation;and contribute to evidence‐informed decision‐making on PHSM implementation, adaptation and de‐implementation. We expect this framework to be modified and refined over time.

Public health and social measures during health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic: An initial framework to conceptualize and classify measures.

Background: Public health and social measures (PHSM) intend to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases and to reduce the burden on health systems, economies and societies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, PHSM have been selected, combined and implemented in a variable manner and inconsistently categorized in policy trackers. This paper presents an initial conceptual framework depicting how PHSM operate in a complex system, enabling a wide-reaching description of these measures and their intended and unintended outcomes. Methods: In a multi-stage development process, we combined (i) a complexity perspective and systems thinking; (ii) literature on existing COVID-19 PHSM frameworks, taxonomies and policy trackers; (iii) expert input and (iv) application to school and international travel measures. Results: The initial framework reflects our current understanding of how PHSM are intended to achieve transmission-related outcomes in a complex system, offering visualizations, definitions and worked examples. First, PHSM operate through two basic mechanisms, that is, reducing contacts and/or making contacts safer. Second, PHSM are defined not only by the measures themselves but by their stringency and application to specific populations and settings. Third, PHSM are critically influenced by contextual factors. The framework provides a tool for structured thinking and further development, rather than a ready-to-use tool for practice. Conclusions: This conceptual framework seeks to facilitate coordinated, interdisciplinary research on PHSM effectiveness, impact and implementation; enable consistent, coherent PHSM monitoring and evaluation; and contribute to evidence-informed decision-making on PHSM implementation, adaptation and de-implementation. We expect this framework to be modified and refined over time.

Lessons learnt: Undertaking rapid reviews on public health and social measures during a global pandemic.

Public health and social measures (PHSM) have been central to the COVID-19 response. Consequently, there has been much pressure on decision-makers to make evidence-informed decisions and on researchers to synthesize the evidence regarding these measures. This article describes our experiences, responses and lessons learnt regarding key challenges when planning and conducting rapid reviews of PHSM during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholder consultations and scoping reviews to obtain an overview of the evidence inform the scope of reviews that are policy-relevant and feasible. Multiple complementary reviews serve to examine the benefits and harms of PHSM across different populations and contexts. Conceiving reviews of effectiveness as adaptable living reviews helps to respond to evolving evidence needs and an expanding evidence base. An appropriately skilled review team and good planning, coordination and communication ensures smooth and rigorous processes and efficient use of resources. Scientific rigor, the practical implications of PHSM-related complexity and likely time savings should be carefully weighed in deciding on methodological shortcuts. Making the best possible use of modeling studies represents a particular challenge, and methods should be carefully chosen, piloted and implemented. Our experience raises questions regarding the nature of rapid reviews and regarding how different types of evidence should be considered in making decisions about PHSM during a global pandemic. We highlight the need for readily available protocols for conducting studies on the effectiveness, unintended consequences and implementation of PHSM in a timely manner, as well as the need for rapid review standards tailored to "rapid" versus "emergency" mode reviewing.

Unintended health and societal consequences of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: International travel measures to contain the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represent a relatively intrusive form of non-pharmaceutical intervention. To inform decision-making on the (re)implementation, adaptation, relaxation or suspension of such measures, it is essential to not only assess their effectiveness but also their unintended effects. METHODS: This scoping review maps existing empirical studies on the unintended consequences, both predicted and unforeseen, and beneficial or harmful, of international travel measures. We searched multiple health, non-health and COVID-19-specific databases. The evidence was charted in a map in relation to the study design, intervention and outcome categories identified and discussed narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met our inclusion criteria-nine quasi-experimental, two observational, two mathematical modelling, six qualitative and four mixed-methods studies. Studies addressed different population groups across various countries worldwide. Seven studies provided information on unintended consequences of the closure of national borders, six looked at international travel restrictions and three investigated mandatory quarantine of international travellers. No studies looked at entry and/or exit screening at national borders exclusively, however six studies considered this intervention in combination with other international travel measures. In total, 11 studies assessed various combinations of the aforementioned interventions. The outcomes were mostly referred to by the authors as harmful. Fifteen studies identified a variety of economic consequences, six reported on aspects related to quality of life, well-being, and mental health and five on social consequences. One study each provided information on equity, equality, and the fair distribution of benefits and burdens, environmental consequences and health system consequences. CONCLUSION: This scoping review represents the first step towards a systematic assessment of the unintended benefits and harms of international travel measures during COVID-19. The key research gaps identified might be filled with targeted primary research, as well as the additional consideration of gray literature and non-empirical studies.