COVID-19-Related School Closures, United States, July 27, 2020-June 30, 2022.

As part of a multiyear project that monitored illness-related school closures, we conducted systematic daily online searches during July 27, 2020-June 30, 2022, to identify public announcements of COVID-19-related school closures (COVID-SCs) in the United States lasting >1 day. We explored the temporospatial patterns of COVID-SCs and analyzed associations between COVID-SCs and national COVID-19 surveillance data. COVID-SCs reflected national surveillance data: correlation was highest between COVID-SCs and both new PCR test positivity (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.84) and new cases (r = 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.83) during 2020-21 and with hospitalization rates among all ages (r = 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.89) during 2021-22. The numbers of reactive COVID-SCs during 2020-21 and 2021-22 greatly exceeded previously observed numbers of illness-related reactive school closures in the United States, notably being nearly 5-fold greater than reactive closures observed during the 2009 influenza (H1N1) pandemic.

Systematic review of empiric studies on lockdowns, workplace closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in non-healthcare workplaces during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic: benefits and selected unintended consequences.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions within non-healthcare workplaces and community-level workplace closures and lockdowns on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, selected mental disorders, and employment outcomes in workers or the general population. METHODS: The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The exclusion criteria included modeling studies. Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from January 1, 2020, through May 11, 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis and sign tests were performed. RESULTS: A total of 60 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 40 studies on COVID-19 outcomes, 15 on anxiety and depression symptoms, and five on unemployment and labor force participation. There was a paucity of studies on physical distancing, physical barriers, and symptom and temperature screening within workplaces. The sign test indicated that lockdown reduced COVID-19 incidence or case growth rate (23 studies, p < 0.001), reproduction number (11 studies, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 mortality or death growth rate (seven studies, p < 0.05) in the general population. Lockdown did not have any effect on anxiety symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.02). Lockdown had a small effect on increasing depression symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.21), but publication bias could account for the observed effect. Lockdown increased unemployment (pooled mean difference = 4.48 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.79, 7.17) and decreased labor force participation (pooled mean difference = -2.46 percentage points, 95% CI: -3.16, -1.77). The risk of bias for most of the studies on COVID-19 or employment outcomes was moderate or serious. The risk of bias for the studies on anxiety or depression symptoms was serious or critical. CONCLUSIONS: Empiric studies indicated that lockdown reduced the impact of COVID-19, but that it had notable unwanted effects. There is a pronounced paucity of studies on the effect of interventions within still-open workplaces. It is important for countries that implement lockdown in future pandemics to consider strategies to mitigate these unintended consequences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182660.

Relationship between Telework Experience and Presenteeism during COVID-19 Pandemic, United States, March-November 2020.

Persons with COVID-19-like illnesses are advised to stay home to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We assessed relationships between telework experience and COVID-19 illness with work attendance when ill. Adults experiencing fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell who sought healthcare or COVID-19 testing in the United States during March-November 2020 were enrolled. Adults with telework experience before illness were more likely to work at all (onsite or remotely) during illness (87.8%) than those with no telework experience (49.9%) (adjusted odds ratio 5.48, 95% CI 3.40-8.83). COVID-19 case-patients were less likely to work onsite (22.1%) than were persons with other acute respiratory illnesses (37.3%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.24-0.53). Among COVID-19 case-patients with telework experience, only 6.5% worked onsite during illness. Telework experience before illness gave mildly ill workers the option to work and improved compliance with public health recommendations to stay home during illness.

Work Attendance with Acute Respiratory Illness Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic, United States, 2018-2022.

Both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus can be transmitted by asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or symptomatic infected persons. We assessed effects on work attendance while ill before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States by analyzing data collected prospectively from persons with acute respiratory illnesses enrolled in a multistate study during 2018-2022. Persons with previous hybrid work experience were significantly less likely to work onsite on the day before through the first 3 days of illness than those without that experience, an effect more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic than during prepandemic influenza seasons. Persons with influenza or COVID-19 were significantly less likely to work onsite than persons with other acute respiratory illnesses. Among persons with positive COVID-19 test results available by the second or third day of illness, few worked onsite. Hybrid and remote work policies might reduce workplace exposures and help reduce spread of respiratory viruses.

COVID-19 prevention at institutions of higher education, United States, 2020-2021: implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions.

