Can Independently Elicited Adult- and Child-Perspective Health-State Utilities Explain Priority Setting?

OBJECTIVES: Time trade-off (TTO) utilities for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states valued by adults taking a child's perspective are generally higher than their valuations of the same state for themselves. Ceteris paribus, the use of these utilities in economic evaluation implies that children gain less from treatments returning them to full health for a specified amount of time than adults. In this study, we explore if this implication affects individuals' views of priority-setting choices between treatments for adults and children. METHODS: We elicited TTO utilities for 4 health states in online interviews, in which respondents valued states for a 10-year-old child and another adult their age. Views on priority setting were studied with person trade-off (PTO) tasks involving the same health states. We tested the ability of the subjects' TTO utilities to predict these societal choices in PTO. RESULTS: There are no significant differences between adult and child health state valuations in our study, but we do observe a substantial preference for treating children over adults in the PTO task. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that perspective-dependent health-state utilities only explain a small part of views on priority setting between adults and children. External equity weights might be useful to better explain the higher priority given to children.

The effect of duration and time preference on the gap between adult and child health state valuations in time trade-off.

Composite time trade-off (cTTO) utilities have been found to be higher when adults value health states for children than for themselves. It is not clear if these differences reflect adults assigning truly higher utilities to the same health state in different perspectives, or if they are caused by other factors, which are not accounted for in the valuation procedure. We test if the difference between children's and adults' cTTO valuations changes if a longer duration than the standard 10 years is used. Personal interviews with a representative sample of 151 adults in the UK were conducted. We employed the cTTO method to estimate utilities of four different health states, where adults considered states both from their own and a 10-year-old child's perspective, for durations of 10 and 20 years. We corrected the cTTO valuations for perspective-specific time preferences in a separate task, again for both perspectives. We replicate the finding that cTTO utilities are higher for the child perspective than for the adult perspective, although the difference is only significant when controlling for other variables in a mixed effects regression. Time preferences are close to 0 on average, and smaller for children than adults. After correcting TTO utilities for time preferences, the effect of perspective is no longer significant. No differences were found for cTTO tasks completed with a 10- or 20-year duration. Our results suggest that the child-adult gap is partially related to differences in time preferences and, hence, that correcting cTTO utilities for these preferences could be useful.

SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools: An updated living systematic review (version 2; November 2020).

BACKGROUND: Better understanding of SARS-CoV-2 transmission risks is needed to support decision-making around mitigation measures for COVID-19 in schools. METHODS: We updated a living systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the extent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. In this update we modified our inclusion criteria to include: 1) cohort studies; 2) cross-sectional studies that investigated and cross-assessed SARS-COV-2 positivity rates in schools and communities; and 3) pre-post studies. We performed risk of bias evaluation for all included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: 6270 articles were retrieved and six new studies were added in this update. In total from the two updates and using the new inclusion criteria, we identified 11 cohort studies (1st update: n = 5; 2nd update: n = 6) and one cross-sectional study (1st update: n = 1; 2nd update: n = 0). We performed a meta-analysis on nine of the 11 cohort studies investigating IAR in schools. Nine cohort studies reported a total of 91 student and 52 staff index cases that exposed 5698 contacts with 101 secondary infections (overall infection attack rate (IAR) = 1.45%, 95% CI = 0.31%-3.26%). IARs for students and school staff were 1.66% (95% CI = 0.08%-4.78%) and 1.18% (95% CI = 0.00%-4.43%) respectively. The risk of bias was found to be high for most studies identified, limiting the confidence in results. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high-quality evidence available to quantify the extent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools or to compare it to community transmission. Emerging evidence suggests the overall IAR and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate in school settings are low. Higher IAR were found in students, compared to staff. NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. This is the second version of the original article published on 23 December 2020 (J Glob Health 2020;11:021104), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

The role of children in the transmission of SARS-CoV2: updated rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Understanding carriage and transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in children is of paramount importance to understand the spread of virus in school and community settings. METHODS: We performed an updated rapid review to investigate the role of children in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We synthesized evidence for five categories and results are reported narratively. RESULTS: A total of 33 new studies were included for this review. We did not identify additional studies that reported documented cases of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by children. We identified 15 new studies that demonstrate children's susceptibility and transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 with evidence provided on the chance of being index or secondary cases, the potential of faecal-oral transmission, and the possibility of asymptomatic transmission. There is little data on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools. There were three studies reporting COVID-19 school outbreaks in France (Oise), Australia (New South Wales) and Israel. The remaining four studies found that all reported cases did not infect any other pupils or staff. With data from seven studies and governmental websites, the proportion of children among all confirmed COVID-19 patients was estimated for 29 countries, varying from 0.3% (lowest in Spain) up to 13.8% (highest in Argentina). Lastly, we identified seven studies reporting on PIMS-TS linked to COVID-19 among paediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is somewhat limited evidence available for quantifying the extent to which children may contribute to overall transmission, but the balance of evidence so far suggests that children and schools play only a limited role in overall transmission.

What is the evidence for transmission of COVID-19 by children in schools? A living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is of paramount importance to understand the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools, which could support the decision-making about educational facilities closure or re-opening with effective prevention and control measures in place. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the extent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. We performed risk of bias evaluation of all included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: 2178 articles were retrieved and 11 studies were included. Five cohort studies reported a combined 22 student and 21 staff index cases that exposed 3345 contacts with 18 transmissions (overall infection attack rate (IAR): 0.08%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.00%-0.86%). IARs for students and school staff were 0.15% (95% CI = 0.00%-0.93%) and 0.70% (95% CI = 0.00%-3.56%) respectively. Six cross-sectional studies reported 639 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases in 6682 study participants tested [overall SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate: 8.00% (95% CI = 2.17%-16.95%). SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was estimated to be 8.74% (95% CI = 2.34%-18.53%) among students, compared to 13.68% (95% CI = 1.68%-33.89%) among school staff. Gender differences were not found for secondary infection (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.50-4.14, P = 0.49) and SARS-CoV-2 positivity (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.72-1.13, P = 0.36) in schools. Fever, cough, dyspnea, ageusia, anosmia, rhinitis, sore throat, headache, myalgia, asthenia, and diarrhoea were all associated with the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (based on two studies). Overall, study quality was judged to be poor with risk of performance and attrition bias, limiting the confidence in the results. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high-quality evidence available to quantify the extent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools or to compare it to community transmission. Emerging evidence suggests lower IAR and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate in students compared to school staff. Future prospective and adequately controlled cohort studies are necessary to confirm this finding.