Parent-reported child's close contact with non-household family members and their well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey.

In England (UK), at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic the public were required to reduce their physical contacts to slow the spread of COVID-19. We investigated the factors associated with children having: 1) close contact with family members from outside their household ('non-adherent behaviour'); and 2) low well-being (Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale). We conducted an online cross-sectional survey, completed at any location of the participant's choice between 8 and 11 June 2020 in parents (n = 2,010) who were aged eighteen years or over and had a school-aged child (4-18 years old). Parents reported that 15% (n = 309) of children had non-adherent contact and that 26% (n = 519) had low well-being. We used a series of binary logistic regressions to investigate associations between outcomes and child and parent characteristics. Children had higher odds of having non-household contact when they had special educational needs [adjusted odds ratio, 2.19 (95% CI, 1.47 to 3.27)], lower well-being [2.65 (95% CI, 2.03 to 3.46)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.17 (95% CI, 1.45 to 3.25)], lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.56 (95% CI, 1.55 to 4.24)] and their parent had low well-being [1.94 (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.58)]. Children had higher odds of lower well-being when they had special educational needs [4.13 (95% CI, 2.90 to 5.87)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [3.06 (95% CI, 2.15 to 4.36)], lived with someone else who was vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.08 (95% CI, 1.64 to 2.64)], or lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.41 (95% CI, 1.51 to 3.83)]. Many children came into contact with non-household family members, mainly for childcare. Factors relating to COVID-19, children's well-being and education were also important. If school closures are needed in future, addressing these issues may help reduce contact.

Why did some parents not send their children back to school following school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.

Background: On 23 March 2020, schools closed to most children in England in response to COVID-19 until September 2020. Schools were kept open to children of key workers and vulnerable children on a voluntary basis. Starting 1 June 2020, children in reception (4-5 years old), year 1 (5-6 years old) and year 6 (10-11 years old) also became eligible to attend school. Methods: 1373 parents or guardians of children eligible to attend school completed a cross-sectional survey between 8 and 11 June 2020. We investigated factors associated with whether children attended school or not. Results: 46% (n=370/803) of children in year groups eligible to attend school and 13% (n=72/570) of children of key workers had attended school in the past 7 days. The most common reasons for sending children to school were that the child's education would benefit, the child wanted to go to school and the parent needed to work. A child was significantly more likely to attend if the parent believed the child had already had COVID-19, they had special educational needs or a person in the household had COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusions: Following any future school closure, helping parents to feel comfortable returning their child to school will require policy makers and school leaders to communicate about the adequacy of their policies to: (A) ensure that the risk to children in school is minimised; (B) ensure that the educational potential within schools is maximised; and (C) ensure that the benefits of school for the psychological well-being of children are prioritised.

A cross-sectional survey of parental perceptions of COVID-19 related hygiene measures within schools and adherence to social distancing in journeys to and from school.

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools in England were only kept open to children of 'key workers' and, from 1 June, to children in reception, year 1 and year 6. Our cross-sectional survey of parents found low rates of attendance (<50%) in both groups. Many parents whose children attended school reported low adherence to hygiene measures (eg, not maintaining distance from others during school drop-off) and doubted that their school was adhering to COVID-19 guidelines. This must be improved if parents are to feel confident about a more comprehensive return to school, as planned for September.

Public attitudes in England towards the sharing of personal data following a mass casualty incident: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess public attitudes towards data sharing to facilitate a mental health screening programme for people caught up in a mass casualty incident. DESIGN: Two, identical, cross-sectional, online surveys, using quotas to ensure demographic representativeness of people aged 18-65 years in England. Participants were randomly allocated to consider a scenario in which they witness a terrorism-related radiation incident or mass shooting, after which a police officer records their contact details. SETTING: Participants were drawn from an online panel maintained by a market research company. Surveys were conducted before and immediately after a series of terrorist attacks and a large tower block fire occurred in England. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand people aged 18-65 years participated in each survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three questions asking participants if it would be acceptable for police to share their contact details, without asking first, with 'a health-related government organisation, so they can send you a questionnaire to find out if you might benefit from extra care or support', 'a specialist NHS team, to provide you with information about ways to get support for any physical or mental health issues' and 'your GP, so they can check how you are doing'. RESULTS: A minority of participants reported that it would be definitely not acceptable for their details to be shared with the government organisation (n=259, 13.0%), the National Health Service (NHS) (n=141, 7.1%) and their general practitioner (GP) (n=166, 8.3%). There was a small, but significant increase in acceptability for the radiation incident compared with the mass shooting. No major differences were observed between the preincident and postincident surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Although most people believe it is acceptable for their details to be shared in order to facilitate a mental health response to a major incident, care must be taken to communicate with those affected about how their information will be used.