School closures and reopenings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol.

The objective of this scoping review is to provide an overview of existing studies and evidence on the impact of school closures and reopenings during the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated widespread school closures, and reopening schools safely has a pivotal role in the well-being of children and teachers, SARS-CoV-2 transmission control and optimal societal functioning. Widespread school closures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have caused adverse effects on the education, physical health and mental well-being of children. An understanding of the impact of school closures and reopenings as well as factors influencing school safety is critical to bringing schools' operational status back to normal. Despite the implication of individual concerns and knowledge on disease prevention practices, there is a paucity of research on individual knowledge, needs and behaviours in the context of school reopenings. In the proposed study, we will conduct a scoping review to identify and provide inventory of the current research and evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on K-12 schools (primary and secondary schools) and vice versa. Eligible studies/literature include members of K-12 (primary and secondary) schools (students, parents, staff, faculty, COVID-19 coordinator, school nurses) in countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We will exclude university or college students. There will be no exclusion based on methods, timing or school operational status.All concepts regarding school closures and reopenings will be considered, and all types of research will be considered.This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Sources of evidence published from 2020 to 31 October 2021 will be included. The search will include PubMed, preprints in EuropePMC, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and VHL. We will cover grey literature in Harvard Think Tank Database, COVID-19 Evidence Hub like COVID-END and Google Scholar. The abstract and title screening, full-text screening and data extraction will be done by two independent reviewers.Disagreements will be resolved by an independent third reviewer. Data extract will be done on Qualtrics form to ensure accurate extraction. Citation chaining will be performed on key articles identified. A critical appraisal will be performed.The scoping review will take place from 1 August 2021 to 15 November 2021. We will perform a final round of updated search and citation chaining. The review will be based on published works and grey literature, thus it is exempt from formal ethical approval. This protocol cannot be registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews because this registry is not for scoping reviews. We will register it in OSF Registration. The paper will appear in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal to ensure a broad dissemination.

Li D ，Nyhan K ，Zhou X ，Zhu Y ，Castro D ，Vermund SH ，Brault M ... -  《BMJ Open》

Ethics of Procuring and Using Organs or Tissue from Infants and Newborns for Transplantation, Research, or Commercial Purposes: Protocol for a Bioethics Scoping Review.

