Participants were randomly sorted into groups receiving text messaging (TM), text messaging combined with health navigation (TM + HN), or standard care. Symptom screening for COVID-19, coupled with guidance on the appropriate use and acquisition of tests, was conveyed via bidirectional texts. Should parents/guardians in the TM + HN group be prompted to test their child, yet they chose not to test or didn't answer text messages, a trained health navigator would then reach out to discuss potential obstacles.
Students enrolled at participating schools were remarkably diverse, with 329% being non-white, 154% being Hispanic, and 496% qualifying for free lunches. A substantial 988 percent of parents and guardians possessed a valid cell phone, with 38 percent of this group declining participation. selleck In the intervention involving 2323 parents/guardians, 796% (n=1849) were randomly selected for the TM program, and among them, 191% (n=354) participated by interacting with the program (e.g., replying to at least one message). In the TM plus HN group (401%, n = 932), a noteworthy 13% (n = 12) attained HN status at least once, with a subset of 417% (n = 5) subsequently engaging with a health navigator.
For communicating COVID-19 screening messages to parents/guardians of kindergarten through 12th-grade students, TM and HN are practical options. Strategies to bolster engagement could significantly improve the outcome of the intervention.
To effectively disseminate COVID-19 screening messages to parents/guardians of students in kindergarten through 12th grade, the use of TM and HN is practical. Strategies to increase involvement could potentially intensify the results of the intervention.
Though vaccination rates have climbed substantially, reliable and easy-to-use coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests remain a vital necessity for maintaining public health. Universal testing for positive cases at early care and education ([ECE]) preschool sites might contribute to the safe return and ongoing participation of preschoolers in ECE programs. biogenic silica A quantitative PCR saliva test for COVID-19 was evaluated for its acceptance and feasibility among young children (n=227, 54% female, mean age 5.23 ± 0.81 years) and their caregivers (n=70 teachers, mean age 36.6 ± 1.47 years; n=227 parents, mean age 35.5 ± 0.91 years) to reduce COVID-19 transmission and lessen absences from school and work in affected families.
Participants for the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostic Testing-Underserved Populations Back to Early Care and Education Safely with Sustainability via Active Garden Education project (NCT05178290) were obtained from ECE sites that serve low-income communities.
Feasibility and acceptability of surveys, administered in English or Spanish at testing events to children and caregivers within early childhood education settings, were generally high. The child's age and the feasibility of obtaining a saliva sample displayed a positive association with more positive assessments of the child and the parent. No correlation was observed between language preference and any outcomes.
Saliva-based COVID-19 testing in early childhood education settings is a suitable supplementary safeguard for four- and five-year-olds; however, different testing methods might be required for younger children.
Saliva testing for COVID-19 at early childhood education sites is a suitable option for four- and five-year-old children; however, diverse testing protocols may be required for those who are younger
Children with medical intricacy and those with intellectual or developmental differences depend on the support systems schools provide, which cannot be replicated online; however, they are among the groups most susceptible to contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To preserve educational access for students with medical intricacies and/or intellectual and developmental disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 testing was established at three sites throughout the United States. Testing protocols for teaching staff and students at each location were evaluated, taking into account the sample collection technique (nasopharyngeal or saliva), the type of test performed (polymerase chain reaction or rapid antigen), and the testing frequency and type (screening or exposure/symptomatic). The process of gaining caregiver cooperation and resolving legal guardianship issues for consenting adult students presented a major roadblock to implementing COVID-19 testing in these schools. E multilocularis-infected mice In addition, differing testing tactics at both the national and community levels, in tandem with the surges in viral transmission across the United States throughout the pandemic, created a reluctance toward testing and variable participation. For testing programs to yield positive outcomes, a solid relationship with school administrators and guardians must be cultivated. Strengthening school safety during future pandemics for vulnerable children hinges on drawing from our collective experience with COVID-19 and cultivating enduring partnerships with schools.
In light of coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms or exposures, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that schools make SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) diagnostic testing, on an on-demand basis, available to students and staff. Reports on the adoption, use, and outcomes of school-integrated, on-demand diagnostic assessments are non-existent.
To support the implementation of on-demand SARS-CoV-2 testing in schools, the 'Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics Underserved Populations Return to School' program furnished researchers with required resources. This research investigates the methods utilized and their adoption rates in the different testing programs. The positivity risk was assessed for both symptomatic and exposure testing, encompassing the variant period. We quantified the number of school days missed that were prevented through on-site diagnostic testing at schools.
Seven eligible programs, from a group of sixteen, incorporated school-based on-demand testing procedures. The testing programs encompassed 8281 participants. A notable 4134 (499%) of these individuals completed more than one test during the school year. Exposure testing proved less likely to yield positive results than symptomatic testing, a difference more pronounced during the phase of the dominant variant compared with the period of the preceding variant's prevalence. Generally, the presence of testing opportunities saved an estimated 13,806 days of student absences.
On-demand SARS-CoV-2 testing services were in place at the school throughout the entire school year, with nearly half the participants electing to use the testing service on multiple occasions. Further research should be dedicated to understanding student perspectives on school-based testing and analyze how these strategies can be used within and beyond the limitations of pandemics.
Testing for SARS-CoV-2, on demand and school-based, was accessed by nearly half of the participants more than once throughout the school year. Upcoming studies should prioritize an understanding of participant preferences in the realm of school-based testing and how such strategies can be utilized during and outside of situations characterized by widespread disease.
A key element of future common data element (CDE) development and collection efforts is to cultivate strong community partnerships, ensure consistent data interpretation, and work actively to reduce barriers of mistrust between researchers and the communities they serve.
A cross-sectional evaluation, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, scrutinized mandatory CDE collection procedures across Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics-Underserved Populations Return to School project teams operating in various US locations and encompassing diverse priority populations. The aims were to (1) compare racial/ethnic composition of CDE-completing participants against those involved in project-based testing initiatives, and (2) analyze the magnitude of missing CDE data according to specific domains. Concurrently, we performed analyses categorized by aim-level factors, describing the various CDE data collection strategies.
Fifteen study aims were reported across the 13 participating Return to School projects. Specifically, 7 (47%) of these aims were designed to completely separate CDEs from the testing initiative, 4 (27%) involved a complete integration, and a remaining 4 (27%) demonstrated a partial coupling between CDEs and the testing. Financial compensation was offered as an incentive to participants in 9 of the 15 study goals (60%). A substantial portion (62%) of project teams (8 out of 13) adjusted the CDE questions to align with their specific target demographics. Although there was minimal variance in racial and ethnic representation of CDE survey respondents and testing participants amongst the 13 projects, the separation of CDE questions from testing led to a higher proportion of Black and Hispanic participation in both.
Incorporating underrepresented populations from the initial stages of study design can enhance participation and interest in CDE collection initiatives.
A collaborative approach, including underrepresented populations from the onset of the study design, may cultivate higher levels of interest and involvement in CDE data collection initiatives.
Improving participation in school-based testing programs, especially within underserved groups, necessitates a detailed analysis of the factors that motivate and hinder enrollment, considered from the viewpoints of various stakeholders. This multi-study effort sought to define the motivating and discouraging aspects influencing enrollment in school-based coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing.
Four independent studies gathered and analyzed qualitative data to explore student perspectives on COVID-19 testing in schools; this involved understanding (1) motivations, benefits, and justifications for participation, and (2) anxieties, impediments, and negative results. Findings from independent studies were the subject of a retrospective review by the study authors to discern common themes connected to test-taking motivations and worries.