Abstract
Background Emergency school closures are often used as public health interventions during infectious disease outbreaks in an attempt to minimise the spread of infection. However, if children continue to mix with others outside the home during the closures, these measures are unlikely to be effective.
Objectives This review aimed to summarise existing literature on children’s activities and contacts made outside the home during unplanned school closures.
Methods We searched four databases from inception to February 2020 for relevant literature. Main findings were extracted.
Results 3,343 citations were screened and 19 included in the review. Activities and social contacts appeared to decrease during closures but contact was still common. All studies reported children leaving the house or being looked after by non-household members. There was some evidence that older child age and parental disagreement with closure were predictive of children leaving the house, and mixed evidence regarding the relationship between infection status and leaving the home. Parental agreement with closure was generally high, but some parents disagreed due to perceived low risk of infection and practical issues regarding childcare and financial impact.
Conclusions Evidence suggests that many children continue to leave the house and mix with others during school closures despite public health recommendations to avoid social contact. This review of behaviour during unplanned school closures could be used to improve infectious disease modelling.
Introduction
Gaining control of an infectious disease outbreak can require difficult decisions to be made. Children are often in close physical proximity at school, have less than perfect hygiene behaviours and have low prior immunity to many infections, leading them to be dubbed ‘super-spreaders’ of influenza [1]. For this reason, school closures are often mooted as one way of delaying the spread of infection [2]. There is evidence to suggest that social contacts should reduce when schools are closed. For example, it has been reported that students have contact with fewer people at weekends [3] and that the number of contacts children have with others approximately halves during the holidays [4, 5]. Several studies have also examined illness transmission rates during planned school closures, reporting a reduction in illness during school holidays [6, 7, 8] and teacher strikes [9].
School closure is not a step that can be taken lightly, however. Clearly, closures can have an impact on the education of the children involved. But they can also have an impact on the healthcare system and wider economy if large numbers of the workforce stay home to look after their children, on household incomes, on social policies implemented at school and on the likelihood of children engaging in other risky behaviours if they must be left unattended at home [10]. Indeed, the secondary economic and social effects of school closures are potentially huge [11].
Understanding whether the efficacy of school closure in terms of reducing the spread of disease is sufficient to justify these impacts is therefore important. One of the key unknowns that prevents us from resolving this issue is what happens to children after a school is closed. The optimum answer, from an epidemiological perspective, is that they remain in their bedrooms for the duration of the closure, never coming into contact with another person [12, 13]. However, this is impractical and front-line experience of outbreak management is full of tales of children continuing to congregate after being sent home from school and sometimes engaging in behaviour likely to increase the risks of infection spreading [14, 15]. Any full assessment of the impact of school closures must take this into account.
A related issue is the extent to which the quality rather than quantity of social interaction changes following a school closure. For example, the role of grandparents in caring for children following school closure may be a cause for concern if this increases the likelihood of older adults coming into contact with the infectious disease in question.
Finally, given that school closures are often accompanied by advice to parents to limit the contact their children have with others, understanding what practical or attitudinal factors affect the likelihood of children mixing during a closure may also be helpful in improving the advice that is given out.
In this rapid evidence review, we examined a) what is currently known about the impact of unplanned school closure on children’s interaction with others outside the home, b) who provides childcare during a closure, c) what factors are associated with children interacting with others outside the home during a closure, and d) what affected parents think about closures.
Method
This work was carried out as a rapid evidence review in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019, which has led to policy-makers worldwide discussing how best to minimise the spread of the disease. As there are no specific guidelines for rapid reviews, the PRISMA checklist has not been completed.
Search strategy and selection criteria
We used the following search strategy to search MEDLINE®, PsycINFO® and EMBASE®:
school* ADJ3 close* OR ADJ3 closure* OR ADJ3 closing* OR ADJ3 dismiss*
nurser* ADJ3 close* OR ADJ3 closure* OR ADJ3 closing* OR ADJ3 dismiss*
kindergar* ADJ3 close* OR ADJ3 closure* OR ADJ3 closing* OR ADJ3 dismiss*
playgroup* ADJ3 close* OR ADJ3 closure* OR ADJ3 closing* OR ADJ3 dismiss*
play-group* ADJ3 close* OR ADJ3 closure* OR ADJ3 closing* OR ADJ3 dismiss*
1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5
behaviour* OR behavior* OR contact* OR mix* OR social* OR targeted layered containment
6 AND 7
We repeated the same search on Web of Science using NEAR instead of ADJ3.
