Impact of COVID-19 on outpatient appointments in children and young people in England: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient appointments for children and young people. SETTING: All National Health Service (public) hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: All people in England aged <25 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outpatient department attendance numbers, rates and modes (face to face vs telephone) by age group, sex and socioeconomic deprivation. RESULTS: Compared with the average for January 2017 to December 2019, there was a 3.8 million appointment shortfall (23.5%) for the under-25 population in England between March 2020 and February 2021, despite a total rise in phone appointments of 2.6 million during that time. This was true for each age group, sex and deprivation fifth, but there were smaller decreases in face to face and total appointments for babies under 1 year. For all ages combined, around one in six first and one in four follow-up appointments were by phone in the most recent period. The proportion of appointments attended was high, at over 95% for telephone and over 90% for face-to-face appointments for all ages. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 led to a dramatic fall in total outpatient appointments and a large rise in the proportion of those appointments conducted by telephone. The impact that this has had on patient outcomes is still unknown. The differential impact of COVID-19 on outpatient activity in different sociodemographic groups may also inform design of paediatric outpatient services in the post-COVID period.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of universal school-based mindfulness training compared with normal school provision in reducing risk of mental health problems and promoting well-being in adolescence: the MYRIAD cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest school-based mindfulness training (SBMT) shows promise in promoting student mental health. OBJECTIVE: The My Resilience in Adolescence (MYRIAD) Trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SBMT compared with teaching-as-usual (TAU). METHODS: MYRIAD was a parallel group, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Eighty-five eligible schools consented and were randomised 1:1 to TAU (43 schools, 4232 students) or SBMT (42 schools, 4144 students), stratified by school size, quality, type, deprivation and region. Schools and students (mean (SD); age range=12.2 (0.6); 11-14 years) were broadly UK population-representative. Forty-three schools (n=3678 pupils; 86.9%) delivering SBMT, and 41 schools (n=3572; 86.2%) delivering TAU, provided primary end-point data. SBMT comprised 10 lessons of psychoeducation and mindfulness practices. TAU comprised standard social-emotional teaching. Participant-level risk for depression, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being at 1 year follow-up were the co-primary outcomes. Secondary and economic outcomes were included. FINDINGS: Analysis of 84 schools (n=8376 participants) found no evidence that SBMT was superior to TAU at 1 year. Standardised mean differences (intervention minus control) were: 0.005 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.06) for risk for depression; 0.02 (-0.02 to 0.07) for social-emotional-behavioural functioning; and 0.02 (-0.03 to 0.07) for well-being. SBMT had a high probability of cost-effectiveness (83%) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year. No intervention-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Findings do not support the superiority of SBMT over TAU in promoting mental health in adolescence. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is need to ask what works, for whom and how, as well as considering key contextual and implementation factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN86619085. This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (WT104908/Z/14/Z and WT107496/Z/15/Z).

Impact of COVID-19 on primary care contacts with children and young people in England: longitudinal trends study 2015-2020.

BACKGROUND: The NHS response to COVID-19 altered provision and access to primary care. AIM: To examine the impact of COVID-19 on GP contacts with children and young people (CYP) in England. DESIGN AND SETTING: A longitudinal trends analysis was undertaken using electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database. METHOD: All CYP aged <25 years registered with a GP in the CPRD Aurum database were included. The number of total, remote, and face-to-face contacts during the first UK lockdown (March to June 2020) were compared with the mean contacts for comparable weeks from 2015 to 2019. RESULTS: In total, 47 607 765 GP contacts with 4 307 120 CYP were included. GP contacts fell 41% during the first lockdown compared with previous years. Children aged 1-14 years had greater falls in total contacts (≥50%) compared with infants and those aged 15-24 years. Face-to-face contacts fell by 88%, with the greatest falls occurring among children aged 1-14 years (>90%). Remote contacts more than doubled, increasing most in infants (over 2.5-fold). Total contacts for respiratory illnesses fell by 74% whereas contacts for common non-transmissible conditions shifted largely to remote contacts, mitigating the total fall (31%). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, CYP's contact with GPs fell, particularly for face-to-face assessments. This may be explained by a lower incidence of respiratory illnesses because of fewer social contacts and changing health-seeking behaviour. The large shift to remote contacts mitigated total falls in contacts for some age groups and for common non-transmissible conditions.