BACKGROUND: In early 2020, following the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, institutions of higher education (IHEs) across the United States rapidly pivoted to online learning to reduce the risk of on-campus virus transmission. We explored IHEs' use of this and other nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during the subsequent pandemic-affected academic year 2020-2021. METHODS: From December 2020 to June 2021, we collected publicly available data from official webpages of 847 IHEs, including all public (n = 547) and a stratified random sample of private four-year institutions (n = 300). Abstracted data included NPIs deployed during the academic year such as changes to the calendar, learning environment, housing, common areas, and dining; COVID-19 testing; and facemask protocols. We performed weighted analysis to assess congruence with the October 29, 2020, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance for IHEs. For IHEs offering ≥50% of courses in person, we used weighted multivariable linear regression to explore the association between IHE characteristics and the summated number of implemented NPIs. RESULTS: Overall, 20% of IHEs implemented all CDC-recommended NPIs. The most frequently utilized NPI was learning environment changes (91%), practiced as one or more of the following modalities: distance or hybrid learning opportunities (98%), 6-ft spacing (60%), and reduced class sizes (51%). Additionally, 88% of IHEs specified facemask protocols, 78% physically changed common areas, and 67% offered COVID-19 testing. Among the 33% of IHEs offering ≥50% of courses in person, having < 1000 students was associated with having implemented fewer NPIs than IHEs with ≥1000 students. CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 in 5 IHEs implemented all CDC recommendations, while a majority implemented a subset, most commonly changes to the classroom, facemask protocols, and COVID-19 testing. IHE enrollment size and location were associated with degree of NPI implementation. Additional research is needed to assess adherence to NPI implementation in IHE settings.

Post-infection functional gastrointestinal disorders following coronavirus disease-19: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Because acute infectious gastroenteritis may cause post-infection irritable bowel syndrome and functional dyspepsia and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 affects gastrointestinal (GI) tract, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) may cause post-infection-functional GI disorders (FGIDs). We prospectively studied the frequency and spectrum of post-infection-FGIDs among COVID-19 and historical healthy controls and the risk factors for its development. METHODS: Two hundred eighty patients with COVID-19 and 264 historical healthy controls were followed up at 1 and 3 months using translated validated Rome Questionnaires for the development of chronic bowel dysfunction (CBD), dyspeptic symptoms, and their overlap and at 6-month for IBS, uninvestigated dyspepsia (UD) and their overlap. Psychological comorbidity was studied using Rome III Psychosocial Alarm Questionnaire. RESULTS: At 1 and 3 months, 16 (5.7%), 16 (5.7%), 11 (3.9%), and 24 (8.6%), 6 (2.1%), 9 (3.2%) of COVID-19 patients developed CBD, dyspeptic symptoms, and their overlap, respectively; among healthy controls, none developed dyspeptic symptoms and one developed CBD at 3 months (P < 0.05). At 6 months, 15 (5.3%), 6 (2.1%), and 5 (1.8%) of the 280 COVID-19 patients developed IBS, UD, and IBS-UD overlap, respectively, and one healthy control developed IBS at 6 months (P < 0.05 for all except IBS-UD overlap). The risk factors for post-COVID-19 FGIDs at 6 months included symptoms (particularly GI), anosmia, ageusia, and presence of CBD, dyspeptic symptoms, or their overlap at 1 and 3 months and the psychological comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study showing COVID-19 led to post-COVID-19 FGIDs. Post-COVID-19 FGIDs may pose a significant economic, social, and healthcare burden to the world.