Since the inception of transplantation, it has been crucial to ensure that organ or tissue donations are made with valid informed consent to avoid concerns about coercion or exploitation. This issue is particularly challenging when it comes to infants and younger children, insofar as they are unable to provide consent. Despite their vulnerability, infants' organs and tissues are considered valuable for biomedical purposes due to their size and unique properties. This raises questions about the conditions under which it is permissible to remove and use these body parts for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes. The aim of this protocol is to establish a foundation for a scoping review that will identify, clarify, and categorise the main ethical arguments regarding the permissibility of removing and using organs or tissues from infants. The scoping review will follow the methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), consisting of five stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) developing the search strategy, (3) setting inclusion criteria, (4) extracting data, and (5) presenting and analysing the results. We will include both published and unpublished materials that explicitly discuss the ethical arguments related to the procurement and use of infant organs or tissues in the biomedical context. The search will cover various databases, including the National Library of Medicine, Web of Science, EBSCO, and others, as well as grey literature sources. Two raters will independently assess the eligibility of articles, and data from eligible studies will be extracted using a standardised form. The extracted data will then be analysed descriptively through qualitative content analysis. There has been debate about how to respect the rights and interests of organ and tissue donors since the beginning of transplantation practice, given the moral risks involved in procuring parts of their bodies and using them for transplantation or research. A major concern has been to ensure that, at a minimum, donation of organs or other bodily tissues for transplantation or research is done under conditions of valid informed consent, so as to avoid coercion or exploitation among other moral harms. In the case of infants and younger children, however, this concern poses special difficulties insofar as infants and younger children are deemed incapable of providing valid consent. Due to their diminutive size and other distinctive properties, infants' organs and tissues are seen as valuable for biomedical purposes. Yet, the heightened vulnerability of infants raises questions about when and whether it is ever permissible to remove these body parts or use them in research or for other purposes. The aim of this protocol is to form the basis of a systematic scoping review to identify, clarify, and systematise the main ethical arguments for and against the permissibility of removing and using infant or newborn (hereafter, "infant") organs or tissues in the biomedical context (i.e. for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes). Our scoping review will broadly follow the well-established methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute ( Peters et al., 2020). We will follow a five-stage review process: (1) identification of the research question, (2) development of the search strategy, (3) inclusion criteria, (4) data extraction, and (5) presentation and analysis of the results. Published and unpublished bibliographic material (including reports, dissertations, book chapters, etc.) will be considered based on the following inclusion criteria: the presence of explicit (bio)ethical arguments or reasons (concept) for or against the procurement and use of organs or tissues from infants, defined as a child from birth until 1 year old (population), in the biomedical domain, including transplantation, research, and commercial development (context). We will search for relevant studies in the National Library of Medicine (including PubMed and MEDLINE), Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Google Scholar, PhilPapers, The Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), EthxWeb as well as grey literature sources (e.g., Google, BASE, OpenGrey, and WorldCat) and the reference lists of key studies to identify studies suitable for inclusion. A three-stage search strategy will be used to determine the eligibility of articles, as recommended by the JBI methodological guidelines. We will exclude sources if (a) the full text is not accessible, (b) the main text is in a language other than English, or (c) the focus is exclusively on scientific, legal, or religious/theological arguments. All articles will be independently assessed for eligibility between two raters (MB & XL); data from eligible articles will be extracted and charted using a standardised data extraction form. The extracted data will be analysed descriptively using basic qualitative content analysis. Ethical review is not required as scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis that synthesise data from publicly available sources. Our dissemination strategy includes peer review publication, presentation at conferences, and outreach to relevant stakeholders. The results will be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. An overview of the general data from the included studies will be presented in the form of graphs or tables showing the distribution of studies by year or period of publication, country of origin, and key ethical arguments. These results will be accompanied by a narrative summary describing how each included study or article relates to the aims of this review. Research gaps will be identified and limitations of the review will also be highlighted. A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, a synthesis of the key findings will be disseminated to biomedical settings (e.g., conferences or workshops, potentially including ones linked to university hospitals) in the UK, USA, Türkiye, and Singapore. They will also be shared with the academic community and policy makers involved in the organ procurement organisations (OPO), which will potentially consider our recommendations in their decision-making processes regarding infant tissue/organ donation practice in these countries. The use of a rigorous, well-established methodological framework will ensure the production of a high-quality scoping review that will contribute to the bioethics literature.A comprehensive search of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary databases will be undertaken to ensure coverage of all possible sources that meet the inclusion criteria for the review.This review will focus exclusively on infant tissue/organ procurement/use in biomedical contexts, providing a comprehensive and reliable source of ethical arguments for future debates on this sensitive topic.The review will be limited to articles published in English, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources published in other languages.The review will be limited to articles for which the full text is available, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources that otherwise may have been included in the scoping review had the full text been accessible.

Barış M ，Lim X ，T Almonte M ，Shaw D ，Brierley J ，Porsdam Mann S ，Nguyen T ，Menikoff J ，Wilkinson D ，Savulescu J ，Earp BD ... -  《-》

Erratum: Eyestalk Ablation to Increase Ovarian Maturation in Mud Crabs.

《Jove-Journal of Visualized Experiments》

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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.

