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.