在学校环境中实施的控制COVID-19大流行措施的意外后果:范围审查。

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Hannah Littlecott, Shari Krishnaratne, Julia Hummel, Ester Orban, Torben Heinsohn, Anna H Noel-Storr, Brigitte Strahwald, Caroline Jung-Sievers, Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, Eva Rehfuess
{"title":"在学校环境中实施的控制COVID-19大流行措施的意外后果:范围审查。","authors":"Hannah Littlecott, Shari Krishnaratne, Julia Hummel, Ester Orban, Torben Heinsohn, Anna H Noel-Storr, Brigitte Strahwald, Caroline Jung-Sievers, Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, Eva Rehfuess","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015397.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were a key setting for intervening with public health and social measures (PHSM) to reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Consequently, there is a need to assess the varied unintended consequences associated with PHSM implemented in the school setting, for students, teachers, and school staff, as well as for families and the wider community. This is an update of a Cochrane scoping review first published in 2022.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To comprehensively identify and summarise the published literature on the unintended consequences of public health and social measures implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This will serve to identify critical knowledge gaps to inform future primary research and systematic reviews. It may also serve as a resource for future pandemic management.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science on 5 and 6 January 2023. We also searched two COVID-19-specific databases (Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease). Finally, we reviewed the included studies of all relevant systematic reviews and guidelines identified through the searches.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included studies that empirically assessed the impact of PHSM implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We imposed no restrictions with regard to the types of populations and specific interventions. Outcomes of interest were consequences that were measured or experienced, but not anticipated consequences. This review focused on real-world evidence: empirical quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies were eligible for inclusion, but modelling studies were ineligible.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>The review was guided by a logic model. In line with the latest Cochrane effectiveness review of school measures to contain COVID-19 and a conceptual framework of PHSM, this logic model distinguishes between measures to make contacts safer (related to individual protection and the physical environment), measures to reduce contacts (related to social interactions, movement, and services) and surveillance and response measures. Unintended consequences comprise the following categories: health and well-being, health system and social welfare services, human and fundamental rights, acceptability and adherence, equality and equity, social and institutional, economic and resource, and ecological. The review team screened all titles and abstracts, then potentially eligible full-text articles, in duplicate. Across the included studies, we summarised and presented types of measures, consequences, and study designs using the predefined categories of the logic model, while allowing for emerging categories.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 60 studies (57 new to this update) from 25 countries. There were 31 quantitative studies, 17 qualitative studies, and 12 mixed-method studies. Most targeted either students (26 studies), teachers and school staff (11 studies), or students and school staff (12 studies). Others evaluated measures aimed at parents (2 studies), staff and parents (1 study), students and teachers (3 studies), or the whole school (5 studies). The measures were related to individual protection (26 studies), the physical environment (20 studies), social interactions (25 studies), services (1 study), movement (3 studies), surveillance (9 studies) and response (7 studies). Nine studies evaluated the combined effect of multiple measures. The main consequences assessed were from the categories health and well-being (29 studies), acceptability and adherence (31 studies), and social and institutional (23 studies). Fewer studies covered consequences from the categories equality and equity (2 studies), economic and resource (7 studies), and ecological (1 study). No studies examined consequences for the health system and social welfare services or for human and fundamental rights.