Which children and young people are at higher risk of severe disease and death after hospitalisation with SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and young people: A systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe pre-existing factors associated with severe disease, primarily admission to critical care, and death secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised children and young people (CYP), within a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, European PMC, Medline and Embase for case series and cohort studies published between 1st January 2020 and 21st May 2021 which included all CYP admitted to hospital with ≥ 30 CYP with SARS-CoV-2 or ≥ 5 CYP with PIMS-TS or MIS-C. Eligible studies contained (1) details of age, sex, ethnicity or co-morbidities, and (2) an outcome which included admission to critical care, mechanical invasive ventilation, cardiovascular support, or death. Studies reporting outcomes in more restricted groupings of co-morbidities were eligible for narrative review. We used random effects meta-analyses for aggregate study-level data and multilevel mixed effect models for IPD data to examine risk factors (age, sex, comorbidities) associated with admission to critical care and death. Data shown are odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI).PROSPERO: CRD42021235338. FINDINGS: 83 studies were included, 57 (21,549 patients) in the meta-analysis (of which 22 provided IPD) and 26 in the narrative synthesis. Most studies had an element of bias in their design or reporting. Sex was not associated with critical care or death. Compared with CYP aged 1-4 years (reference group), infants (aged <1 year) had increased odds of admission to critical care (OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.40-1.90)) and death (OR 2.08 (1.57-2.86)). Odds of death were increased amongst CYP over 10 years (10-14 years OR 2.15 (1.54-2.98); >14 years OR 2.15 (1.61-2.88)).The number of comorbid conditions was associated with increased odds of admission to critical care and death for COVID-19 in a step-wise fashion. Compared with CYP without comorbidity, odds ratios for critical care admission were: 1.49 (1.45-1.53) for 1 comorbidity; 2.58 (2.41-2.75) for 2 comorbidities; 2.97 (2.04-4.32) for ≥3 comorbidities. Corresponding odds ratios for death were: 2.15 (1.98-2.34) for 1 comorbidity; 4.63 (4.54-4.74) for 2 comorbidities and 4.98 (3.78-6.65) for ≥3 comorbidities. Odds of admission to critical care were increased for all co-morbidities apart from asthma (0.92 (0.91-0.94)) and malignancy (0.85 (0.17-4.21)) with an increased odds of death in all co-morbidities considered apart from asthma. Neurological and cardiac comorbidities were associated with the greatest increase in odds of severe disease or death. Obesity increased the odds of severe disease and death independently of other comorbidities. IPD analysis demonstrated that, compared to children without co-morbidity, the risk difference of admission to critical care was increased in those with 1 comorbidity by 3.61% (1.87-5.36); 2 comorbidities by 9.26% (4.87-13.65); ≥3 comorbidities 10.83% (4.39-17.28), and for death: 1 comorbidity 1.50% (0.00-3.10); 2 comorbidities 4.40% (-0.10-8.80) and ≥3 co-morbidities 4.70 (0.50-8.90). INTERPRETATION: Hospitalised CYP at greatest vulnerability of severe disease or death with SARS-CoV-2 infection are infants, teenagers, those with cardiac or neurological conditions, or 2 or more comorbid conditions, and those who are obese. These groups should be considered higher priority for vaccination and for protective shielding when appropriate. Whilst odds ratios were high, the absolute increase in risk for most comorbidities was small compared to children without underlying conditions. FUNDING: RH is in receipt of a fellowship from Kidney Research UK (grant no. TF_010_20171124). JW is in receipt of a Medical Research Council Fellowship (Grant No. MR/R00160X/1). LF is in receipt of funding from Martin House Children's Hospice (there is no specific grant number for this). RV is in receipt of a grant from the National Institute of Health Research to support this work (grant no NIHR202322). Funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Risk factors for PICU admission and death among children and young people hospitalized with COVID-19 and PIMS-TS in England during the first pandemic year.