To be included in the review, studies had to: i) report on primary research; ii) be published in peer-reviewed journals; iii) be written in English or Italian (languages spoken by our team); and iv) report on social activities of children during unplanned temporary school closures (because mixing behaviour will likely be different during closures with plenty of notice, when parents have more time to plan what to do). We excluded papers based on intentions, hypothetical scenarios or simulations.
Screening
One author (SKB) ran the search strategy on all databases and downloaded all resulting citations to EndNote© version X9 (Thomson Reuters, New York, USA). All titles and abstracts were screened for relevance according to the inclusion criteria by at least two authors (SKB, LES, RKW, DW, or LW). The authors compared which texts they had chosen for inclusion and discrepancies were resolved through discussion with the wider team. Full texts of all remaining citations were obtained and reviewed by one author (SKB), excluding any which did not meet all inclusion criteria. Finally, the reference lists of remaining papers were hand-searched for any additional relevant studies. A flow chart of the screening process is presented in Figure 1.
Data extraction
We designed spreadsheets to extract the following data from papers: authors, publication year, country of study, design, participants (including n and demographic information), reason for school closure, length of school closure, and key results. Data extraction was carried out by one author (SKB).
Results
Nineteen papers were included, eighteen of which used a cross-sectional design using questionnaires to assess difficulties during the school closures, activities outside the home during the closures and/or who provided childcare during the closures. The remaining paper used a qualitative design. The majority (n=10) were from the USA; four papers were from Australia, and the remaining papers from Argentina, Japan, Russia, Taiwan and the UK (one for each country). Most papers reported on school closures due to the H1N1 pandemic (n=11) or other influenza or influenza-like outbreaks (n=7); one paper reported on a school closed in preparation for a hurricane. The duration of school closures ranged from one day to two weeks. The size of the quantitative studies ranged from 35 households (representing 67 children) to 2,229 households (representing 4,171 children). Table 1 provides a summary of activities outside the home found in the reviewed studies, while Table 2 summarises childcare arrangements involving non-household members during school closures. Supplementary Appendix 1 provides more detail on the results of each study.
Interaction with others outside the home
Participation in activities and interactions with others did appear to decrease during school closures compared to regular school days [16, 17, 18]; for example, one study [16] reported that school closure was associated with a 65% reduction in the mean total number of contacts for each student. However, social contact was still common. All nineteen studies showed that at least some (and in some cases, most) children took part in activities outside of the home during school closures, even despite health recommendations to remain indoors and isolated from others.
Factors associated with contact outside the home
Infection status
Several studies suggested that children who reported illness during a school closure were less likely to take part in activities outside the home [16, 19, 20, 21]. For example, Effler et al. [19] reported a significant difference for the proportion of cases (students testing positive for H1N1 virus), students who had been in close physical proximity to cases, and peers who did not meet case or contact criteria who reported leaving the home more than once during the closure period (42%, 66% and 92% respectively). Cases reported an average of 0.8 out-of-home activities per student per week, compared with 2.9 for contacts and 5.6 for peers. Other studies reported that children who reported illness or lived in households in which influenza-like illness was reported did not participate in the majority of activities reported by other students [20, 21] and that their contact with others was reduced [16].
However, other studies reported few differences in out-of-home activities between symptomatic and asymptomatic children [18, 22, 23, 24, 25]. In fact, one study [18] found that students with illnesses were more likely to report an increase in travel plans, for reasons that are not clear. Two studies found that children with an influenza-like illness were more likely to have visited a healthcare provider, but no other statistically significant differences in out-of-home activities were found between students with and without symptoms [23, 24].
Age
Three studies noted more activities and contacts among older children [18, 22, 26]. In particular, Grade 12 students (16-18yrs) [18] had significantly more contacts than other grades during closures, particularly late in the week. Because many Grade 12 students were not regularly attending classes at the school prior to the outbreak, they may have felt that they or their friends had not been exposed to the infection. One study [22] found that children aged twelve and over were significantly more likely to go to fast food restaurants and parties but less likely to go grocery shopping than children under twelve.
Conversely, one study [25] found that younger children were more likely to leave the home during a closure, with 53.2% of kindergarten pupils, 42.5% of primary school pupils, 30.3% of junior high school pupils and 33.2% of high-school pupils reporting that they left the house at least once. Primary school pupils were significantly more likely to leave the home to visit a supermarket or convenience store (likely with their parents), while junior high school pupils and primary school pupils were significantly more likely to leave the home to attend extracurricular studies compared with pupils in other school categories. It is unclear why this study shows the reverse of many others, but as this was the only study from Japan it may relate to cultural differences.