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>This scoping review provides an overview of the evidence on the unintended consequences of PHSM implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The 60 included studies describe a broad body of evidence and cover a range of measures and unintended consequences, primarily consequences for health and well-being, acceptability and adherence, social and institutional aspects, and economic aspects. The main gaps identified relate to consequences of school measures for the health system and social welfare services, human and fundamental rights, equality and equity, and the environment. Further research is needed to fill these gaps, making use of diverse methodological approaches. Future studies should explore unintended consequences - whether beneficial or harmful - in more depth and over longer time periods, in different population groups, and across different contexts. A more robust evidence base could inform and facilitate decisions about whether, how, and when to implement or terminate COVID-19 risk mitigation measures in school settings, and how to counter negative unintended consequences.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This publication was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Network of University Medicine (NUM) 1.0, Grant No. 01KX2021 in the context of the project CEOsys, and NUM 2.0, Grant No. 01KX2121 in the context of the projects PREPARED and coverCHILD.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/bsxh8). The previous review is published in the Cochrane Library (10.1002/14651858.CD015397).</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"12 ","pages":"CD015397"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11635916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unintended consequences of measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah Littlecott, Shari Krishnaratne, Julia Hummel, Ester Orban, Torben Heinsohn, Anna H Noel-Storr, Brigitte Strahwald, Caroline Jung-Sievers, Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, Eva Rehfuess\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD015397.pub2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were a key setting for intervening with public health and social measures (PHSM) to reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Consequently, there is a need to assess the varied unintended consequences associated with PHSM implemented in the school setting, for students, teachers, and school staff, as well as for families and the wider community. This is an update of a Cochrane scoping review first published in 2022.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To comprehensively identify and summarise the published literature on the unintended consequences of public health and social measures implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This will serve to identify critical knowledge gaps to inform future primary research and systematic reviews. It may also serve as a resource for future pandemic management.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science on 5 and 6 January 2023. We also searched two COVID-19-specific databases (Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease). Finally, we reviewed the included studies of all relevant systematic reviews and guidelines identified through the searches.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included studies that empirically assessed the impact of PHSM implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We imposed no restrictions with regard to the types of populations and specific interventions. Outcomes of interest were consequences that were measured or experienced, but not anticipated consequences. This review focused on real-world evidence: empirical quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies were eligible for inclusion, but modelling studies were ineligible.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>The review was guided by a logic model. In line with the latest Cochrane effectiveness review of school measures to contain COVID-19 and a conceptual framework of PHSM, this logic model distinguishes between measures to make contacts safer (related to individual protection and the physical environment), measures to reduce contacts (related to social interactions, movement, and services) and surveillance and response measures. Unintended consequences comprise the following categories: health and well-being, health system and social welfare services, human and fundamental rights, acceptability and adherence, equality and equity, social and institutional, economic and resource, and ecological. The review team screened all titles and abstracts, then potentially eligible full-text articles, in duplicate. Across the included studies, we summarised and presented types of measures, consequences, and study designs using the predefined categories of the logic model, while allowing for emerging categories.