RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: School-based health centers (SBHCs) improve health care access, but associations with educational outcomes are mixed and limited for elementary and middle school students. We investigated whether students enrolled in a comprehensive SBHC demonstrated more growth in standardized math and reading assessments over 4 school years versus nonenrolled students. We also explored changes in absenteeism. METHODS: Participants were students enrolled in 2 co-located Title I schools from 2015-19 (1 elementary, 1 middle, n = 2480). Analysis of math and reading was limited to students with baseline and postbaseline scores (math n = 1622; reading n = 1607). Longitudinal regression models accounting for within-subject clustering were used to estimate the association of SBHC enrollment with academic scores and daily absenteeism, adjusting for grade, sex, body mass index category, health conditions, baseline outcomes (scores or absenteeism), and outcome pretrends. RESULTS: More than 70% of SBHC-enrolled students had math (1194 [73.6%]) and reading 1186 [73.8%]) scores. Enrollees were more likely than nonenrollees to have asthma (39.7% vs 19.6%) and overweight/obesity (42.4% vs 33.6%). Adjusted baseline scores were significantly lower in math and reading for enrollees. Mean change from baseline for enrollees exceeded nonenrollees by 3.5 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2, 4.8) in math and 2.1 points (95% CI: 0.9, 3.3) in reading. The adjusted rate of decrease in daily absenteeism was 10.8% greater for enrollees (incident rate ratio 0.772 [95% CI: 0.623, 0.956]) than nonenrollees (incident rate ratio 0.865 [95% CI: 0.696, 1.076]). CONCLUSIONS: SBHC enrollees had greater health and educational risk but demonstrated more growth in math and reading and less absenteeism than nonenrollees.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Schools were uniquely impacted during the COVID-19 (SARS-COV-2) pandemic. We sought to elucidate how parents/guardians of elementary and middle school students in Maryland navigated the return to in-person school following remote instruction. We also sought to understand how they perceived communication about school-based COVID-19 mitigation strategies and their preferences for the content and format of public health communication about COVID-19 mitigation in schools. Methods: We engaged a community advisory board comprised of key partners and implemented a survey and focus groups. Results: Results indicated that parents/guardians wanted clearer communication about COVID-19 mitigation policies in schools and were experiencing fatigue and confusion. These insights informed the development of a tailorable communication toolkit. The toolkit was designed to (1) inform parents/guardians about the importance and effectiveness of mitigation strategies for preventing viral spread to keep children in school, (2) promote a sense of community and support, and (3) help school communication teams effectively communicate information about mitigation strategies being implemented. Discussion: We describe a process for leveraging schools as a trusted messenger, engaging school communities in the development of communication messages, and utilizing a tailorable communication toolkit in the context of shifting public health guidance and local needs. The toolkit development and dissemination process offers a model for targeting public health messaging to parents/guardians in school settings.
