Next Article in Journal
Do People Become More or Less Materialistic during Disasters? The Mediating Roles of Mortality Salience and Gratitude
Previous Article in Journal
Deontological or Utilitarian? An Eternal Ethical Dilemma in Outbreak
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 16
10.3390/ijerph18168564
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Psychosocial Health of K-12 Students Engaged in Emergency Remote Education and In-Person Schooling: A Cross-Sectional Study

by
Daniel Acosta
1,
Yui Fujii
2,
Diana Joyce-Beaulieu
3,
K. D. Jacobs
2,
Anthony T. Maurelli
1,4,
Eric J. Nelson
1,4,5 and
Sarah L. McKune
1,*
1
Department of Environmental and Global Health, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, 1225 Center Dr, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
2
College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, 1225 Center Dr, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
3
Department of Special Education, School Psychology & Early Childhood Studies, College of Education, University of Florida, 618 S.W. 12th Street, P.O. Box 117050/1801, Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-7050, USA
4
Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, 2055 Mowry Road, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
5
Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 1600 SW Archer Rd, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(16), 8564; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168564
Submission received: 28 June 2021 / Revised: 6 August 2021 / Accepted: 10 August 2021 / Published: 13 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Mental Health)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As online classes became the norm in many countries as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the concern for child and adolescent mental health became an issue of concern. This study evaluates the differences in the psychosocial status of school children based on engagement in in-person or Emergency Remote Education (ERE) and assessed the prevalence and predictors of symptom-derived risk levels for anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD). Cross-sectional data were collected from students at a Florida K-12 school and their household members through an online survey conducted in October 2020 (n = 145). No significant difference was found between ERE and in-person learning for risk of anxiety, depression, or OCD. Prevalence of students presenting as at risk for anxiety, depression, and OCD was 42.1%, 44.8%, and 41.4%. Several student factors (e.g., child sex, school level) and parental factors (e.g., parental COVID-19 attitudes) were associated with students presenting as at risk for anxiety, depression, or OCD; child’s participation in sports was protective against all three outcomes. Participation in sports was found to be protective against risk of anxiety (aOR = 0.36, CI = 0.14–0.93), depression (aOR = 0.38, CI = 0.15–0.93), and OCD (aOR = 0.31, CI = 0.11–0.85).

1. Introduction

In an effort to adhere to public health guidelines during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, schools around the world have taken varying approaches to continue student education using virtual platforms [1]. By April 2020, 1.58 billion students from 200 countries were affected by school closures, which aimed to reduce transmission of COVID-19 [2]. These decisions triggered action among educational institutions globally-EdTech companies mobilized to partner with schools in Switzerland, and Indian universities pushed to transition fully online [3,4].
As a result of the global pandemic of COVID-19, schools around the world took various approaches to learning in the Fall of 2020, including full closures, in-person, fully virtual, and hybrid options. Among those that remained open, the various learning design models reflect different ways that education, epidemiology, and equity issues were prioritized by governing bodies. Municipalities worked on mitigating risk of disease transmission, as the psychosocial impact of school-age children being physically out of school and learning virtually was, at the time, largely unknown. While most of the various forms of virtual learning implemented as a response to COVID-19 meet the UNESCO definition of “distance education” [5], categorizing these efforts as distance education is problematic and misleading. Distance education is usually implemented through willingly planned and evidence-based pedagogy, as measured against student learning [6]. On the other hand, distance learning in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is a coping strategy—an emergency temporary solution for unplanned disruptions of prior social order [7]. These approaches to learning are not necessarily agreed upon strategies and, in some cases, can reflect the only viable option of a narrow range of choices implemented to preserve some semblance of stability and education for students [8]. Schools in the US were grossly unprepared for mandatory transitions to online learning. Only 19% of all primary and secondary schools in the US had any experience offering classes entirely online as of the 2017–2018 school year [9]. In addition to school unpreparedness, families were not equitably positioned for a transition to online learning. A study conducted in 2018 showed that among low-income families, one in four teens lacked computers at home [10]. Consequently, virtual learning threatened to exacerbate the existing academic gaps between low and high socioeconomic groups in the US [11]. It is important to recognize that the objective of distance learning during COVID-19 was not to reconstruct an environment that provided a stable education, but an environment that provided immediate virtual access to most students during the crisis [12].
Educational experts acknowledging these issues describe the forced exodus of students from the classroom towards distance education as Emergency Remote Education (ERE) [13]. ERE differs from distance education because it highlights the contextual nature of learning remotely-it is both a response to a crisis and temporary, thus not planned or designed to be online [13]. In this study, we use data from a K-12 developmental research school, where student families were given the option of attending school 5 days per week or engaging in ERE in the Fall of 2020, to study differences in psychosocial health of children and adolescents. While there are several emerging studies regarding the negative psychosocial outcomes the pandemic has had in children and adolescents [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25], no literature was found that examined or compared any indicator of child mental health outcomes across different ERE strategies, particularly among K-12 students. While the concept of change and uncertainty and their association with stress have been thoroughly studied within psychology [26,27,28,29], given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and associated school closures, more research is needed to understand the psychosocial impact of ERE on children.
Our objective was to test for differences in risk of psychosocial outcomes in two distinct environments, between students attending school in-person and those in engaged in ERE. We also describe the prevalence of students presenting as at risk for anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and identify other socio-demographic and behavior-based factors associated with those outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