District
There is a small amount of evidence that location can affect the out-of-home activities children take part in during school closures, from a study of behaviour in children from two different school districts [27]. In this study, children in Jujuy were more likely to attend religious events, use public transport, and go to plazas and recreation areas than children in Ushuaia; children in Ushuaia were more likely to go to the movie theatre and restaurants than children in Jujuy. Socio-economic differences may well be the reason for this: Ushuaia has one of the lowest poverty rates in the country, whereas Jujuy has one of the highest.
Employment status of adults in the household
One study [24] found that if all adults in the home were employed, ill children were less likely to leave the home. A baseline household had a 34% probability of a child visiting any other venue; if all adults were employed, the probability of children leaving the home decreased to 24%. This is an unexpected finding in that we would expect that children living only with employed adults might have to leave the house for childcare arrangements; the authors did not offer reasons for the association between employed adults and reduced likelihood of children leaving the home.
Perceived appropriateness of school closure
Two studies found that parental opinion about the appropriateness of the school closure was significantly correlated with student participation in activities outside the home [19, 25]. Students of parents who thought the school closure was not appropriate reported a mean of 4.7 out-of-home activities, compared with a mean of 4.3 activities for students of parents who were unsure and 2.8 for students of parents who thought the closure was appropriate [19]. This pattern persisted when the analysis was restricted to the 202 students who were asymptomatic. Similarly, Mizumoto et al. [25] found that proportionately fewer children left the home in households that believed the closure was appropriate: 38.8%, compared to 53.2% of children in households who felt the closure was inappropriate.
Extent of closure
One study [25] found that extent of the school closure was significantly associated with the frequency of children leaving the home: closure of the entire school, closure of a single grade or single class suspension were associated with 47.8%, 32.2% and 40.3% of children leaving the home, respectively.
Length of time advised to isolate
One study, with high compliance rates with advised quarantine [28] found that children stayed at home for more than 94% of the days they were advised to be in quarantine and this figure was not associated with the length of quarantine nor did it fluctuate over the course of the quarantine period.
Day of the week
In one study [28] contact rates of uninfected students at the end of the week were lower than at the beginning. Contacts substantially increased for older children (grades 11 and 12) on Friday and Saturday.
Special childcare arrangements
Children in households where special childcare arrangements were needed during closure were more likely to leave the home than households in which children were independent and able to take care of themselves (53.1% versus 35.9%) [25].
Other factors considered
Child’s gender, household educational level, household income and household size were not associated with the likelihood of the child leaving the home during school closure [25].
Parental attitudes towards school closure
Perceived benefit of closure
Parents generally agreed with school closures. Several studies reported high rates of parents being at least moderately supportive of the closure: 97% [29], 93% [25], 91% [22], 78% [27], 73% [30], and 71% [31]. The main reasons for agreeing with school closures were believing that: it would protect the health of the community, of the children themselves, and of the household; and believing that there were too many sick children for the school to remain open [19, 22, 25, 29]. Timperio et al. [29] found that over 90% of parents felt it was important to disinfect the schools while closed to reduce the community spread of influenza.
Perceived risk of infection
Several of the main reasons for disagreeing with school closures appeared to be related to perceived risk: parents cited beliefs that closures do not protect against influenza [27]; beliefs that the illness is only mild [19, 25]; and beliefs that school closure is not an effective measure against infection [25].
Practicalities of school closure
The other main reasons for disagreeing with school closures were related to the practicalities and subsequent impact of the closure: for example, concerns about the impact on the child’s education [27]; difficulties making childcare arrangements [25]; and concerns about the economic impact [19, 22]. Parents reported various difficulties associated with school closures, primarily lost income, the effort of arranging alternate childcare, and uncertainty about the duration of the closure [32, 33]. Some studies also illustrated a lack of consistency by schools regarding the importance of not participating in social activities: for example, 17% of parents reported that after-school activities were not cancelled [31] while others expressed concern that school athletic events were still held on days that school was closed [29].
Discussion
During a major infectious disease outbreak, school closure has the potential to slow the spread of infection. The effects of a closure will be attenuated if children continue to mix. Of the 19 papers that we identified, all of them reported that some degree of mixing continued to occur outside of the home. We should not be surprised at this. Even for adults, self-isolation can be difficult [34] and stressful [35] and children often have wider social circles and feel more social pressure to interact. The precise extent to which contact patterns change during a closure is harder to determine. Only a limited number of studies have attempted to quantify this, reporting reductions in contacts from 70.3 on typical school days to 24.8 [16] and 14.2 to 6.5 [17]. The key variation in these number of absolute contacts are social and cultural differences but also technical definitions of what a contact is (such as physical contact or transitory contact).