Emerging inflammatory bowel disease demographics, phenotype, and treatment in South Asia, South-East Asia, and Middle East: Preliminary findings from the Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Emerging Nations' Consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is emerging in the newly industrialized countries of South Asia, South-East Asia, and the Middle East, yet epidemiological data are scarce. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of IBD demographics, disease phenotype, and treatment across 38 centers in 15 countries of South Asia, South-East Asia, and Middle East. Intergroup comparisons included gross national income (GNI) per capita. RESULTS: Among 10 400 patients, ulcerative colitis (UC) was twice as common as Crohn's disease (CD), with a male predominance (UC 6678, CD 3495, IBD unclassified 227, and 58% male). Peak age of onset was in the third decade, with a low proportion of elderly-onset IBD (5% age > 60). Familial IBD was rare (5%). The extent of UC was predominantly distal (proctitis/left sided 67%), with most being treated with mesalamine (94%), steroids (54%), or immunomodulators (31%). Ileocolic CD (43%) was the commonest, with low rates of perianal disease (8%) and only 6% smokers. Diagnostic delay for CD was common (median 12 months; interquartile range 5-30). Treatment of CD included mesalamine, steroids, and immunomodulators (61%, 51%, and 56%, respectively), but a fifth received empirical antitubercular therapy. Treatment with biologics was uncommon (4% UC and 13% CD), which increased in countries with higher GNI per capita. Surgery rates were 0.1 (UC) and 2 (CD) per 100 patients per year. CONCLUSIONS: The IBD-ENC cohort provides insight into IBD in South-East Asia and the Middle East, but is not yet population based. UC is twice as common as CD, familial disease is uncommon, and rates of surgery are low. Biologic use correlates with per capita GNI.

Recommendations for Providing Quality Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinical Services, 2020.

This report (hereafter referred to as STD QCS) provides CDC recommendations to U.S. health care providers regarding quality clinical services for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) for primary care and STD specialty care settings. These recommendations complement CDC's Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2015 (hereafter referred to as the STD Guidelines), a comprehensive, evidence-based reference for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of STDs. STD QCS differs from the STD Guidelines by specifying operational determinants of quality services in different types of clinical settings, describing on-site treatment and partner services, and indicating when STD-related conditions should be managed through consultation with or referral to a specialist. These recommendations might also help in the development of clinic-level policies (e.g., standing orders, express visits, specimen panels, and reflex testing) that can facilitate implementation of the STD Guidelines. CDC organized the recommendations for STD QCS into eight sections: 1) sexual history and physical examination, 2) prevention, 3) screening, 4) partner services, 5) evaluation of STD-related conditions, 6) laboratory, 7) treatment, and 8) referral to a specialist for complex STD or STD-related conditions.CDC developed the recommendations by synthesizing relevant, evidence-based guidelines and recommendations issued by other experts; reviewing current practice in the United States; soliciting Delphi ratings by subject matter experts on STD care in primary care and STD specialty care settings; discussing the scientific evidence supporting the proposed recommendations at a consultation meeting of experts and institutional stakeholders held November 20, 2015, in Atlanta, Georgia; conducting peer reviews of draft recommendations and supporting evidence; and discussing draft recommendations and supporting evidence during meetings of the CDC/Health Resources and Services Administration Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis, and STD Prevention and Treatment STD Work Group. These recommendations are intended to help health care providers in primary care or STD specialty care settings offer STD services at their clinical settings and to help the persons seeking care live safer, healthier lives by preventing and treating STDs and related complications.

COVID-19-Related School Closures and Learning Modality Changes - United States, August 1-September 17, 2021.

Beginning in January 2021, the U.S. government prioritized ensuring continuity of learning for all students during the COVID-19 pandemic (1). To estimate the extent of COVID-19-associated school disruptions, CDC and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory used a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) (2) statistical approach to estimate the most likely actual learning modality based on patterns observed in past data, accounting for conflicting or missing information and systematic Internet searches (3) for COVID-19-related school closures. This information was used to assess how many U.S. schools were open, and in which learning modalities, during August 1-September 17, 2021. Learning modalities included 1) full in-person learning, 2) a hybrid of in-person and remote learning, and 3) full remote learning.

Paid Leave and Access to Telework as Work Attendance Determinants during Acute Respiratory Illness, United States, 2017-2018.

We assessed determinants of work attendance during the first 3 days after onset of acute respiratory illness (ARI) among workers 19-64 years of age who had medically attended ARI or influenza during the 2017-2018 influenza season. The total number of days worked included days worked at the usual workplace and days teleworked. Access to paid leave was associated with fewer days worked overall and at the usual workplace during illness. Participants who indicated that employees were discouraged from coming to work with influenza-like symptoms were less likely to attend their usual workplace. Compared with workers without a telework option, those with telework access worked more days during illness overall, but there was no difference in days worked at the usual workplace. Both paid leave benefits and business practices that actively encourage employees to stay home while sick are necessary to reduce the transmission of ARI and influenza in workplaces.

