Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: More than 767 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6.9 million deaths with COVID-19 have been recorded as of August 2023. Several public health and social measures were implemented in schools to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent onward transmission. We built upon methods from a previous Cochrane review to capture current empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of school measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. OBJECTIVES: To provide an updated assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to keep schools open safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Educational Resources Information Center, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program COVID-19 Evidence Reviews on 18 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies focused on measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, among students (aged 4 to 18 years) or individuals relating to the school, or both. We categorized studies that reported quantitative measures of intervention effectiveness, and studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures as either 'main' or 'supporting' studies based on design and approach to handling key confounders. We were interested in transmission-related outcomes and intended or unintended consequences. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts. We extracted minimal data for supporting studies. For main studies, one review author extracted comprehensive data and assessed risk of bias, which a second author checked. We narratively synthesized findings for each intervention-comparator-outcome category (body of evidence). Two review authors assessed certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The 15 main studies consisted of measures to reduce contacts (4 studies), make contacts safer (7 studies), surveillance and response measures (6 studies; 1 assessed transmission outcomes, 5 assessed performance of surveillance measures), and multicomponent measures (1 study). These main studies assessed outcomes in the school population (12), general population (2), and adults living with a school-attending child (1). Settings included K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12; 9 studies), secondary (3 studies), and K-8 (kindergarten to grade 8; 1 study) schools. Two studies did not clearly report settings. Studies measured transmission-related outcomes (10), performance of surveillance measures (5), and intended and unintended consequences (4). The 15 main studies were based in the WHO Regions of the Americas (12), and the WHO European Region (3). Comparators were more versus less intense measures, single versus multicomponent measures, and measures versus no measures. We organized results into relevant bodies of evidence, or groups of studies relating to the same 'intervention-comparator-outcome' categories. Across all bodies of evidence, certainty of evidence ratings limit our confidence in findings. Where we describe an effect as 'beneficial', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention; a 'harmful' effect does not favour the intervention and 'null' shows no effect either way. Measures to reduce contact (4 studies) We grouped studies into 21 bodies of evidence: moderate- (10 bodies), low- (3 bodies), or very low-certainty evidence (8 bodies). The evidence was very low to moderate certainty for beneficial effects of remote versus in-person or hybrid teaching on transmission in the general population. For students and staff, mostly harmful effects were observed when more students participated in remote teaching. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that in the general population there was probably no effect on deaths and a beneficial effect on hospitalizations for remote versus in-person teaching, but no effect for remote versus hybrid teaching. The effects of hybrid teaching, a combination of in-person and remote teaching, were mixed. Very low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a harmful effect on risk of infection among adults living with a school student for closing playgrounds and cafeterias, a null effect for keeping the same teacher, and a beneficial effect for cancelling extracurricular activities, keeping the same students together and restricting entry for parents and caregivers. Measures to make contact safer (7 studies) We grouped studies into eight bodies of evidence: moderate- (5 bodies), and low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a beneficial effect of mask mandates on transmission-related outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence showed full mandates were probably more beneficial than partial or no mandates. Evidence of a beneficial effect of physical distancing on risk of infection among staff and students was mixed. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that ventilation measures probably reduce cases among staff and students. One study (very low-certainty evidence) found that there may be a beneficial effect of not sharing supplies and increasing desk space on risk of infection for adults living with a school student, but showed there may be a harmful effect of desk shields. Surveillance and response measures (6 studies) We grouped studies into seven bodies of evidence: moderate- (3 bodies), low- (1 body), and very low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Daily testing strategies to replace or reduce quarantine probably helped to reduce missed school days and decrease the proportion of asymptomatic school contacts testing positive (moderate-certainty evidence). For studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures, the proportion of cases detected by rapid antigen detection testing ranged from 28.6% to 95.8%, positive predictive value ranged from 24.0% to 100.0% (very low-certainty evidence). There was probably no onward transmission from contacts of a positive case (moderate-certainty evidence) and replacing or shortening quarantine with testing may have reduced missed school days (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent measures (1 study) Combining multiple measures may have led to a reduction in risk of infection among adults living with a student (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A range of measures can have a beneficial effect on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilization and school attendance. We rated the current findings at a higher level of certainty than the original review. Further high-quality research into school measures to control SARS-CoV-2 in a wider variety of contexts is needed to develop a more evidence-based understanding of how to keep schools open safely during COVID-19 or a similar public health emergency.