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 60 studies (57 new to this update) from 25 countries. There were 31 quantitative studies, 17 qualitative studies, and 12 mixed-method studies. Most targeted either students (26 studies), teachers and school staff (11 studies), or students and school staff (12 studies). Others evaluated measures aimed at parents (2 studies), staff and parents (1 study), students and teachers (3 studies), or the whole school (5 studies). The measures were related to individual protection (26 studies), the physical environment (20 studies), social interactions (25 studies), services (1 study), movement (3 studies), surveillance (9 studies) and response (7 studies). Nine studies evaluated the combined effect of multiple measures. The main consequences assessed were from the categories health and well-being (29 studies), acceptability and adherence (31 studies), and social and institutional (23 studies). Fewer studies covered consequences from the categories equality and equity (2 studies), economic and resource (7 studies), and ecological (1 study). No studies examined consequences for the health system and social welfare services or for human and fundamental rights.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>This scoping review provides an overview of the evidence on the unintended consequences of PHSM implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The 60 included studies describe a broad body of evidence and cover a range of measures and unintended consequences, primarily consequences for health and well-being, acceptability and adherence, social and institutional aspects, and economic aspects. The main gaps identified relate to consequences of school measures for the health system and social welfare services, human and fundamental rights, equality and equity, and the environment. Further research is needed to fill these gaps, making use of diverse methodological approaches. Future studies should explore unintended consequences - whether beneficial or harmful - in more depth and over longer time periods, in different population groups, and across different contexts. A more robust evidence base could inform and facilitate decisions about whether, how, and when to implement or terminate COVID-19 risk mitigation measures in school settings, and how to counter negative unintended consequences.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This publication was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Network of University Medicine (NUM) 1.0, Grant No. 01KX2021 in the context of the project CEOsys, and NUM 2.0, Grant No. 01KX2121 in the context of the projects PREPARED and coverCHILD.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/bsxh8). The previous review is published in the Cochrane Library (10.1002/14651858.CD015397).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"CD015397\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11635916/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015397.pub2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015397.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间,学校是干预公共卫生和社会措施(PHSM)以减少严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2 (SARS-CoV-2)传播的关键场所。因此,有必要评估在学校环境中实施初级卫生保健对学生、教师和学校工作人员以及家庭和更广泛的社区产生的各种意想不到的后果。这是对2022年首次发表的Cochrane范围综述的更新。目的:全面识别和总结关于在学校环境中实施公共卫生和社会措施以减少SARS-CoV-2传播的意外后果的已发表文献。这将有助于确定关键的知识差距,为未来的初步研究和系统评价提供信息。它还可作为未来大流行管理的一种资源。检索方法:我们在2023年1月5日和6日检索了MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ERIC和Web of Science。我们还检索了两个COVID-19特异性数据库(Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register和WHO COVID-19全球关于冠状病毒疾病的文献)。最后,我们回顾了通过检索确定的所有相关系统评价和指南的纳入研究。选择标准:我们纳入了经验评估在学校环境中实施PHSM对减少SARS-CoV-2传播的影响的研究。我们没有对人群类型和具体干预措施加以限制。感兴趣的结果是测量或体验的结果,而不是预期的结果。本综述侧重于真实世界的证据:经验定量、定性和混合方法研究符合纳入条件,但模型研究不符合纳入条件。数据收集和分析:审查由逻辑模型指导。根据最新的Cochrane对学校控制COVID-19措施的有效性评估和PHSM的概念框架,该逻辑模型区分了使接触更安全的措施(与个人保护和物理环境有关)、减少接触的措施(与社会互动、运动和服务有关)以及监测和应对措施。意外后果包括以下类别:健康和福祉、卫生系统和社会福利服务、人权和基本权利、可接受性和遵守性、平等和公平、社会和体制、经济和资源以及生态。审查小组筛选了所有标题和摘要,然后是可能符合条件的全文文章,一式两份。在纳入的研究中,我们使用逻辑模型的预定义类别总结并呈现了测量、结果和研究设计的类型,同时允许出现类别。主要结果:我们纳入了来自25个国家的60项研究(57项是本次更新的新研究)。31项定量研究,17项定性研究,12项混合方法研究。大多数针对学生(26项研究)、教师和学校工作人员(11项研究)或学生和学校工作人员(12项研究)。其他研究则评估了针对家长(2项研究)、员工和家长(1项研究)、学生和教师(3项研究)或全校(5项研究)的措施。这些措施与个人保护(26项研究)、物理环境(20项研究)、社会互动(25项研究)、服务(1项研究)、运动(3项研究)、监测(9项研究)和反应(7项研究)有关。9项研究评估了多种措施的综合效果。评估的主要后果来自健康和福祉(29项研究)、可接受性和依从性(31项研究)以及社会和机构(23项研究)。较少的研究涵盖了平等和公平(2项研究)、经济和资源(7项研究)和生态(1项研究)类别的结果。没有研究审查对卫生系统和社会福利服务或对人权和基本权利的影响。作者的结论:本范围审查概述了在学校环境中实施PHSM以减少SARS-CoV-2传播的意外后果的证据。纳入的60项研究描述了广泛的证据,涵盖了一系列措施和意想不到的后果,主要是对健康和福祉的后果、可接受性和依从性、社会和体制方面以及经济方面。确定的主要差距涉及学校措施对卫生系统和社会福利服务、人权和基本权利、平等和公平以及环境的影响。需要进一步的研究来填补这些空白,利用不同的方法方法。未来的研究应该更深入、更长期、在不同的人口群体和不同的背景下探索意想不到的后果——无论是有益的还是有害的。 一个更有力的证据基础可以为是否、如何以及何时在学校环境中实施或终止COVID-19风险缓解措施以及如何应对负面的意外后果提供信息和促进决策。资助:本出版物部分由德国联邦教育和研究部(BMBF)在大学医学网络(NUM) 1.0中资助,在项目CEOsys的背景下资助No. 01KX2021,以及NUM 2.0,在项目PREPARED和coverCHILD的背景下资助No. 01KX2121。注册:协议在开放科学框架(osf.io/bsxh8)上注册。之前的综述发表在Cochrane图书馆(10.1002/14651858.CD015397)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unintended consequences of measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