Increases in Health-Related Workplace Absenteeism Among Workers in Essential Critical Infrastructure Occupations During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, March-April 2020.

During a pandemic, syndromic methods for monitoring illness outside of health care settings, such as tracking absenteeism trends in schools and workplaces, can be useful adjuncts to conventional disease reporting (1,2). Each month, CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) monitors the prevalence of health-related workplace absenteeism among currently employed full-time workers in the United States, overall and by demographic and occupational subgroups, using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS).* This report describes trends in absenteeism during October 2019-April 2020, including March and April 2020, the period of rapidly accelerating transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Overall, the prevalence of health-related workplace absenteeism in March and April 2020 were similar to their 5-year baselines. However, compared with occupation-specific baselines, absenteeism among workers in several occupational groups that define or contain essential critical infrastructure workforce† categories was significantly higher than expected in April. Significant increases in absenteeism were observed in personal care and service§ (includes child care workers and personal care aides); healthcare support¶; and production** (includes meat, poultry, and fish processing workers). Although health-related workplace absenteeism remained relatively unchanged or decreased in other groups, the increase in absenteeism among workers in occupational groups less able to avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (3) highlights the potential impact of COVID-19 on the essential critical infrastructure workforce because of the risks and concerns of occupational transmission of SARS-CoV-2. More widespread and complete collection of occupational data in COVID-19 surveillance is required to fully understand workers' occupational risks and inform intervention strategies. Employers should follow available recommendations to protect workers' health.

Timing of Community Mitigation and Changes in Reported COVID-19 and Community Mobility - Four U.S. Metropolitan Areas, February 26-April 1, 2020.

Community mitigation activities (also referred to as nonpharmaceutical interventions) are actions that persons and communities can take to slow the spread of infectious diseases. Mitigation strategies include personal protective measures (e.g., handwashing, cough etiquette, and face coverings) that persons can use at home or while in community settings; social distancing (e.g., maintaining physical distance between persons in community settings and staying at home); and environmental surface cleaning at home and in community settings, such as schools or workplaces. Actions such as social distancing are especially critical when medical countermeasures such as vaccines or therapeutics are not available. Although voluntary adoption of social distancing by the public and community organizations is possible, public policy can enhance implementation. The CDC Community Mitigation Framework (1) recommends a phased approach to implementation at the community level, as evidence of community spread of disease increases or begins to decrease and according to severity. This report presents initial data from the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; New Orleans, Louisiana; and New York City, New York* to describe the relationship between timing of public policy measures, community mobility (a proxy measure for social distancing), and temporal trends in reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Community mobility in all four locations declined from February 26, 2020 to April 1, 2020, decreasing with each policy issued and as case counts increased. This report suggests that public policy measures are an important tool to support social distancing and provides some very early indications that these measures might help slow the spread of COVID-19.

Feasibility of Social Distancing Practices in US Schools to Reduce Influenza Transmission During a Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Schools are socially dense environments, and school-based outbreaks often predate and fuel community-wide transmission of seasonal and pandemic influenza. While preemptive school closures can effectively reduce influenza transmission, they are disruptive and currently recommended only for pandemics. We assessed the feasibility of implementing other social distancing practices in K-12 schools as a first step in seeking an alternative to preemptive school closures. METHODS: We conducted 36 focus groups with education and public health officials across the United States. We identified and characterized themes and compared feasibility of practices by primary versus secondary school and region of the United States. RESULTS: Participants discussed 29 school practices (25 within-school practices implemented as part of the school day and 4 reduced-schedule practices that impact school hours). Participants reported that elementary schools commonly implement several within-school practices as part of routine operations such as homeroom stay, restriction of hall movement, and staggering of recess times. Because of routine implementation and limited use of individualized schedules within elementary schools, within-school practices were generally felt to be more feasible for elementary schools than secondary schools. Of reduced-schedule practices, shortening the school week and the school day was considered the most feasible; however, reduced-schedule practices were generally perceived to be less feasible than within-school practices for all grade levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that schools have many options to increase social distance other than closing. Future research should evaluate which of these seemingly feasible practices are effective in reducing influenza transmission in schools and surrounding communities.

Health-Related Workplace Absenteeism Among Full-Time Workers - United States, 2017-18 Influenza Season.