Data presented here were collected as part of a larger multi-disciplinary research project that began in March 2020 and aimed to identify the determinants of COVID-19 infection and transmission in Florida [19]. As part of those efforts, a prospective cohort study was launched in April 2020 to increase understanding of the role that children played in the spread of COVID-19 infection and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on school-aged children and their families. The cohort study was designed to collect data on children and their families over 12 months, including tests for active COVID-19 infection, serologic tests for past exposure to the virus, and an online household survey, to explore the situation of children and their families, first during the initial lockdown (April 2020) and then during six- and 12-month follow-up. Laboratory data reflecting infection and antibody status of children and their families will be published at completion of the cohort study. Data presented here come from survey data, collected in October 2020, when a significant number of children were engaged in ERE.

2.2. Recruitment and Participation

Parents or guardians of existing participants (from April 2020) and all other currently enrolled students were invited by email to have their child participate in the October 2020, six-month follow-up phase of the study. No compensation was offered to participants. Recruitment materials included emails and a website with additional information about the study. New participants were able to consent/assent to participation online via a HIPAA compliant interface connected to REDCap (Vanderbilt University), while existing participants, previously consented, were sent a unique REDCap link that directed them to the online survey and testing appointment sign-up. Parental consent was required for all children under the age of 18, and assent was required for all children over the age of eight. Data were deidentified prior to analysis and are stored on secured servers to ensure the protection of participants (REDCap). The study was approved by the (University of Florida) Institutional Review Board, protocol [IRB202001345].

2.3. Instrument and Variables

The questionnaire included parental or self-report of symptoms in children associated with anxiety, depression, and OCD, as well as knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of parents related to COVID-19, socio-demographic characteristics, the current learning environment of the student (in-person or ERE), household income, parental COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, parental health related quality of life (HRQoL), parental optimism, parental risk perception, parental resilience, household food security, parental unwanted behaviors, and parental trust in institutions. These variables are described in more detail below. The questionnaire used can be found in the Supplementary File.
The outcomes evaluated in this study are symptom-derived categorizations of students as no risk or at risk for anxiety, depression, and OCD. In the bi-variate analysis, we also categorize a third group, high risk, from within the population at risk. These indicators are generated from participant responses to questions about symptoms associated with each outcome, using a 5-point Likert scale. The questions used age-appropriate language, and the response options (and associated scores) were never (1), a little (2), sometimes (3), a lot (4), or always/constantly (5). When asked about a list of symptoms associated with each outcome, participants whose answer responses were all below 3 were categorized as no risk; participants who had 1 or more answer equal to 3 or above were categorized as at risk. Within those at risk, those who reported 2 or more symptoms with scores of 4 (reflecting having that symptom “a lot”) or one or more symptom score of 5 (reflecting having that symptom “always” or “constantly”), were categorized as high risk for that outcome. A team of psychologists from the university affiliated with the participating developmental research school designed the questions to gain insight into psychosocial outcomes of interest to the school.
The primary independent variable examined in this study is learning environment, a dichotomous nominal variable that categorizes student learning environment as either ERE or attending school in-person, as defined above. A few distinctions about this context are important: first, all students were issued laptops during the initial lockdown in March 2020. Thus, all students had tried ERE in the spring of 2020, when no other option was available. All children also had access to a school-issued laptop when families were choosing their learning environment. In addition, there were differences by school level in the delivery of classes among those attending school in-person: primary school students received traditional face-to-face instruction, and middle school and high school students received instruction and engaged in class work virtually through use of laptops from within their classrooms. Middle and high school students reported to the same classroom each day along with members of a “pandemic pod”. From there, they joined their individual classes—different from others in their pod—by laptop. The analysis treats those attending school in-person as a homogeneous group and does not differentiate between those receiving traditional face-to-face classes (K-5 grade) and those on campus using a laptop to connect to class (6–12 grade), as they are considered to be in the same environment (physically at the school); however, school level is included in all regression models as a covariate.
Other covariates evaluated and included in our analyses are socio-demographic characteristics, school level, parental KAP, parental unwanted behaviors, parental vaccine attitudes, parental optimism score, resilience, healthy days, student participation in sports, and flu vaccination status. Socio-demographic variables include child race, child sex, household income, parental COVID-19 related loss of income, and parental occupation (binary variable, assessing whether or not a parent worked in a medical setting). School level is described as primary (K-5), middle (6–8), and high school (9–12). For parental KAP, continuous variables were generated for each parental knowledge, parental attitudes, and parental practices. Each correct answer on the knowledge section counted as 1 point (out of 16). Attitudes and Practices where categorized either as protective or unprotective against COVID-19, with each protective attitude counted as one point towards the attitude score (out of 10), and each protective practice counted as one point towards the practice score (out of 7).
Variables assessing unwanted behaviors and trust in institutions were adapted from the World Health Organizations (WHO) survey tool and guidance to monitor knowledge, risk perceptions, preventive behaviors, and trust [30]. Unwanted behaviors reflect a set of attitudes and actions deemed counterproductive or unhealthy during a pandemic, such as consuming more alcohol, purchasing drugs that are not used as an effective treatment, or postponing vaccinations. The resilience scale, healthy days, and optimism scores used validated instruments and analysis guidelines [31,32,33]. The variable referred to as “healthy days” is derived from the “Healthy Days Core Module” of the CDC’s HRQoL [34]. Questions about parental COVID-19 vaccine attitudes were designed by the study team to understand parental perceptions about vaccinating children prior to vaccine availability for children.
Because we are interested in the learning environment and its impact on psychosocial outcomes, we present descriptive statistics for the study population by learning environment and include indication of statistical differences between these populations where they occur. Bivariate analysis was conducted between all covariates and the outcome measures (symptom derived indicators of anxiety, depression, and OCD). Those with p-values of less than 0.20 were carried over to regression models. For each outcome, nested regression models are estimated to investigate the relationship between learning environment and each psychosocial outcome, taking into consideration other potential confounders. In each nested regression model, the first model includes socio-demographic confounders (sex, race, school level, and income), independent of bivariate analysis; and the second model includes learning environment (ERE or in-person). In the third, fourth, and fifth models of each nested regression, we explore the role of other covariates on the specific outcomes, including those covariates that were associated with the outcome in bivariate analysis at the p < 0.20 level. These are grouped and include parental health attitudes and behaviors (third model); parental occupation, self-reported health, or resilience (fourth model); and child participation in sports (fifth model). We present adjusted odds ratios for potential risk factors associated with each of three outcomes: children presenting with no risk or at risk for anxiety, no risk or at risk for depression, and no risk or at risk for OCD.
A total of 181 students (15.3% of the total school population) participated in the study. A subset of 36 high school students was removed from this analysis after it was determined that they inadvertently received questionnaire language that targeted children of a lower age. Thus, the total sample evaluated here is 145 students. The study population (n = 145) was 49.7% White (non-Hispanic), a 24.8% Hispanic (regardless of race), 13.1% Multiracial/Other, and 12.4% Black (non-Hispanic). Female students made up 50.3% of the sample, and the distribution by school level was 22.8% high school, 31.7% middle school, and 45.5% primary school. Median income was $100,000 annually. Table 1 presents these demographic characteristic and other study variables of interest for both the full sample population as well as by learning environment (those in school in-person and ERE). Variables of interest include parental COVID-19 vaccine perceptions, children’s seasonal flu vaccination status, indicators of psychosocial distress, parental healthy days, KAP scores, unwanted behavior scores, resilience scores, and optimism scores.

