Nursing

Psychological intervention

2019-20 coronavirus outbreak

Cognitive psychology

Variety (cybernetics)

Public relations

Computer security

Virology

Face masks

Psychiatry

Computer science

Outbreak

Etiquette

Environmental health

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Systematic review

SAFER

Psychology

Political science

Checklist

Population

Infectious disease (medical specialty)

Distancing

Artificial intelligence

Hygiene

Psychosocial

MEDLINE

Medicine

Medical education

Pandemic

Social distance

Disease

Pathology

Cochrane library

Background In response to the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 and the impact of COVID‐19, national and subnational governments implemented a variety of measures in order to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. While these measures were imposed with the intention of controlling the pandemic, they were also associated with severe psychosocial, societal, and economic implications on a societal level. One setting affected heavily by these measures is the school setting. By mid‐April 2020, 192 countries had closed schools, affecting more than 90% of the world's student population. In consideration of the adverse consequences of school closures, many countries around the world reopened their schools in the months after the initial closures. To safely reopen schools and keep them open, governments implemented a broad range of measures. The evidence with regards to these measures, however, is heterogeneous, with a multitude of study designs, populations, settings, interventions and outcomes being assessed. To make sense of this heterogeneity, we conducted a rapid scoping review (8 October to 5 November 2020). This rapid scoping review is intended to serve as a precursor to a systematic review of effectiveness, which will inform guidelines issued by the World Health Organization (WHO). This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) checklist and was registered with the Open Science Framework. Objectives To identify and comprehensively map the evidence assessing the impacts of measures implemented in the school setting to reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 pandemic, with particular focus on the types of measures implemented in different school settings, the outcomes used to measure their impacts and the study types used to assess these. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the CDC COVID‐19 Research Articles Downloadable Database for preprints, and the WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 8 October 2020. Selection criteria We included studies that assessed the impact of measures implemented in the school setting. Eligible populations were populations at risk of becoming infected with SARS‐CoV‐2, or developing COVID‐19 disease, or both, and included people both directly and indirectly impacted by interventions, including students, teachers, other school staff, and contacts of these groups, as well as the broader community. We considered all types of empirical studies, which quantitatively assessed impact including epidemiological studies, modelling studies, mixed‐methods studies, and diagnostic studies that assessed the impact of relevant interventions beyond diagnostic test accuracy. Broad outcome categories of interest included infectious disease transmission‐related outcomes, other harmful or beneficial health‐related outcomes, and societal, economic, and ecological implications. Data collection and analysis We extracted data from included studies in a standardized manner, and mapped them to categories within our a priori logic model where possible. Where not possible, we inductively developed new categories. In line with standard expectations for scoping reviews, the review provides an overview of the existing evidence regardless of methodological quality or risk of bias, and was not designed to synthesize effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterize strength of evidence (GRADE). Main results We included 42 studies that assessed measures implemented in the school setting. The majority of studies used mathematical modelling designs (n = 31), while nine studies used observational designs, and two studies used experimental or quasi‐experimental designs. Studies conducted in real‐world contexts or using real data focused on the WHO European region (EUR; n = 20), the WHO region of the Americas (AMR; n = 13), the West Pacific region (WPR; n = 6), and the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR; n = 1). One study conducted a global assessment and one did not report on data from, or that were applicable to, a specific country. Three broad intervention categories emerged from the included studies: organizational measures to reduce transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 (n = 36), structural/environmental measures to reduce transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 (n = 11), and surveillance and response measures to detect SARS‐CoV‐2 infections (n = 19). Most studies assessed SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission‐related outcomes (n = 29), while others assessed healthcare utilization (n = 8), other health outcomes (n = 3), and societal, economic, and ecological outcomes (n = 5). Studies assessed both harmful and beneficial outcomes across all outcome categories. Authors' conclusions We identified a heterogeneous and complex evidence base of measures implemented in the school setting. This review is an important first step in understanding the available evidence and will inform the development of rapid reviews on this topic.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid scoping review