During an influenza pandemic and during seasonal epidemics, more persons have symptomatic illness without seeking medical care than seek treatment at doctor's offices, clinics, and hospitals (1). Consequently, surveillance based on mortality, health care encounters, and laboratory data does not reflect the full extent of influenza morbidity. CDC uses a mathematical model to estimate the total number of influenza illnesses in the United States (1). In addition, syndromic methods for monitoring illness outside health care settings, such as tracking absenteeism trends in schools and workplaces, are important adjuncts to conventional disease reporting (2). Every month, CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) monitors the prevalence of health-related workplace absenteeism among full-time workers in the United States using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) (3). This report describes the results of workplace absenteeism surveillance analyses conducted during the high-severity 2017-18 influenza season (October 2017-September 2018) (4). Absenteeism increased sharply in November, peaked in January and, at its peak, was significantly higher than the average during the previous five seasons. Persons especially affected included male workers, workers aged 45-64 years, workers living in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Region 6* and Region 9,† and those working in management, business, and financial; installation, maintenance, and repair; and production and related occupations. Public health authorities and employers might consider results from relevant absenteeism surveillance analyses when developing prevention messages and in pandemic preparedness planning. The most effective ways to prevent influenza transmission in the workplace include vaccination and nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as staying home when sick, covering coughs and sneezes, washing hands frequently, and routinely cleaning frequently touched surfaces (5).

Long-Term Gastrointestinal Consequences are Frequent Following Sporadic Acute Infectious Diarrhea in a Tropical Country: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Postinfection irritable bowel syndrome (PI-IBS) and functional dyspepsia (PI-FD), though reported from the temperate countries, have not been studied in the tropics; PI-malabsorption syndrome (MAS), which mimics PI-IBS, is reported from the tropics. No report till date on PI-IBS excluded PI-MAS. We studied: (i) the frequency of continuing bowel dysfunction after acute gastroenteritis (AG), (ii) its predictors, and (iii) PI-MAS among patients with PI-IBS. METHODS: 345 consecutive subjects each, with AG and age- and gender-matched healthy controls were followed up 3-monthly for 12 months using a translated-validated questionnaire and functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) were diagnosed by Rome III criteria. Symptom duration >3 months but <6 months was diagnosed as chronic bowel dysfunction (CBD) and dyspeptic symptoms, respectively. MAS was diagnosed if 2/3 tests (D-xylose H2 breath test, Sudan III-stained stool microscopy, and duodenal histology) were abnormal. Fecal microbiological studies were performed in 245/345 (71%) patients. RESULTS: AG patients more often developed PI-IBS and PI-FD than controls (16.5 vs. 2.6% and 7.4 vs. 0.6%, respectively; p<0.001). Presence of FD was a risk factor for PI-IBS and IBS for PI-FD. On multivariate analysis, dyspeptic symptoms, CBD, and weight loss were the risk factors for PI-FGIDs. The frequency of PI-IBS following Vibrio cholera and other bacterial infection was comparable. Malabsorption was present among 2/23 (9%) patients with PI-IBS. CONCLUSION: FGIDs are common after AG; dyspeptic symptoms, CBD, and weight loss were risk factors for PI-FGIDs. Vibrio cholerae infection caused PI-FGID, which was never reported. About 9 % patients fulfilling the criteria for PI-IBS had PI-MAS.

Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Social distancing is one of the community mitigation measures that may be recommended during influenza pandemics. Social distancing can reduce virus transmission by increasing physical distance or reducing frequency of congregation in socially dense community settings, such as schools or workplaces. We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence that social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces reduces or slows influenza transmission. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC-2, and EconLit to identify studies published in English from January 1, 2000, through May 3, 2017. Data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Fifteen studies, representing 12 modeling and three epidemiological, met the eligibility criteria. The epidemiological studies showed that social distancing was associated with a reduction in influenza-like illness and seroconversion to 2009 influenza A (H1N1). However, the overall risk of bias in the epidemiological studies was serious. The modeling studies estimated that workplace social distancing measures alone produced a median reduction of 23% in the cumulative influenza attack rate in the general population. It also delayed and reduced the peak influenza attack rate. The reduction in the cumulative attack rate was more pronounced when workplace social distancing was combined with other nonpharmaceutical or pharmaceutical interventions. However, the effectiveness was estimated to decline with higher basic reproduction number values, delayed triggering of workplace social distancing, or lower compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling studies support social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces, but there is a paucity of well-designed epidemiological studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO registration # CRD42017065310.