3. Results

Most parents (71%) reported having some degree of concern about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for children, and only 45.5% of parents indicated that they planned to have their children vaccinated. Among students’ households, 14.5% indicated a loss of income due to COVID-19, and 33.1% indicated having an adult who worked on the front line, such as doctors or nurses. 73.8% of students participating received a flu vaccine during the 2019–2020 school year. COVID-19 related parental KAP scores were high in this population, with average scores of 14.6 out of 16, 7.7 out of 10, and 6.4 out of 8, respectively. Parents reported 25 healthy days out of the past 30. Unwanted behavior, optimism, and resilience scores are all presented in Table 1.
In testing the central thesis of this study, we found no significant difference in students presenting as at risk for anxiety (p = 0.452), depression (p = 0.167), or OCD (p = 0.890) when those engaged in ERE (n = 100) were compared to those attending school in-person (n = 45) students. Among the total student population, 42.1% reported symptoms consistent with being at risk for anxiety, 44.8% reported symptoms consistent with being at risk for depression, and 41.4% of students reported symptoms consistent with being at risk for OCD. Overall prevalence rates of students reporting symptoms consistent with being at high risk for anxiety, depression, and OCD were 9.7%, 5.5%, and 11.0%, respectively. A full 57.2% of students were categorized as at risk for at least one of the three psychosocial outcomes, and 13.1% were categorized as at high risk for at least one of the three psychosocial outcomes.
Descriptive statistics in Table 1 are presented for the total study population as well as by learning environment, in an explicit effort to document characteristics of those students attending school in-person and those engaged in ERE. Significant differences were found by school-level (younger students were more likely to be learning at school, p = 0.003), parental concern about vaccine safety in children (those with parents not reporting concern were more likely to be learning at school, p = 0.039), and by student receipt of a 2019–2020 flu vaccine (those who did not receive a flu vaccine were more likely to be learning at home, p = 0.007). In addition, significant differences were found in parental COVID-19 related attitudes and practices, with parents of those learning at home reporting higher scores, indicative of more protective COVID-19 attitudes and practices (p = 0.000 and p = 0.001).
In Table 2, we present nested logistic regression models with adjusted odds ratios for factors evaluated in models estimated to understand symptom-derived risk indicators for anxiety. Being a primary or middle school student was associated with presenting as at risk for anxiety in all of the five regression models, (aOR = 6.73, 95% CI = (1.92–23.51) and aOR = 6.17, 95% CI = (1.74–21.9), respectively), when compared to high school students. A higher parental COVID-19 knowledge score was also positively associated with a child presenting as at risk for anxiety (aOR = 1.71, 95% CI = (1.17–2.48)). Children’s participation in sports was found to be protective against a child presenting as at risk for anxiety (aOR = 0.36, 95% CI = (0.14–0.93)). There was no association at the significance level of p = 0.05 between anxiety and race, learning environment, income, parental self-reported healthy days, parental unwanted behaviors, parental attitudes towards COVID-19, and parental attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines.
In Table 3, we present nested regression models that estimate the effect of learning environment on students presenting as at risk for depression. In the models, we include the adjusted odds ratios for each factor evaluated. Similar to anxiety, primary and middle school students had significantly higher odds of presenting as at risk for depression in all of the five regression models, (aOR = 5.40, 95% CI = (1.56–18.66) and aOR = 6.55, 95% CI = (1.79–23.9), respectively), when compared to high school students. Being female was also positively associated with a child presenting as at risk for depression (aOR = 2.99, 95% CI = (1.27–7.03)). Race was significantly associated with being at risk for depression in the first two models, where Black children were less likely to present as at risk for depression compared to Non-Hispanic White children. However, as parental health attitudes (model 3), parental occupation (model 4), and child participation in sports (model 5) were introduced, no significant association was found. Similar to anxiety, children’s participation in sports was found to be protective against a child presenting as at risk for depression (aOR = 0.38, 95% CI = (0.15–0.93)). In the final model, there was no association at the significance level of p = 0.05 between depressive symptoms and race, learning environment, income, parental occupation, parental unwanted behaviors, and parental attitudes towards COVID-19.
Table 4 provides the nested logistic regression models estimating the effects of distance learning on symptom-derived risk indicators for OCD. Adjusted odds ratios are included for all factors evaluated in models. A higher COVID-19 preventive attitude score was associated with a child presenting as at risk for OCD (aOR = 1.60, 95% CI = (1.10–2.34)). Similar to anxiety and depression, children’s participation in sports was found to be protective against a child presenting as at risk for OCD (aOR = 0.31, 95% CI = (0.11–0.85)). In the final model, there was no association at the significance level of p = 0.05 between OCD-related symptoms and race, sex, school level, learning environment, income, parental occupation, parental unwanted behaviors, parental attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines, parental healthy days, and resilience score.

