The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on families in Germany

INTRODUCTION

So far, the COVID-19 pandemic has had very different effects on countries within Europe. France, Spain, Italy and the UK have been most severely affected both in terms of prevalence and mortality rates.¹ Within Germany, regions in the south and west had much higher rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths than those in the north and east.² However, similar lockdown measures were introduced in all parts of the country. Particularly, closing of daycare nurseries and schools were the first measures taken and the last to be lifted everywhere.³

At the beginning of the pandemic, the focus of attention was on elderly people and patients with chronic disease while children were assumed to be not seriously affected by the virus,^3,4 largely because prevalence rates were thought to be low and severe courses were less frequent in children. Nevertheless, the potential impact on the psychosocial and economic situation of families and the pandemic’s effects on children, such as social deprivation due to the separation from their peers, the absence of education and the potential exposure to violence at home, were only realized later.⁵ Primary data from families affected by the COVID-19 pandemic was however lacking.

In the cities of Leipzig and Regensburg, located in the east (Leipzig) and south (Regensburg) of Germany, two actively recruiting childhood cohorts exist: The LIFE child⁶ and the KUNO Kids health studies.⁷ Therefore, performing a survey during the lockdown phase and asking families about their situation, concerns and constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic were obvious tasks. As children at a young age are particularly vulnerable when social learning develops and peer interaction is key,⁸ the effects of the lockdown may be especially grave.⁹ Thus, we focused on children between 1 and 6 years of age and investigated how families with young children in two regions with considerably different prevalence rates of COVID-19 perceived their situation.

METHODS

Design

The study had a cross-sectional design and used data collected in two childhood cohorts in Germany. The cohorts are situated in Leipzig (Saxony) and Regensburg (Bavaria), respectively. Figure 1 provides an overview of the time course of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated policy measures for both study regions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Overview on policy measures and number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the two states where the study took place: Bavaria (Regensburg) and Saxony (Leipzig)

RESULTS

For both cohorts, general characteristics as well as indicators of how participants were affected by the pandemic are shown in Table 1. In 98% of the families, the mother completed the questionnaire. The cohorts did not show relevant differences regarding age of mother or child. The majority of mothers were in permanent employment with children usually attending daycare in both cohorts. Rate of permanent employment of fathers was slightly lower in the Leipzig cohort as was the percentage of migration background. In both cohorts, the majority of parents had a higher educational degree. Most families had close ones belonging to high-risk groups, though only very few families were in actual quarantine. Percentages of close ones with mild/severe COVID-19 were twice as high in the Regensburg cohort corresponding with the marked differences in regional prevalence rates (see also Figure 1). For more than half of the parents, the work situation did not change during the COVID-19 associated lockdown, with about 20% of mothers and 30% of fathers continuing to work from the office.

The distribution of all the participants’ responses to the survey questions is depicted in Figure 2. Very few families did not care much about the COVID-19 pandemic (12.5%), whereas 29% were “very much” or “extremely” concerned about how things would continue across both cohorts.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Distribution of participants’ answers to the survey questions (N=918)

When asked what the concerns were directed to, less than 10% of responders were concerned about their very own situation, whereas 40% were concerned about the situation in other countries and the world. Similarly, for health-related concerns, less than 8% worried about their own health, but 37% were concerned about the health of close-ones. The most prevalent concern across all topics was for general economic recession (>70% at least “very much” concerned), though only 15% of families were very much worried that the COVID-19 pandemic affected their own financial situation. Only few families worried about the health care system.

Most responders expected that the situation would normalize within half a year (59.9%), but 37.3% were seriously afraid it would never be the same. More than half of the families trusted very much in the federal measures against COVID-19 pandemic.

Many participants reported an impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social and family life. About one third of the families (30.5%) were at least very much burdened by the situation, and the lack of social contacts was very/extremely bothersome for almost half of families. On the other hand, the majority coped well with the situation. About half had a clear daily schedule. Families indicated that they were enjoying the additional time they could spend together (60%) and that they had united as a family (56%). Nevertheless, 22.5% of the families reported relevantly more conflicts with children and 19% and 12% reported more conflicts between children or between the spouses, respectively.

The participants’ responses regarding concerns and perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic differed between the study regions (Figure 3). Overall concerns were stronger in Regensburg - the region with higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Participants from the Leipzig cohort were less likely to seek information about the pandemic, more likely to not care much about the pandemic and more likely to consider the policy measures as exaggerated.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Regional differences in participants’ answers to the survey questions (N=918)

Furthermore, general and health concerns for the family and oneself were almost twice as strong in Regensburg, whereas the concerns for the situation in the hometown/ Germany/ world did not differ between the cohorts. Also, concerns about economic recession, that were very strong in both cities, were even more pronounced in the Regensburg cohort.

Families in Leipzig tended to experience the situation even more burdensome than in Regensburg and stated they coped less well, even though they stated significantly more often that they appreciated more time and cohesion within the families.

Table 2 shows the results of the multivariable analyses. Worries about oneself, about families, about friends and about one’s hometown were significantly stronger if family members or friends belonged to the risk group. Independent of this, families in Leipzig worried less. Worries about the entire world were less intense in participants with lower educational degree and with migration background and stronger if close ones suffered from severe infection. The trust in political measures against the pandemic and concerns about economic recession was significantly lower in Leipzig.