Background: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were a key setting for intervening with public health and social measures (PHSM) to reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Consequently, there is a need to assess the varied unintended consequences associated with PHSM implemented in the school setting, for students, teachers, and school staff, as well as for families and the wider community. This is an update of a Cochrane scoping review first published in 2022.

Objectives: To comprehensively identify and summarise the published literature on the unintended consequences of public health and social measures implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This will serve to identify critical knowledge gaps to inform future primary research and systematic reviews. It may also serve as a resource for future pandemic management.

Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science on 5 and 6 January 2023. We also searched two COVID-19-specific databases (Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease). Finally, we reviewed the included studies of all relevant systematic reviews and guidelines identified through the searches.

Selection criteria: We included studies that empirically assessed the impact of PHSM implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We imposed no restrictions with regard to the types of populations and specific interventions. Outcomes of interest were consequences that were measured or experienced, but not anticipated consequences. This review focused on real-world evidence: empirical quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies were eligible for inclusion, but modelling studies were ineligible.

Data collection and analysis: The review was guided by a logic model. In line with the latest Cochrane effectiveness review of school measures to contain COVID-19 and a conceptual framework of PHSM, this logic model distinguishes between measures to make contacts safer (related to individual protection and the physical environment), measures to reduce contacts (related to social interactions, movement, and services) and surveillance and response measures. Unintended consequences comprise the following categories: health and well-being, health system and social welfare services, human and fundamental rights, acceptability and adherence, equality and equity, social and institutional, economic and resource, and ecological. The review team screened all titles and abstracts, then potentially eligible full-text articles, in duplicate. Across the included studies, we summarised and presented types of measures, consequences, and study designs using the predefined categories of the logic model, while allowing for emerging categories.

Main results: We included 60 studies (57 new to this update) from 25 countries. There were 31 quantitative studies, 17 qualitative studies, and 12 mixed-method studies. Most targeted either students (26 studies), teachers and school staff (11 studies), or students and school staff (12 studies). Others evaluated measures aimed at parents (2 studies), staff and parents (1 study), students and teachers (3 studies), or the whole school (5 studies). The measures were related to individual protection (26 studies), the physical environment (20 studies), social interactions (25 studies), services (1 study), movement (3 studies), surveillance (9 studies) and response (7 studies). Nine studies evaluated the combined effect of multiple measures. The main consequences assessed were from the categories health and well-being (29 studies), acceptability and adherence (31 studies), and social and institutional (23 studies). Fewer studies covered consequences from the categories equality and equity (2 studies), economic and resource (7 studies), and ecological (1 study). No studies examined consequences for the health system and social welfare services or for human and fundamental rights.

Authors' conclusions: This scoping review provides an overview of the evidence on the unintended consequences of PHSM implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The 60 included studies describe a broad body of evidence and cover a range of measures and unintended consequences, primarily consequences for health and well-being, acceptability and adherence, social and institutional aspects, and economic aspects. The main gaps identified relate to consequences of school measures for the health system and social welfare services, human and fundamental rights, equality and equity, and the environment. Further research is needed to fill these gaps, making use of diverse methodological approaches. Future studies should explore unintended consequences - whether beneficial or harmful - in more depth and over longer time periods, in different population groups, and across different contexts. A more robust evidence base could inform and facilitate decisions about whether, how, and when to implement or terminate COVID-19 risk mitigation measures in school settings, and how to counter negative unintended consequences.

Funding: This publication was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Network of University Medicine (NUM) 1.0, Grant No. 01KX2021 in the context of the project CEOsys, and NUM 2.0, Grant No. 01KX2121 in the context of the projects PREPARED and coverCHILD.

Registration: The protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/bsxh8). The previous review is published in the Cochrane Library (10.1002/14651858.CD015397).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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