4. Discussion

Much attention has been given to the range of approaches employed to continue student education through virtual platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic, as schools sought to balance the educational and psychosocial needs of children against the potential risk of infection that in-person learning might introduce. In this study, 145 children and their families were administered questionnaires, and their responses yielded important insights into the situation of K-12 students and families roughly six months after COVID-19 restrictions began in Florida.
In our sample, 68.9% of students were connecting virtually via school-issued laptops from home, while the remaining 31% were attending school in-person. Though our core research question aimed to understand the differences in symptom-derived risk levels for anxiety, depression, and OCD between these groups, our analysis found no significant difference in these psychosocial outcomes between the two groups of learners. We found no literature that compares the psychosocial outcomes of K-12 students attending in-person classes with those engaged in ERE of any type in any context similar to the global COVID-19 pandemic, making this study the first of its kind. Given the scale of effort expended by school, public health, and other decision-making officials to weigh the COVID-19 risks and benefits against the psychological risks and benefits of virtual versus in-person learning, these data were desperately needed in July and August of 2020 and should prove useful for policy makers moving forward.
Unlike learning environment, being a primary or middle school student did increase the likelihood that a student presented as at risk for anxiety and depression. Younger students might not adapt as easily to ERE as those in high school as they might be less familiarized with the technology needed for online classes. Qualitative research conducted with primary school teachers and parents in Indonesia found that limited socializing and limited communication were challenges for young students, and that longer screen time was a challenge for young students. Parents also reported a lack of discipline around learning at home and poor technology skills in their children as challenges [35]. These findings may explain some of the challenges faced by primary students in the US too. However, findings that younger children are at higher risk for poor psychosocial or mental health outcomes during the pandemic is counter to research findings conducted elsewhere, such as a study from China that found older children at higher risk for depression and anxiety [36]. Our findings also associate being female with higher risk of depression, which is consistent with other COVID-19 studies where being female is a predictor of depression, anxiety, and stress [36,37,38,39]. These findings reflect similar findings from the beginning of the pandemic, where being younger and being female were associated with increased risk of symptoms of psychosocial distress [19].
This study also found playing a sport to be protective against a student presenting as at risk for anxiety, depression, and OCD; students participating in sports were 64%, 62%, and 69% less likely than those not playing sports to present as at risk for anxiety, depression, and OCD, respectively. This is consistent with a robust literature on the benefits of behavioral activation, such as exercise, sports, or re-engagement in social activities, as treatment for anxiety and depression [40,41,42,43,44]. These results are also consistent with emerging literature on the role of physical activity in mental health in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study found that implementing fitness programs among adolescents during COVID-19 lockdowns in Italy increased Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy scores after 8 weeks [45], and a qualitative study highlighted the role of physical activities and social connections in student-athletes’ mental health [46]. However, schools around the world continue to face many challenges to promote physical activities and physical education in the context of COVID-19 [47,48]. Furthermore, inequalities in resources and built environment can act as barriers to students from lower socio-economic levels, which is something that has to be taken into consideration by educators while planning interventions aiming to increase physical activities [46].
Participation in sports also addressed concerns of limited socializing and communication presented by parents and teachers in the qualitative study in Indonesia [35]. This finding is particularly important as studies have found that children have reduced levels of physical activity and increased sedentary behaviors since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic [49,50,51,52]. Some guidelines for reopening schools advised against the reactivation of sports, especially indoors, as likely to increase risk of transmission [53,54]. This poses a paradox for decision makers, as sports and physical activity are protective against negative psychosocial outcomes in children, but they may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection among school-aged children.
Additionally, another critical finding showed that the higher the parental knowledge scores, the more likely were children to present as at risk for anxiety. Questions to assess anxiety levels in children were created to be age-appropriate for children to self-report, and parental knowledge was assessed with each question representing a score of one and a total possible score of 16. While the finding may be counterintuitive, this relationship may be explained by recent findings. A study on public perception of COVID-19 identified that higher knowledge levels were attributed to greater uncertainty and an increased compliance with health measures [55]. Moreover, a study from Saudi Arabia found that those who consistently practiced health safety measures such as wearing masks and using hand sanitizer presented significantly higher levels of anxiety compared to those who did not [56]. While a hyper-vigilant focus on the pandemic and its risk may have increased anxiety levels in children, other explanations, such as parental education level, could also explain this association, thus further investigation is needed to accurately identify the source. A similar pattern presents for COVID-19 related attitudes. Among parents who report the most protective or conservative attitudes toward COVID prevention, children are more likely to present as at risk for OCD. These highly protective attitudes around COVID-19 may be comparable to over-involved and/or protective parenting, which has been associated with early childhood internalizing difficulties [57,58,59,60].
Finally, although parental attitudes about child COVID-19 vaccination were not associated with the psychosocial outcomes of interest, the data collected in October of 2020 regarding vaccine attitudes are important. Findings showed that 45.5% of parents planned to vaccinate their children against COVID-19, while 46.2% remained uncertain, and 8.3% planned to refuse vaccination. Parents’ major concern was vaccine safety, with 71% of parents expressing some concern or that they were very concerned about safety. When data were collected, no COVID-19 vaccines were yet approved for use in either adults or children, thus these questions were hypothetical, and parents had very little data. During the final round of data collection in April 2021, with vaccines widely available in the study area for those 16 and over, we collected vaccine attitude data again. An analysis of changes in parental attitudes about child COVID-19 vaccination in this population is forthcoming.

Limitations

The sample for this study (145 students) is small and represents a decrease from baseline data collection where 280 students participated. Additionally, despite socio-demographic characteristics of the school reflecting those of the state, over 50% of households reported an annual income of over $100,000, which is higher than the reported median for the state in 2019 of $56,000 (2019 inflation adjusted dollars, American Community Survey 2019 5-year estimates [61]). Another limitation is that previous participants (those who participated in baseline) who were over 13 years of age inadvertently received the psychosocial questionnaire designed to engage students from 8–13 years of age, thus the questions they received used language developed for younger children. Consequently, these 36 students were removed from the study, limiting the enrollment of older children and ruling out any older child who had participated since baseline. Another limitation is that the study did not control for the variation in the educator’s proficiency in online schooling, Moreover, psychosocial distress in households might have been heightened during the period of data collection (October 2020), as it was a month marked with social and political turmoil in the United States leading up to the 2020 presidential election.