Community indicators for mental health in Europe: a scoping review.

Background: Community indicators may predict and influence individuals` mental health, and support or impede mental health management. However, there is no consensus on which indicators should be included in predictions, prognostic algorithms, or management strategies for community-based mental health promotion and prevention approaches. Therefore, this scoping review provides an overview of relevant community-level indicators for mental health in the general as well as risk populations in a European context. Methods: We conducted a scoping review in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo. Eligible studies focused on context factors such as either the physical or social environment, reporting at least one mental health outcome and referring to a European population. Publications between 2012 and March 8, 2022 are considered. Results: In total, the search yielded 12,200 identified records. After the removal of duplicates, 10,059 records were screened against the eligibility criteria. In total, 169 studies were included in the final analysis. Out of these included studies, 6% focused on pan-European datasets and 94% on a specific European country. Populations were either general or high-risk populations (56 vs. 44%, respectively) with depressive disorder as the main reported outcome (49%), followed by general mental health (33%) and anxiety (23%). Study designs were cross-sectional studies (59%), longitudinal (27%), and others (14%). The final set of indicators consisted of 53 indicators, which were grouped conceptually into 13 superordinate categories of community indicators. These were divided into the domains of the physical and social environment. The most commonly measured and reported categories of community indicators associated with mental health outcomes were social networks (n = 87), attitudinal factors toward vulnerable groups (n = 76), and the characteristics of the built environment (n = 56). Conclusion: This review provides an evidence base of existing and novel community-level indicators that are associated with mental health. Community factors related to the physical and social environment should be routinely recorded and considered as influencing factors or potentially underestimated confounders. The relevance should be analyzed and included in clinical outcomes, data, monitoring and surveillance as they may reveal new trends and targets for public mental health interventions.

Evaluation of community-based health promotion interventions in children and adolescents in high-income countries: a scoping review on strategies and methods used.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, community-based interventions have been increasingly adopted in the field of health promotion and prevention. While their evaluation is relevant for health researchers, stakeholders and practitioners, conducting these evaluations is also challenging and there are no existing standards yet. The objective of this review is to scope peer-reviewed scientific publications on evaluation approaches used for community-based health promotion interventions. A special focus lies on children and adolescents' prevention. METHODS: A scoping review of the scientific literature was conducted by searching three bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO). The search strategy encompassed search terms based on the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) scheme. Out of 6,402 identified hits, 44 articles were included in this review. RESULTS: Out of the 44 articles eligible for this scoping review, the majority reported on studies conducted in the USA (n = 28), the UK (n = 6), Canada (n = 4) and Australia (n = 2). One study each was reported from Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Scotland, respectively. The included studies described interventions that mostly focused on obesity prevention, healthy nutrition promotion or well-being of children and adolescents. Nineteen articles included more than one evaluation design (e.g., process or outcome evaluation). Therefore, in total we identified 65 study designs within the scope of this review. Outcome evaluations often included randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 34.2%) or specific forms of RCTs (cluster RCTs; 9.8%) or quasi-experimental designs (26.8%). Process evaluation was mainly used in cohort (54.2%) and cross-sectional studies (33.3%). Only few articles used established evaluation frameworks or research concepts as a basis for the evaluation. CONCLUSION: Few studies presented comprehensive evaluation study protocols or approaches with different study designs in one paper. Therefore, holistic evaluation approaches were difficult to retrieve from the classical publication formats. However, these publications would be helpful to further guide public health evaluators, contribute to methodological discussions and to inform stakeholders in research and practice to make decisions based on evaluation results.