Identifying which children and young people (CYP) are most vulnerable to serious infection due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is important to guide protective interventions. To address this question, we used data for all hospitalizations in England among 0-17 year olds from 1 February 2019 to 31 January 2021. We examined how sociodemographic factors and comorbidities might be risk factors for pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission among hospitalizations due to the following causes: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pediatric inflammatory multi-system syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS) in the first pandemic year (2020-2021); hospitalizations due to all other non-traumatic causes in 2020-2021; hospitalizations due to all non-traumatic causes in 2019-2020; and hospitalizations due to influenza in 2019-2020. Risk of PICU admission and death from COVID-19 or PIMS-TS in CYP was very low. We identified 6,338 hospitalizations with COVID-19, of which 259 were admitted to a PICU and eight CYP died. We identified 712 hospitalizations with PIMS-TS, of which 312 were admitted to a PICU and fewer than five CYP died. Hospitalizations with COVID-19 and PIMS-TS were more common among males, older CYP, those from socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods and those who were of non-White ethnicity (Black, Asian, Mixed or Other). The odds of PICU admission were increased in CYP younger than 1 month old and decreased among 15-17 year olds compared to 1-4 year olds with COVID-19; increased in older CYP and females with PIMS-TS; and increased for Black compared to White ethnicity in patients with COVID-19 and PIMS-TS. Odds of PICU admission in COVID-19 were increased for CYP with comorbidities and highest for CYP with multiple medical problems. Increases in odds of PICU admission associated with different comorbidities in COVID-19 showed a similar pattern to other causes of hospitalization examined and, thus, likely reflect background vulnerabilities. These findings identify distinct risk factors associated with PICU admission among CYP with COVID-19 or PIMS-TS that might aid treatment and prevention strategies.

Research priorities for mental health in schools in the wake of COVID-19.

Children and young people (CYP) have suffered challenges to their mental health as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; effects have been most pronounced on those already disadvantaged. Adopting a whole-school approach embracing changes to school environments, cultures and curricula is key to recovery, combining social and emotional skill building, mental health support and interventions to promote commitment and belonging. An evidence-based response must be put in place to support schools, which acknowledges that the mental health and well-being of CYP should not be forfeited in the drive to address the attainment gap. Schools provide an ideal setting for universal screening of mental well-being to help monitor and respond to the challenges facing CYP in the wake of the pandemic. Research is needed to support identification and implementation of suitable screening methods.

Do school closures and school reopenings affect community transmission of COVID-19? A systematic review of observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically reivew the observational evidence of the effect of school closures and school reopenings on SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. SETTING: Schools (including early years settings, primary schools and secondary schools). INTERVENTION: School closures and reopenings. OUTCOME MEASURE: Community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (including any measure of community infections rate, hospital admissions or mortality attributed to COVID-19). METHODS: On 7 January 2021, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, the WHO Global COVID-19 Research Database, ERIC, the British Education Index, the Australian Education Index and Google, searching title and abstracts for terms related to SARS-CoV-2 AND terms related to schools or non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool to evaluate bias. RESULTS: We identified 7474 articles, of which 40 were included, with data from 150 countries. Of these, 32 studies assessed school closures and 11 examined reopenings. There was substantial heterogeneity between school closure studies, with half of the studies at lower risk of bias reporting reduced community transmission by up to 60% and half reporting null findings. The majority (n=3 out of 4) of school reopening studies at lower risk of bias reported no associated increases in transmission. CONCLUSIONS: School closure studies were at risk of confounding and collinearity from other non-pharmacological interventions implemented around the same time as school closures, and the effectiveness of closures remains uncertain. School reopenings, in areas of low transmission and with appropriate mitigation measures, were generally not accompanied by increasing community transmission. With such varied evidence on effectiveness, and the harmful effects, policymakers should take a measured approach before implementing school closures; and should look to reopen schools in times of low transmission, with appropriate mitigation measures.