5. Conclusions

There was no association found between students’ learning environment and their presenting as at risk for anxiety, depression, or OCD. Instead, drivers of risk included: biological sex (being female increasing likelihood of presenting as at risk for depression), and school level (being in primary school and middle school increasing the likelihood of presenting as at risk for anxiety and depression). Higher levels of parental knowledge were associated with presenting as at risk of anxiety, and higher attitude scores were associated with presenting as at risk of OCD. Importantly, participation in sports was protective against students presenting as at risk of anxiety, depression, and OCD. These data both clarify and complicate the role that sports play in the health of children during a pandemic. More efforts are needed to fully understand how to protect and optimize the educational, mental, and physical health of children during a pandemic. Additional research is needed to understand if these patterns replicate across various populations in the US and globally. Such data would foster the allocation and prioritization of resources for interventions to support the children most vulnerable to the negative impact of the pandemic.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph18168564/s1, Supplementary file: Household Questionnaire.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L.M., E.J.N., and A.T.M.; methodology, S.L.M., E.J.N., A.T.M., D.A., K.D.J., D.J.-B., data curation, D.A., Y.F.; writing—original draft preparation, D.A., Y.F., S.L.M.; writing—review and editing, S.L.M., E.J.N., A.T.M., D.A., K.D.J., D.J.-B., Y.F.; supervision, S.L.M.; project administration, S.L.M., E.J.N., A.T.M.; funding acquisition, S.L.M., E.J.N., A.T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the University of Florida Clinical and Translational Science Institute, which is supported in part by the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences under award number UL1TR001427. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The research was also supported by the University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, the College of Medicine, the Emerging Pathogens Institute at the University of Florida, and the Florida Children’s Miracle Network.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, protocol IRB202001345.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects (or their parents/guardians) involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data may be requested from the PI of the project Sarah L. McKune or the corresponding author of this manuscript once it is released. The complete unidentified data set will be released six months after the completion of the longitudinal study (estimated date, October 2022).