Krishnaratne S ，Pfadenhauer LM ，Coenen M ，Geffert K ，Jung-Sievers C ，Klinger C ，Kratzer S ，Littlecott H ，Movsisyan A ，Rabe JE ，Rehfuess E ，Sell K ，Strahwald B ，Stratil JM ，Voss S ，Wabnitz K ，Burns J ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Unintended consequences of measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were a key setting for intervening with public health and social measures (PHSM) to reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Consequently, there is a need to assess the varied unintended consequences associated with PHSM implemented in the school setting, for students, teachers, and school staff, as well as for families and the wider community. This is an update of a Cochrane scoping review first published in 2022. To comprehensively identify and summarise the published literature on the unintended consequences of public health and social measures implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This will serve to identify critical knowledge gaps to inform future primary research and systematic reviews. It may also serve as a resource for future pandemic management. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science on 5 and 6 January 2023. We also searched two COVID-19-specific databases (Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease). Finally, we reviewed the included studies of all relevant systematic reviews and guidelines identified through the searches. We included studies that empirically assessed the impact of PHSM implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We imposed no restrictions with regard to the types of populations and specific interventions. Outcomes of interest were consequences that were measured or experienced, but not anticipated consequences. This review focused on real-world evidence: empirical quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies were eligible for inclusion, but modelling studies were ineligible. The review was guided by a logic model. In line with the latest Cochrane effectiveness review of school measures to contain COVID-19 and a conceptual framework of PHSM, this logic model distinguishes between measures to make contacts safer (related to individual protection and the physical environment), measures to reduce contacts (related to social interactions, movement, and services) and surveillance and response measures. Unintended consequences comprise the following categories: health and well-being, health system and social welfare services, human and fundamental rights, acceptability and adherence, equality and equity, social and institutional, economic and resource, and ecological. The review team screened all titles and abstracts, then potentially eligible full-text articles, in duplicate. Across the included studies, we summarised and presented types of measures, consequences, and study designs using the predefined categories of the logic model, while allowing for emerging categories. We included 60 studies (57 new to this update) from 25 countries. There were 31 quantitative studies, 17 qualitative studies, and 12 mixed-method studies. Most targeted either students (26 studies), teachers and school staff (11 studies), or students and school staff (12 studies). Others evaluated measures aimed at parents (2 studies), staff and parents (1 study), students and teachers (3 studies), or the whole school (5 studies). The measures were related to individual protection (26 studies), the physical environment (20 studies), social interactions (25 studies), services (1 study), movement (3 studies), surveillance (9 studies) and response (7 studies). Nine studies evaluated the combined effect of multiple measures. The main consequences assessed were from the categories health and well-being (29 studies), acceptability and adherence (31 studies), and social and institutional (23 studies). Fewer studies covered consequences from the categories equality and equity (2 studies), economic and resource (7 studies), and ecological (1 study). No studies examined consequences for the health system and social welfare services or for human and fundamental rights. This scoping review provides an overview of the evidence on the unintended consequences of PHSM implemented in the school setting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The 60 included studies describe a broad body of evidence and cover a range of measures and unintended consequences, primarily consequences for health and well-being, acceptability and adherence, social and institutional aspects, and economic aspects. The main gaps identified relate to consequences of school measures for the health system and social welfare services, human and fundamental rights, equality and equity, and the environment. Further research is needed to fill these gaps, making use of diverse methodological approaches. Future studies should explore unintended consequences - whether beneficial or harmful - in more depth and over longer time periods, in different population groups, and across different contexts. A more robust evidence base could inform and facilitate decisions about whether, how, and when to implement or terminate COVID-19 risk mitigation measures in school settings, and how to counter negative unintended consequences. This publication was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Network of University Medicine (NUM) 1.0, Grant No. 01KX2021 in the context of the project CEOsys, and NUM 2.0, Grant No. 01KX2121 in the context of the projects PREPARED and coverCHILD. The protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/bsxh8). The previous review is published in the Cochrane Library (10.1002/14651858.CD015397).

Littlecott H ，Krishnaratne S ，Hummel J ，Orban E ，Heinsohn T ，Noel-Storr AH ，Strahwald B ，Jung-Sievers C ，Ravens-Sieberer U ，Rehfuess E ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》