Children and adolescents' experiences of mandatory SARS-CoV-2 testing in schools: a cross-sectional survey.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Christian Kimmig, Thorsten Langer, Johanna K Loy, Stephan Bender, Anneke Haddad
{"title":"Children and adolescents' experiences of mandatory SARS-CoV-2 testing in schools: a cross-sectional survey.","authors":"Christian Kimmig, Thorsten Langer, Johanna K Loy, Stephan Bender, Anneke Haddad","doi":"10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic had dramatic consequences for children and adolescents. However, policy-makers and healthcare researchers did not give sufficient weight to children's perspectives. One common public health measure was mandatory SARS-CoV-2 tests in schools. This study examines the evaluation of such mandatory testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We investigated the effects of test type (pooled PCR tests vs antigen rapid tests) and demographic and psychological factors on evaluations of the experience of being tested. A total of 569 children (8-17 years) in two major German cities completed online questionnaires between October and December 2021. Participants answered questions addressing test evaluation, vaccination status, pandemic-related stress, mental health difficulties and health-related quality of life.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results showed that overall test ratings were better for pooled PCR tests (p<0.001). Vaccine-willing students evaluated SARS-CoV-2 tests more positively than vaccine-unwilling students, regardless of test type (p<0.001). Children with mental health difficulties (abnormal/borderline Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) scores) evaluated SARS-CoV-2 tests more negatively than children with normal SDQ scores (p<0.001). Additionally, children who reported better health-related quality of life and children with less pandemic-related stress rated the tests more positively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results suggest that there are differences in the appraisal of the test types and that specific subgroups' experiences of regular testing vary. Our study provides insights for policy-makers in future pandemics and raises questions regarding parallels between testing and vaccination hesitancy. Moreover, our study demonstrates the feasibility and value of collecting data directly from a large cohort of children in order to understand their experiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":9069,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11551996/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002974","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic had dramatic consequences for children and adolescents. However, policy-makers and healthcare researchers did not give sufficient weight to children's perspectives. One common public health measure was mandatory SARS-CoV-2 tests in schools. This study examines the evaluation of such mandatory testing.

Methods: We investigated the effects of test type (pooled PCR tests vs antigen rapid tests) and demographic and psychological factors on evaluations of the experience of being tested. A total of 569 children (8-17 years) in two major German cities completed online questionnaires between October and December 2021. Participants answered questions addressing test evaluation, vaccination status, pandemic-related stress, mental health difficulties and health-related quality of life.

Results: Our results showed that overall test ratings were better for pooled PCR tests (p<0.001). Vaccine-willing students evaluated SARS-CoV-2 tests more positively than vaccine-unwilling students, regardless of test type (p<0.001). Children with mental health difficulties (abnormal/borderline Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) scores) evaluated SARS-CoV-2 tests more negatively than children with normal SDQ scores (p<0.001). Additionally, children who reported better health-related quality of life and children with less pandemic-related stress rated the tests more positively.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that there are differences in the appraisal of the test types and that specific subgroups' experiences of regular testing vary. Our study provides insights for policy-makers in future pandemics and raises questions regarding parallels between testing and vaccination hesitancy. Moreover, our study demonstrates the feasibility and value of collecting data directly from a large cohort of children in order to understand their experiences.

儿童和青少年对学校强制进行 SARS-CoV-2 检测的体验:一项横断面调查。
背景:COVID-19 大流行期间的公共卫生措施对儿童和青少年产生了巨大影响。然而,政策制定者和医疗保健研究人员并没有充分重视儿童的观点。一项常见的公共卫生措施是在学校强制进行 SARS-CoV-2 测试。本研究探讨了对此类强制检测的评估:我们调查了检测类型(集合 PCR 检测与抗原快速检测)以及人口和心理因素对检测体验评价的影响。2021 年 10 月至 12 月期间,德国两个主要城市的 569 名儿童(8-17 岁)完成了在线问卷调查。参与者回答了有关测试评价、疫苗接种情况、大流行相关压力、心理健康困难和健康相关生活质量的问题:结果:我们的研究结果表明,对 PCR 联合检测的总体评价较好(p结论:我们的结果表明,对检测类型的评价存在差异,特定亚群对定期检测的体验也各不相同。我们的研究为未来大流行病的政策制定者提供了启示,并提出了关于检测与疫苗接种犹豫之间相似性的问题。此外,我们的研究还证明了直接从大批儿童中收集数据以了解其经历的可行性和价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ Paediatrics Open Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
124
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信