Acknowledgments

A special thanks to the study participants and their families. We are also grateful to the school personnel and staff; the medical, public health, and nursing student volunteers; Tara Sabo-Atwood, John Lednicky, and the entire research testing lab staff in Environmental and Global Health; and Glenn Morris, and Michael Lauzardo for their support and guidance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Ferraro, F.V.; Ambra, F.I.; Aruta, L.; Iavarone, M.L. Distance learning in the covid-19 era: Perceptions in Southern Italy. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. De Giusti, A. Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. United Nations 2020, 110–111, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tomasik, M.J.; Helbling, L.A.; Moser, U. Educational gains of in-person vs. distance learning in primary and secondary schools: A natural experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic school closures in Switzerland. Int. J. Psychol. 2020, 56, 556–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khattar, A.; Jain, P.R.; Quadri, S.M.K. Effects of the disastrous pandemic COVID 19 on learning styles, activities and mental health of young indian students-a machine learning approach. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Information and Control Systems (ICICCS 2020), no. Iciccs, Madurai, India, 25–26 June 2020; pp. 1190–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moore, M.M.; Tait, A.; Paul, R. Open and Distance Learning: Trends, policy and strategy consideration. UNESCO 2002, 8–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bozkurt, A.; Jung, I.; Xiao, J.; Vladimirschi, V.; Schuwer, R.; Egorov, G.; Lambert, S.; Al-Freih, M.; Pete, J.; Olcott, D., Jr.; et al. A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian J. Distance Educ. 2020, 15, 1–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Quarantelli, E.L.; Dynes, R.R. Resonse to Social Crisis and Disaster. Ann. Rev. Sociol 1977, 3, 23–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Toquero, C.M. Emergency remote education experiment amid COVID-19 pandemic. IJERI Int. J. Educ. Res. Innov. 2020, 15, 162–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. National Center for Education Statistics. The NCES Fast Facts Tool Provides Quick Answers to Many Education Questions; National Center for Education Statistics: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pew Research Center. Some U.S. Students Lack Home Internet or Computer for Homework; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bacher-Hicks, A.; Goodman, J.; Mulhern, C. Inequality in household adaptation to schooling shocks: Covid-induced online learning engagement in real time. J. Public Econ. 2021, 193, 104345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rahiem, M.D.H. The emergency remote learning experience of university students in Indonesia amidst the COVID-19 crisis. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2020, 19, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hodges, C.; Moore, S.; Lockee, B.; Trust, T.; Bond, A. The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. Educ. Rev. 2020, 27, 1–9. Available online: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and- (accessed on 2 April 2021).
  14. Buzzi, C.; Tucci, M.; Ciprandi, R.; Brambilla, I.; Caimmi, S.; Ciprandi, G.; Marseglia, G.L. The psycho-social effects of COVID-19 on Italian adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2020, 46, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Duan, L.; Shao, X.; Wang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Miao, J.; Yang, X.; Zhu, G. An investigation of mental health status of children and adolescents in china during the outbreak of COVID-19. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 275, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liang, L.; Ren, H.; Cao, R.; Hu, Y.; Qin, Z.; Li, C.; Mei, S. The Effect of COVID-19 on Youth Mental Health. Psychiatr. Q. 2020, 91, 841–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Meherali, S.; Punjani, N.; Louie-Poon, S.; Rahim, K.A.; Das, J.; Salam, R.; Lassi, Z. Mental Health of Children and Adolescents Amidst COVID-19 and Past Pandemics: A Rapid Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Xinyan, X.; Qi, X.; Yu, Z.; QI, L.; Jiajia, Z.; Ranran, S. Mental Health Status Among Children in Home Confinement During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak in Hubei Province, China. JAMA Pediatr. 2020, 7, 2–4. [Google Scholar]