Systematic review of reviews of symptoms and signs of COVID-19 in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic review of reviews of the prevalence of symptoms and signs of COVID-19 in those aged under 20 years. DESIGN: Narrative systematic review of reviews. PubMed, medRxiv, Europe PMC and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database were searched on 9 October 2020. SETTING: All settings, including hospitalised and community settings. PATIENTS: Children and young people (CYP) under age 20 years with laboratory-proven COVID-19. STUDY REVIEW, DATA EXTRACTION AND QUALITY: Potentially eligible articles were reviewed on title and abstract by one reviewer. Quality was assessed using the modified AMSTARS criteria and data were extracted from included studies by two reviewers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of symptoms and signs of COVID-19. RESULTS: 1325 studies were identified and 18 reviews were included. Eight were high quality, 7 medium and 3 low quality. All reviews were dominated by studies of hospitalised children. The proportion of asymptomatic CYP ranged from 14.6% to 42%. Fever and cough were the the most common symptoms; proportions with fever ranged from 46% to 64.2% and with cough from 32% to 55.9%. All other symptoms or signs including rhinorrhoea, sore throat, headache, fatigue/myalgia and gastrointestinal symptoms including diarrhoea and vomiting were infrequent, occurring in less than 10%-20%. CONCLUSIONS: Fever and cough are the most common symptoms in CYP with COVID-19, with other symptoms infrequent. Further research on symptoms in community samples are needed to inform pragmatic identification and testing programmes for CYP.

Update to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training programme in schools compared with normal school provision (MYRIAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: MYRIAD (My Resilience in Adolescence) is a superiority, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial designed to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme, compared with normal social and emotional learning (SEL) school provision to enhance mental health, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being in adolescence. The original trial protocol was published in Trials (accessible at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1917-4 ). This included recruitment in two cohorts, enabling the learning from the smaller first cohort to be incorporated in the second cohort. Here we describe final amendments to the study protocol and discuss their underlying rationale. METHODS: Four major changes were introduced into the study protocol: (1) there were changes in eligibility criteria, including a clearer operational definition to assess the degree of SEL implementation in schools, and also new criteria to avoid experimental contamination; (2) the number of schools and pupils that had to be recruited was increased based on what we learned in the first cohort; (3) some changes were made to the secondary outcome measures to improve their validity and ability to measure constructs of interest and to reduce the burden on school staff; and (4) the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) pandemic both influences and makes it difficult to interpret the 2-year follow-up primary endpoint results, so we changed our primary endpoint to 1-year follow-up. DISCUSSION: These changes to the study protocol were approved by the Trial Management Group, Trial Steering Committee and Data and Ethics Monitoring Committees and improved the enrolment of participants and quality of measures. Furthermore, the change in the primary endpoint will give a more reliable answer to our primary question because it was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in both cohort 1 and cohort 2. Nevertheless, the longer 2-year follow-up data will still be acquired, although this time-point will be now framed as a second major investigation to answer some new important questions presented by the combination of the pandemic and our study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials ISRCTN86619085 . Registered on 3 June 2016.

Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adolescents Compared With Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: The degree to which children and adolescents are infected by and transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear. The role of children and adolescents in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent on susceptibility, symptoms, viral load, social contact patterns, and behavior. Objective: To systematically review the susceptibility to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children and adolescents compared with adults. Data Sources: PubMed and medRxiv were searched from database inception to July 28, 2020, and a total of 13 926 studies were identified, with additional studies identified through hand searching of cited references and professional contacts. Study Selection: Studies that provided data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents (younger than 20 years) compared with adults (20 years and older) derived from contact tracing or population screening were included. Single-household studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: PRISMA guidelines for abstracting data were followed, which was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Quality was assessed using a critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. Main Outcomes and Measures: Secondary infection rate (contact-tracing studies) or prevalence or seroprevalence (population screening studies) among children and adolescents compared with adults. Results: A total of 32 studies comprising 41 640 children and adolescents and 268 945 adults met inclusion criteria, including 18 contact-tracing studies and 14 population screening studies. The pooled odds ratio of being an infected contact in children compared with adults was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.37-0.85), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 94.6%). Three school-based contact-tracing studies found minimal transmission from child or teacher index cases. Findings from population screening studies were heterogenous and were not suitable for meta-analysis. Most studies were consistent with lower seroprevalence in children compared with adults, although seroprevalence in adolescents appeared similar to adults. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, there is preliminary evidence that children and adolescents have lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, with an odds ratio of 0.56 for being an infected contact compared with adults. There is weak evidence that children and adolescents play a lesser role than adults in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at a population level. This study provides no information on the infectivity of children.

