“An Oasis in the Sahara”: Humanizing Professional Learning during the Pandemic and Beyond

The article highlights the humanizing professional learning community (HPLC) for practicing educators in an urban school district during the COVID-19 pandemic. It discusses various elements including professional development, learning, practices of teaching as an Interpretive process, and the framework of Humanizing Professional Learning Communities (HPLCs).

Who is accessing community lateral flow device testing and why? Characteristics and motivations of individuals participating in COVID-19 community testing in two English local authority areas.

BACKGROUND: Antigen testing using lateral flow devices (LFDs) plays an important role in the management of the novel coronavirus pandemic of 2019 (COVID-19) by rapidly identifying individuals who are asymptomatically carrying high levels of the virus. By January 2021, LFD community testing sites were set up across English local authority areas to support the management and containment of regional COVID-19 cases, initially targeting essential workers unable to work from home during the national lockdown. This study aimed to examine the characteristics and motivations of individuals accessing community LFD testing across two local authority areas (LAAs) in the South West of England. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a service evaluation from December 22nd 2020 until March 15th 2021 for two LAAs. Demographic and postcode data were collected from an online test appointment booking platform and the National Health Service testing service online system, with data accessed from Public Health England. An online survey was sent to individuals who made a testing appointment at an LAA1 site using the online booking platform, consisting of 12 questions to collect data on individual's motivations for and experiences of testing. RESULTS: Data were available for individuals who completed 12,516 tests in LAA1 and 12,327 tests in LAA2. Most individuals who engaged with testing were female, working age, white, and worked as early years or education staff, health and social care staff, and supermarket or food production staff. 1249 individuals completed the survey with 60% of respondents reported getting tested for work-related reasons. Individuals first heard about LFD testing through various channels including work, media, and word of mouth, and decided to get tested based on the ease and convenience of testing, workplace communications, and to identify asymptomatic cases to help stop the spread. Most tests were completed by individuals living in less deprived areas based on national deciles of deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: While national and local COVID-19 testing strategies have evolved, community and personal LFD testing remains a crucial pillar of the testing strategy. Future studies should collect quantitative and qualitative data from residents to most effectively shape testing offers based on the needs and preferences of their population.

School-Age Children's Wellbeing and School-Related Needs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic and related school closures may have disrupted school-related supports and services important to children's wellbeing. However, we lack national data about US children's wellbeing and family priorities for school-related services. We sought to determine 1) children's social-emotional wellbeing and 2) needs and priorities for school-based services in the 2021-2022 school year among a US sample of parents of school-aged children. METHODS: In June 2021, we surveyed 1504 parents of children enrolling in grades K-12 in the 2021-2022 school year participating in the Understanding America Study, a nationally representative probability-based Internet panel of families completing regular internet-based surveys (Response rate to this survey was 79.2%). Parents completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and reported their needs for school-related services regarding "support getting healthcare", "mental wellness support", "food, housing, legal or transportation support", and "learning supports and enrichment." Weighted regressions examined associations among wellbeing, needs, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Approximately one-quarter of children had deficits in hyperactivity (26.1%), one-third in peer problems (32.6%), and 40% in prosocial areas. Most parents (83.5%) reported a school-related need, with 77% reporting learning supports and enrichment needs and 57% reporting mental wellness needs. The highest priority needs were for tutoring, socialization, increased instructional time, coping with stress, and physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: US school children have high social-emotional and school-related needs. Investments in schools are urgently needed, particularly for learning supports and mental wellness, to meet the high demand for services and parents' priorities to support child health and wellbeing.

Influence of Perceived Adolescent Vaccination Desire on Parent Decision for Adolescent COVID-19 Vaccination.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of adolescents' desire for COVID-19 vaccination on their parents' vaccination decision for their adolescent. METHODS: We surveyed an internet-based panel of 1,051 parents of 1,519 adolescents aged 11-18 years from February to March 2021 about their adolescent's desire for COVID-19 vaccination and whether they consider this desire in their vaccination decision for the adolescent. We used multivariable Poisson regression to assess associations with parent-stated likelihood of adolescent vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 58.3% of parents reported that they and their adolescents had the same vaccination desire; similarly, 58.3% considered their adolescent's desire in their vaccination decision. These latter parents were more likely to vaccinate their adolescent than parents who did not consider their adolescent's desire (adjusted risk ratio = 1.25 [95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.50]). DISCUSSION: Most parents considered their adolescent's desire for COVID-19 vaccination. These parents were more likely to state that they will have their adolescent receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