School practices to promote social distancing in K-12 schools: review of influenza pandemic policies and practices.

BACKGROUND: During an evolving influenza pandemic, community mitigation strategies, such as social distancing, can slow down virus transmission in schools and surrounding communities. To date, research on school practices to promote social distancing in primary and secondary schools has focused on prolonged school closure, with little attention paid to the identification and feasibility of other more sustainable interventions. To develop a list and typology of school practices that have been proposed and/or implemented in an influenza pandemic and to uncover any barriers identified, lessons learned from their use, and documented impacts. METHODS: We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on social distancing interventions in schools other than school closure. We also collected state government guidance documents directed to local education agencies or schools to assess state policies regarding social distancing. We collected standardized information from each document using an abstraction form and generated descriptive statistics on common plan elements. RESULTS: The document review revealed limited literature on school practices to promote social distancing, as well as limited incorporation of school practices to promote social distancing into state government guidance documents. Among the 38 states that had guidance documents that met inclusion criteria, fewer than half (42%) mentioned a single school practice to promote social distancing, and none provided any substantive detail about the policies or practices needed to enact them. The most frequently identified school practices were cancelling or postponing after-school activities, canceling classes or activities with a high rate of mixing/contact that occur within the school day, and reducing mixing during transport. CONCLUSION: Little information is available to schools to develop policies and procedures on social distancing. Additional research and guidance are needed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of school practices to promote social distancing.

A Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT Statement.

The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. It developed a checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline.

Factors Associated With Primary Care Physician Knowledge of the Recommended Regimen for Treating Gonorrhea.

BACKGROUND: The recommended regimen for treating uncomplicated gonorrhea has changed over time, due to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. We assessed physician knowledge of the recommendation for treating uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhea in adolescents and adults using ceftriaxone and azithromycin dual therapy. METHODS: We analyzed DocStyles 2015 survey data from 1357 primary care physicians practicing for at least 3 years who provided screening, diagnosis, or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases to one or more patients in an average month. Logistic regression and χ analyses were used to identify factors associated with knowledge of dual therapy. RESULTS: Among the options of treatment with ceftriaxone alone, azithromycin alone, both of these, or spectinomycin plus levofloxacin, 64% of physicians correctly preferred ceftriaxone plus azithromycin. Knowledge of the recommended dual therapy decreased with increasing years of practice, ranging from 74% among physicians with 3-9 years of practice to 57% among those practicing for ≥24 years (adjusted odds ratio, ORa, for ≥24 vs 3-9 years of practice, 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.70). Knowledge of dual therapy decreased with higher socioeconomic status of patients (ORa for high income vs poor/lower middle income patients, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.69). Physicians who pursued continuing medical education using journals, podcasts, and government health agencies were more likely to report dual therapy than those who did not use these sources (ORa, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.31-3.33). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the recommended regimen for treating gonorrhea decreased with increasing years of practice and with higher socioeconomic status of patients.

Draft national health policy 2015: A critical appraisal.

Revising a health policy of any country is a periodic procedure dependent on the change of demographic profile, current health status of the population including epidemiological changes in disease prevalence pattern, and progress made under the earlier policies. Along with it, newer research revelation of the natural history of the existing and emerging health problems, availability of newer technology as well as changing sociopolitical commitment to improve the health status of the population are the driving forces in the change of policy. Draft National Health Policy (NHP) 2015 is an attempt for the same. A review of the draft has been undertaken. The chapter on introduction is crisp and clear. Situation analysis of the draft is sketchy and without any reference of sources. Shifting the health goal is without any basis, and the objectives defined for the policy change are incongruous with the introduction. A detailed description does not give a clear picture but rather confuses the reader as it talks of comprehensive universal health-care services to be provided with a holistic concept but maximum emphasis is made in the implementation of a national program. Private health-care services are an area to reckon but except for mere references on the involvement in private-public mode, nothing concrete is observed, especially in the primary care level. Involvement envisaged in the secondary and tertiary levels is nebulous. The implementation health insurance program as well as regulatory mechanISM with the existing is also not defined exclusively in the context of a newer health policy.