DISCUSSION

During the first stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, Regensburg experienced infection rates approximately three times as high as those in Leipzig. Measures to contain SARS-CoV-2 infections were quite similar in timing and nature in both regions and affected families with children strongly in their daily life. Most families were concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of lock-down measures, with major concerns directed towards economic situation and the lack of social contacts, but less towards their own health. Overall, parents’ concerns, need for information on the pandemic as well as the approval of federal measures were stronger in the more affected region.

This study is based on a survey conducted in two well-characterized cohorts of families with young children. In terms of socio-demographic characteristics the cohorts were largely comparable. By implementing identical questions in both cohorts our study succeeded in (a), achieving a large sample size, which allowed for multivariable analyses, and in (b), comparing regional differences across Bavaria and Saxony. By the timely collection of data attitudes and concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic our study explored the situation of families with young children at a crucial point in time. Families had to cope with the restriction measures for many weeks and it was not yet clear when and how social distancing measures or kindergarten closures would be lifted.

A limitation of our study is its cross-sectional design. A longitudinal perspective is ideal to provide a better understanding of how the situation of families’ develops over time and whether concerns vary according to current restriction measures and number of COVID-19 cases. This longitudinal approach was provided in an analysis from Croatia, where surveys were performed in almost 1000 individuals on the day after the first patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 in the country and 3 weeks later.¹² There, concerns and worries increased over the three weeks period as did the acceptance for the measures with increasing severity of the pandemic. Those who were at highest risk but also mothers represented the most concerned group¹², consistent with earlier pandemics such as the swine flu.¹³ Therefore, parents, especially mothers, were the group we addressed in our study. While we did not investigate concerns longitudinally, Leipzig would rather compare to an early stage of the pandemic and Regensburg represents a situation where the pandemic has already increased its punch. Even though measures were almost identical in our two study locations, the course of the pandemic was different with much less and less severely affected individuals in Leipzig. Therefore, our study very nicely confirms and complements the findings from Croatia: Those results underline, when pandemic effects are at a low level, concerns may be less prominent and trust in the necessity of protective measures may decrease. To downplay concerns about the pandemic in a situation where one’s own experience with the disease and its impact are still limited, may even be a reasonable coping strategy. On the other hand, adherence to preventive measures over months is required to reinforce prevention for the duration of the pandemic.

We found differences in concerns and trust between our two study sites. However, we cannot differentiate between effects caused by differences in the course of the pandemic or the associated policy measures or by differences of the two regions. Also, residual confounding cannot be excluded.

Interestingly, it was especially found in Leipzig, that parents could also find some benefits in the current situation of lockdown. Significantly more often than in Regensburg, parents from Leipzig reported that they enjoyed spending more time together. Nevertheless, it must not be neglected that in some families, the risk for violence and vulnerability may increase for children during periods of school closures due to health emergencies.¹⁴

Our study population consisted mostly of well educated parents as we drew them from our ongoing pediatric cohort studies. This is a common observation as families with low education, low income and migration background are often underrepresented in longitudinal health studies.^15,16 Due to this selection bias we may underestimate the impact of the pandemic on families who are underprivileged. However, we found similar tendencies in the two study populations and thus, the comparisons between the two regions are unlikely to be biased by these conditions.

Doubtless, the current COVID-19 pandemic is a stressor for many people across the world. Parents seem to be especially concerned and children are particularly vulnerable as they are in a critical phase of development. Spillover effects of parental stress towards children are well described, also for times of health crisis.¹⁷ What impact the current situation may have on mental health of the young generation is still to be determined but first studies suggest that indeed, they may be troublesome.¹⁸ Therefore, special concerns of families need to be addressed and support needs to be provided despite social distancing and measures of infection control.

In summary, most families with young children in our study were concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of the associated lock-down measures, with major concerns directed towards economic situation and the lack of social contacts, but less towards their own health. Overall concerns, need for information on the pandemic and approval for federal measures were more pronounced in the more affected region. These data may suggest that more information about the extent and consequences of the pandemic, probably also on a more personal and individual scale, is needed in less affected regions to reassure people about the necessity and scale of preventive measures.

Contributors

SB, TP, MV, MK and AK designed the study. SB, MV, CM, BSG, MM contributed to data collection. TP, MV and CM analysed the data. SB, TP, MV, CM, CA, WK, MK and AK contributed to data interpretation. SB, TP, MK and AK drafted the first version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript.

Declaration of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

The LIFE Child study was approved by the Ethics Committe of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig (Reg. No. 264/10-ek). The KUNO-Kids study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Regensburg (Reference Number 14-101-0347).

Data sharing

De-identified participant data of the KUNO Kids study will be made available upon reasonable request from MK. De-identified participant data of the LIFE Child study will be made available upon reasonable request from the LIFE Child data use and access committee (dm{at}life.uni-leipzig.de).

Funding

The LIFE Child study is funded by means of the European Union, by means of the European Social Fund (ESF), by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and by means of the Free State of Saxony as per the budget approved by the state parliament. The KUNO-Kids study is funded by research grants of the EU (HEALS: 603946) and the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (SYSINFLAME: 01ZX1306E). Further financial support was provided by the University Children’s Hospital Regensburg (KUNO) and the hospital St. Hedwig of the order of St. John.

What is already known on this topic?

• - At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, children were assumed to be not seriously affected by SARS-CoV-2.

• - Then it was realized, that the pandemic and the associated lockdown-measures might have impact on the psychosocial situation of families and children.

• - Studies investigating samples of children/families from the general population using primary data were lacking.

What this study adds?

• - Investigating two population based childhood cohorts in Germany we found that many families were concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown measures

• - Families form regions with a lower prevalence of COVID-19 showed less concerns but also less trust in political measures.