Local authority research systems: a qualitative study to inform the development of a South Gloucestershire Council-wide research system

Background The co-location of expertise in public health, social care, and place services in local authorities facilitates tackling the wider determinants of health using transdisciplinary approaches. Local authority research systems are needed to enable local authorities to become research active, co-produce research, evaluate their impact, and produce and use evidence to shape practice and policy at pace. We aimed to explore and recommend what is necessary for a South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) research system to sustainably produce impactful research activity. Methods We did qualitative interviews with elected members and senior leadership of SGC and key stakeholders from local National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) infrastructure and organisations identified by expert sampling. Interviews were semi-structured with tailored topic guides exploring several topics, including relationships between SGC and local partners, resource and support, co-production, social care research, and the impact of COVID-19. Data from interviews were electronically transcribed verbatim using Otter.ai and coded using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Data were analysed using the framework method and recommendations were proposed based on the findings. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Bristol's Faculty of Health Science Research Ethics Committee. Findings We interviewed 27 participants (five from SGC, 22 from local research organisations). Participants identified a need for a SGC research lead to facilitate collaboration and relationship building, and more joint posts across the local authority and external organisations. There was a need for collaborative cross-boundary working, as SGC works with other local authorities in their Sustainability and Transformation Partnership and Clinical Commissioning Group. Challenges included difficulties identifying SGC's priorities and population needs, data, staff training, and collaboration with academic researchers. They also reported resource issues exacerbated by COVID-19. Participants did not express conflicting views on these findings. Interpretation We recommended the creation of a local authority research lead post working across Council directorates, local authority research networks, support for joint posts, increased accessibility and use of local authority data, cross-boundary research systems, and infrastructure to support research to respond to local authority needs. We also suggested increased funding and incentivisation for academics to engage with local authority research. Potential barriers to these recommendations include local authority funding and staff capacity challenges. This study was limited by its recruitment method, sample size, and data collection and analyses completed by a single researcher. Future research should explore what types of evidence local authorities consider most relevant and useful. Funding NIHR Public Health Research (grant number NIHR131952).

COVID-19 vaccines and mental distress.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought about large increases in mental distress. The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is expected to significantly reduce health risks, improve economic and social outcomes, with potential benefits to mental health. PURPOSE: To examine short-term changes in mental distress following the receipt of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Participants included 8,003 adults from the address-based sampled, nationally representative Understanding America Study (UAS), surveyed at regular intervals between March 10, 2020, and March 31, 2021 who completed at least two waves of the survey. Respondents answered questions about COVID-19 vaccine status and self-reported mental distress as measured with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4). Fixed-effects regression models were used to identify the change in PHQ-4 scores and categorical indicators of mental distress resulting from the application of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: People who were vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 reported decreased mental distress levels in the surveys conducted after receiving the first dose. The fixed-effects estimates show an average effect of receiving the vaccine equivalent to 4% of the standard deviation of PHQ-4 scores (p-value<0.01), a reduction in 1 percentage point (4% reduction from the baseline level) in the probability of being at least mildly depressed, and of 0.7 percentage points (15% reduction from the baseline level) in the probability of being severely depressed (p-value = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Getting the first dose of COVID-19 resulted in significant improvements in mental health, beyond improvements already achieved since mental distress peaked in the spring of 2020.

Parents' Intentions and Perceptions About COVID-19 Vaccination for Their Children: Results From a National Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the degree to which US parents are likely to have their children get coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and identify parental concerns about the vaccines. METHODS: In February 2021 to March 2021, we surveyed parent members of a nationally representative probability-based Internet panel of ∼9000 adults regarding their intent to have their children receive a COVID-19 vaccination, perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines for children, and trust in sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines for children. We used descriptive and multivariate analyses to evaluate parent-stated likelihood of having their children get a COVID-19 vaccine and to assess the association between likelihood of child COVID-19 vaccination and child age, parent demographics, and parental perceptions about COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: Altogether, 1745 parents responded (87% of eligible parents, 3759 children). Likelihood of child COVID-19 vaccination was as follows: very likely (28%), somewhat likely (18%), somewhat unlikely (9%), very unlikely (33%), and unsure (12%). The stated likelihood of child vaccination was greater among parents of older children (P < .001) as well as among parents who had a bachelor's degree or higher education (P < .001), had already received or were likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (P < .001), or had Democratic affiliation (P < .001); variations existed by race and ethnicity (P = .04). Parental concerns centered around vaccine safety and side effects. A key trusted source of information about COVID-19 vaccines for children was the child's doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-half of US participants report that they are likely to have their child receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Pediatric health care providers have a major role in promoting and giving COVID-19 vaccination for children.