An evidence-based theory of change for reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in reopened schools.

Schools have closed worldwide as part of measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission but are beginning to reopen in some countries. Various measures are being pursued to minimise transmission but existing guidance has not developed a comprehensive framework or theory of change. We present a framework informed by the occupational health hierarchy of control and a theory of change informed by realist approaches. We present measures focused on elimination, substitution, engineering, administration, education and personal protective equipment. We theorise that such measures offer a means of disrupting SARS-CoV-2 transmission via routes involving fomites, faeco-oral routes, droplets and aerosols.

Determining the optimal strategy for reopening schools, the impact of test and trace interventions, and the risk of occurrence of a second COVID-19 epidemic wave in the UK: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: As lockdown measures to slow the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection begin to ease in the UK, it is important to assess the impact of any changes in policy, including school reopening and broader relaxation of physical distancing measures. We aimed to use an individual-based model to predict the impact of two possible strategies for reopening schools to all students in the UK from September, 2020, in combination with different assumptions about relaxation of physical distancing measures and the scale-up of testing. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used Covasim, a stochastic individual-based model for transmission of SARS-CoV-2, calibrated to the UK epidemic. The model describes individuals' contact networks stratified into household, school, workplace, and community layers, and uses demographic and epidemiological data from the UK. We simulated six different scenarios, representing the combination of two school reopening strategies (full time and a part-time rota system with 50% of students attending school on alternate weeks) and three testing scenarios (68% contact tracing with no scale-up in testing, 68% contact tracing with sufficient testing to avoid a second COVID-19 wave, and 40% contact tracing with sufficient testing to avoid a second COVID-19 wave). We estimated the number of new infections, cases, and deaths, as well as the effective reproduction number (R) under different strategies. In a sensitivity analysis to account for uncertainties within the stochastic simulation, we also simulated infectiousness of children and young adults aged younger than 20 years at 50% relative to older ages (20 years and older). FINDINGS: With increased levels of testing (between 59% and 87% of symptomatic people tested at some point during an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, depending on the scenario), and effective contact tracing and isolation, an epidemic rebound might be prevented. Assuming 68% of contacts could be traced, we estimate that 75% of individuals with symptomatic infection would need to be tested and positive cases isolated if schools return full-time in September, or 65% if a part-time rota system were used. If only 40% of contacts could be traced, these figures would increase to 87% and 75%, respectively. However, without these levels of testing and contact tracing, reopening of schools together with gradual relaxing of the lockdown measures are likely to induce a second wave that would peak in December, 2020, if schools open full-time in September, and in February, 2021, if a part-time rota system were adopted. In either case, the second wave would result in R rising above 1 and a resulting second wave of infections 2·0-2·3 times the size of the original COVID-19 wave. When infectiousness of children and young adults was varied from 100% to 50% of that of older ages, we still found that a comprehensive and effective test-trace-isolate strategy would be required to avoid a second COVID-19 wave. INTERPRETATION: To prevent a second COVID-19 wave, relaxation of physical distancing, including reopening of schools, in the UK must be accompanied by large-scale, population-wide testing of symptomatic individuals and effective tracing of their contacts, followed by isolation of diagnosed individuals. FUNDING: None.

School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 107 countries had implemented national school closures by March 18, 2020. It is unknown whether school measures are effective in coronavirus outbreaks (eg, due to severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], Middle East respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19). We undertook a systematic review by searching three electronic databases to identify what is known about the effectiveness of school closures and other school social distancing practices during coronavirus outbreaks. We included 16 of 616 identified articles. School closures were deployed rapidly across mainland China and Hong Kong for COVID-19. However, there are no data on the relative contribution of school closures to transmission control. Data from the SARS outbreak in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore suggest that school closures did not contribute to the control of the epidemic. Modelling studies of SARS produced conflicting results. Recent modelling studies of COVID-19 predict that school closures alone would prevent only 2-4% of deaths, much less than other social distancing interventions. Policy makers need to be aware of the equivocal evidence when considering school closures for COVID-19, and that combinations of social distancing measures should be considered. Other less disruptive social distancing interventions in schools require further consideration if restrictive social distancing policies are implemented for long periods.