Complicating matters is that the qualitative nature of contacts also changes. Many studies have explored what types of activities children engage in outside of the home during a closure. These include the full range of recreational and social activities, from shopping to meeting friends indoors, using public transport and visiting restaurants. It is likely that the type of activity is important in determining the likelihood of infection spreading. For example, participation in sports events have been noted to be particularly associated with the spread of influenza as have social events such as parties, whereas we can, perhaps, be less concerned about visits to a park [19]. Further research is needed on quantifying the rates of contact associated with the various different activities reported in this review; contacts in households, schools and workplaces are likely for a more sustained duration than in more transient social settings (such as shopping) but parties may form a middle ground. Assuming infection given a contact is a function of duration and type of contact, this can form the basis of more evidence-based modelling and risk assessment.
Reassuringly, our review found that relatively few children required special arrangements to be made for their childcare that might actively increase the risk of disease transmission, such as being placed into a semi-formal childcare arrangement with other children or being looked after by grandparents. The proportion of children left home alone unsupervised, however, while low, is of concern. If school closures are considered in the future, public health officials should consider how best to support parents and prevent this from occurring.
Parental attitudes associated with agreeing or disagreeing with school closures were similar to those seen in relation to other preventive health behaviours for infectious diseases [36, 37]. In particular, two of the studies included in this review suggested there was a strong association between allowing children to socialise outside the home and disagreeing with the school closure [19, 25]. Ensuring parents understand why school closure is important will be a key factor determining the success of the measure in any future disease outbreak. In this regard, it was concerning that two studies appeared to highlight a lack of clarity in terms of advice about children’s social activities and knowing what children were and were not advised to do [29, 31]. Advice from schools should be consistent with public health advice – hosting extra-curricular activities and sporting events during a closure sends mixed messages to parents and can be confusing or detrimental [14].
We found unclear evidence about the majority of the other predictors of out-of-home activities which we reviewed. In particular, there was mixed evidence about whether children showing symptoms of illness or who have been ill during the closure will take part in similar out-of-home activities to children who are not ill. Clearly, it would be particularly concerning if even symptomatic children are participating in out-of-home activities.
Different studies found that both older age and younger age were associated with leaving the house during school closures. It may be that the direction of findings depends on the activity in question. For example, younger children seem to be more likely to go grocery shopping (likely because they are too young to be left at home alone when their caregiver goes to the shops) whereas older children are more likely to take part in social activities like parties and going to restaurants.
In terms of how our findings fit with the wider literature, one particular discrepancy is worthy of note. Evidence from studies in which people are asked how they would react to a hypothetical school closure often find that parents believe they would co-operate with public health advice. For example, one study involving a hypothetical scenario of schools closing for three months due to an influenza pandemic found that 85% of parents responsible for children aged between 5-17 believed they would be able to keep their children from taking public transport, going to public events, and gathering outside the home during this lengthy school closure period [38]; another found that 96.7% of parents claimed they would keep their children away from others for a month if schools and child-care facilities were closed [39]. Despite these good intentions, our review of real school closures suggests parents are less likely to achieve this, even when schools are closed for much shorter periods of time. Regardless of the conviction with which people answer questions about their likely future actions, substantial caution is needed in using such data. The duration of planned closure of schools is perhaps critical here too; short closures of up to a couple of weeks may be manageable by parents as seen in the studies found but longer closures required for curtailing pandemic waves of the order of months may provide more challenge to them.
Further research is needed to identify how best to ensure that children are incentivised to stay at home during a school closure. The relatively sparse research conducted to date (limited by the real-world occurrence of school closures and the feasibility of conducting rapid research when these do occur) do not allow us to provide a ready answer to this question, but improved communication with both parents and children is likely to be required.
In terms of limitations for this review, the generalisability of the individual studies we identified is unclear. In particular a lot may depend on the cultural context, perceptions of the illness in question, the length of the closure, the socio-economic status of the families that are affected and the information or instructions that are given to them by public health authorities. With relatively few studies in this field, it is difficult to disentangle these effects.
Recent reviews of the incorporation of human behaviour into infectious disease models have advocated the use of appropriate, detailed, real-world behavioural data within infectious disease modelling [40, 41]. It is to be hoped that our identification of real-world data concerning social contact and mixing behaviour during unexpected school closures will help improve existing models and also promote more rigorous quantitative research in this area.
Data Availability
None available. This paper is not based on original data.
Footnotes
Funding statement The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King’s College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with the University of East Anglia and Newcastle University. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or Public Health England. Dale Weston’s time on this project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Modelling Methodology at Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE). IH is also supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling Methodology and the NIHR policy research programme Operational Research for Emergency Response and strategic planning Analysis (OPERA).
Conflict of interest None declared.