The role of trust in the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine: Results from a national survey.

High acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is instrumental to ending the pandemic. Vaccine acceptance by subgroups of the population depends on their trust in COVID-19 vaccines. We surveyed a probability-based internet panel of 7832 adults from December 23, 2020-January 19, 2021 about their likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine and the following domains of trust: an individual's generalized trust, trust in COVID-19 vaccine's efficacy and safety, trust in the governmental approval process and general vaccine development process for COVID-19 vaccines, trust in their physician about COVID-19, and trust in other sources about COVID-19. We included identified at-risk subgroups: healthcare workers, older adults (65-74-year-olds and ≥ 75-year-olds), frontline essential workers, other essential workers, and individuals with high-risk chronic conditions. Of 5979 respondents, only 57.4% said they were very likely or somewhat likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine. More hesitant respondents (p < 0.05) included: women, young adults (18-49 years), Blacks, individuals with lower education, those with lower income, and individuals without high-risk chronic conditions. Lack of trust in the vaccine approval and development processes explained most of the demographic variation in stated vaccination likelihood, while other domains of trust explained less variation. We conclude that hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccines is high overall and among at-risk subgroups, and hesitancy is strongly tied to trust in the vaccine approval and development processes. Building trust is critical to ending the pandemic.

Likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination by subgroups across the US: post-election trends and disparities.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately impacted older individuals, those with lower educational attainment, and Black and Hispanic populations, yet vaccine hesitancy remains prevalent. Because widespread uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is critical to end the pandemic, addressing vaccine hesitancy is an important public health priority. Between April 1, 2020 and March 16, 2021, we have repeatedly surveyed a nationally representative online panel of adults and have tracked their stated likelihood of getting COVID-19 vaccinations. We present new evidence that in recent months disparities in self-reported likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination have narrowed by race/ethnicity, with an increasing proportion of Black individuals and Hispanic individuals indicating that they are likely to get a vaccine. At the same time, younger adults have progressively become less likely than older adults to state they will get a COVID-19 vaccine. Most vaccine-hesitant individuals are concerned about both vaccine efficacy and safety and do not trust the vaccine development or vaccine approval process. We conclude that outreach efforts to minority populations may be achieving their objectives in raising confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, but special outreach efforts are needed to address both vaccine hesitancy among younger adults and mistrust in the vaccine development and approval process.

Perceived Discrimination and Mental Distress Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From the Understanding America Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines COVID-19-associated discrimination regardless of infection status. It evaluates the contribution of various risk factors (e.g., race/ethnicity and wearing a face mask) and the relationship with mental distress among U.S. adults in March and April 2020, when the pandemic escalated across the country. METHODS: Participants consisted of a probability-based, nationally representative sample of U.S. residents aged ≥18 years who completed COVID-19-related surveys online in March and April (n=3,665). Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict the probability of a person perceiving COVID-19-associated discrimination. Linear regression was used to analyze the association between discrimination and mental distress. Analyses were conducted in May 2020. RESULTS: Perception of COVID-19-associated discrimination increased from March (4%) to April (10%). Non-Hispanic Black (absolute risk from 0.09 to 0.15 across months) and Asians (absolute risk from 0.11 to 0.17) were more likely to perceive discrimination than other racial/ethnic groups (absolute risk from 0.03 to 0.11). Individuals who wore face masks (absolute risk from 0.11 to 0.14) also perceived more discrimination than those who did not (absolute risk from 0.04 to 0.11). Perceiving discrimination was subsequently associated with increased mental distress (from 0.77 to 1.01 points on the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire score). CONCLUSIONS: Perception of COVID-19-associated discrimination was relatively low but increased with time. Perceived discrimination was associated with race/ethnicity and wearing face masks and may contribute to greater mental distress during early stages of the pandemic. The long-term implications of this novel form of discrimination should be monitored.