  19. McKune, S.L.; Acosta, D.; Diaz, N.; Brittain, K.; Beaulieu, D.J.; Maurelli, A.T.; Nelson, E.J. Psychosocial health of school-aged children during the initial COVID-19 safer-at-home school mandates in Florida: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, C.; Pan, R.; Wan, X.; Tan, Y.; Xu, L.; Ho, C.S.; Ho, R.C. Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors during the Initial Stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the General Population in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tian, F.; Li, H.; Tian, S.; Yang, J.; Shao, J.; Tian, C. Psychological symptoms of ordinary Chinese citizens based on SCL-90 during the level I emergency response to COVID-19. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 288, 112992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Saurabh, K.; Ranjan, S. Compliance and Psychological Impact of Quarantine in Children and Adolescents due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Indian J. Pediatr. 2020, 87, 532–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Oosterhoff, B.; Palmer, C.A.; Wilson, J.; Shook, N. Adolescents’ Motivations to Engage in Social Distancing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Associations With Mental and Social Health. J. Adolesc. Health 2020, 67, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liu, X.; Luo, W.-T.; Li, Y.; Li, C.-N.; Hong, Z.-S.; Chen, H.-L.; Xiao, F.; Xia, J.-Y. Psychological status and behavior changes of the public during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Infect. Dis. Poverty 2020, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, S.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y. Somatic symptoms and concern regarding COVID-19 among Chinese college and primary school students: A cross-sectional survey. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 289, 113070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wisse, B.; Sleebos, E. When Change Causes Stress: Effects of Self-construal and Change Consequences. J. Bus. Psychol. 2016, 31, 249–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Amato, P.R. The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation. Futur. Child. 2005, 15, 75–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Nesterkin, D.A. Organizational change and psychological reactance. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2013, 26, 573–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wheaton, B.; Young, M.; Montazer, S.; Stuart-Lahman, K. Social stress in the twenty-first century. In Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 299–323. [Google Scholar]
  30. WHO. Survey Tool and Guidance: Behavioural Insights on COVID-19 (2020). Surv. Tool Guid. Behav. Insights COVID 2020, p. 19. Document number: WHO/EURO:2020-696-40431-54222. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/333549 (accessed on 13 August 2021).
  31. Smith, B.W.; Dalen, J.; Wiggins, K.; Tooley, E.; Christopher, P.; Bernard, J. The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2008, 15, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Scheier, M.F.; Carver, C.S.; Bridges, M.W. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 67, 1063–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Horner-Johnson, W.; Krahn, G.; Andresen, E.; Hall, T. RRTC Expert Panel on Health Status Measurement Developing Summary Scores of Health-Related Quality of Life for a Population-Based Survey. Public Health Rep. 2009, 124, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. CDC. Healthy Days Core Module: HRQOL-14 Measure HRQOL CDC; Center for Disease Control Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. Putri, R.S.; Purwanto, A.; Pramono, R.; Asbari, M.; Wijayanti, L.M.; Hyun, C.C. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on online home learning: An explorative study of primary schools in Indonesia. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2020, 29, 4809–4818. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chen, F.; Zheng, D.; Liu, J.; Gong, Y.; Guan, Z.; Lou, D. Depression and anxiety among adolescents during COVID-19: A cross-sectional study. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 88, 36–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Al Omari, O.; Al Sabei, S.; Al Rawajfah, O.; Abu Sharour, L.; Aljohani, K.; AlOmari, K.; Shkman, L.; Al Dameery, K.; Saifan, A.; Al Zubidi, B.; et al. Prevalence and Predictors of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress among Youth at the Time of COVID-19: An Online Cross-Sectional Multicountry Study. Depress. Res. Treat. 2020, 2020, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. AlAzzam, M.; Abuhammad, S.; Abdalrahim, A.; Hamdan-Mansour, A.M. Predictors of Depression and Anxiety Among Senior High School Students During COVID-19 Pandemic: The Context of Home Quarantine and Online Education. J. Sch. Nurs. 2021, 37, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Szwarcwald, L.; Malta, D.C.; Barros, M.B.D.A.; de Souza Júnior, P.R.B.; Romero, D.; de Almeida, W.D.S.; Damacena, G.N.; Werneck, A.O.; da Silva, D.R.P.; Lima, M.G.; et al. Associations of Sociodemographic Factors and Health Behaviors with the Emotional Well-Being of Adolescents during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Brazil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Biddle, S.J.H.; Asare, M. Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: A review of reviews. Br. J. Sports Med. 2011, 45, 886–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Moeijes, J.; Van Busschbach, J.T.; Bosscher, R.J.; Twisk, J.W.R. Sports participation and psychosocial health: A longitudinal observational study in children. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pascoe, M.; Bailey, A.P.; Craike, M.; Carter, T.; Patten, R.; Stepto, N.; Parker, A. Physical activity and exercise in youth mental health promotion: A scoping review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2020, 6, e000677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Swann, C.; Telenta, J.; Draper, G.; Liddle, S.; Fogarty, A.; Hurley, D.; Vella, S. Youth sport as a context for supporting mental health: Adolescent male perspectives. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2018, 35, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stein, A.T.; Carl, E.; Cuijpers, P.; Karyotaki, E.; Smits, J.A.J. Looking beyond depression: A meta-analysis of the effect of behavioral activation on depression, anxiety, and activation. Psychol. Med. 2021, 51, 1491–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cataldi, S.; Francavilla, V.; Bonavolontà, V.; De Florio, O.; Carvutto, R.; De Candia, M.; Latino, F.; Fischetti, F. Proposal for a Fitness Program in the School Setting during the COVID 19 Pandemic: Effects of an 8-Week CrossFit Program on Psychophysical Well-Being in Healthy Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Shepherd, H.; Evans, T.; Gupta, S.; McDonough, M.; Doyle-Baker, P.; Belton, K.; Karmali, S.; Pawer, S.; Hadly, G.; Pike, I.; et al. The Impact of COVID-19 on High School Student-Athlete Experiences with Physical Activity, Mental Health, and Social Connection. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gobbi, E.; Maltagliati, S.; Sarrazin, P.; Di Fronso, S.; Colangelo, A.; Cheval, B.; Escriva-Boulley, G.; Tessier, D.; Demirhan, G.; Erturan, G.; et al. Promoting Physical Activity during School Closures Imposed by the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Physical Education Teachers’ Behaviors in France, Italy and Turkey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jeong, H.-C.; So, W.-Y. Difficulties of Online Physical Education Classes in Middle and High School and an Efficient Operation Plan to Address Them. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dunton, G.F.; Do, B.; Wang, S.D. Early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity and sedentary behavior in children living in the U.S. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. A Moore, S.; Faulkner, G.; Rhodes, R.E.; Brussoni, M.; Chulak-Bozzer, T.; Ferguson, L.J.; Mitra, R.; O’Reilly, N.; Spence, J.C.; Vanderloo, L.M.; et al. Impact of the COVID-19 virus outbreak on movement and play behaviours of Canadian children and youth: A national survey. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Pietrobelli, A.; Pecoraro, L.; Ferruzzi, A.; Heo, M.; Faith, M.; Zoller, T.; Antoniazzi, F.; Piacentini, G.; Fearnbach, S.N.; Heymsfield, S.B. Effects of COVID-19 Lockdown on Lifestyle Behaviors in Children with Obesity Living in Verona, Italy: A Longitudinal Study. Obesity 2020, 28, 1382–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Medrano, M.; Cadenas-Sanchez, C.; Oses, M.; Arenaza, L.; Amasene, M.; Labayen, I. Changes in lifestyle behaviours during the COVID -19 confinement in Spanish children: A longitudinal analysis from the MUGI project. Pediatr. Obes. 2021, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Honein, M.A.; Barrios, L.C.; Brooks, J.T. Data and Policy to Guide Opening Schools Safely to Limit the Spread of SARS-CoV-2 Infection. JAMA 2021, 325, 823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Johansen, T.B.; Astrup, E.; Jore, S.; Nilssen, H.; Dahlberg, B.B.; Klingenberg, C.; Berg, A.S.; Greve-Isdahl, M. Infection prevention guidelines and considerations for paediatric risk groups when reopening primary schools during COVID-19 pandemic, Norway, April 2020. Eurosurveillance 2020, 25, 2000921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zanin, G.M.; Gentile, E.; Parisi, A.; Spasiano, D. A Preliminary Evaluation of the Public Risk Perception Related to the COVID-19 Health Emergency in Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Saddik, B.; Hussein, A.; Albanna, A.; Elbarazi, I.; Al-Shujairi, A.; Sharif-Askari, F.S.; Stip, E.; Hamid, Q.; Halwani, R. Assessing the influence of parental anxiety on childhood anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Arab Emirates. Medrxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bayer, J.K.; Sanson, A.; Hemphill, S.A. Parent influences on early childhood internalizing difficulties. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2006, 27, 542–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gar, N.S.; Hudson, J.L. An examination of the interactions between mothers and children with anxiety disorders. Behav. Res. Ther. 2008, 46, 1266–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Rapee, R. Potential role of childrearing practices in the development of anxiety and depression. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 1997, 17, 47–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lieb, R.; Wittchen, H.-U.; Höfler, M.; Fuetsch, M.; Stein, M.B.; Merikangas, K.R. Parental Psychopathology, Parenting Styles, and the Risk of Social Phobia in Offspring. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2000, 57, 859–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. CUBIT. Florida Income Statistics—Current Census Data for Zip Codes; Cubit Planning, Inc.: Austin, TX, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study and Variables of Interest by Learning Environment and for Total Study Population.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study and Variables of Interest by Learning Environment and for Total Study Population.
Is Child Attending in Person School?All Participants n = 145 (Column %)
Yes n = 45 (Row %)No n = 100 (Row %)
Demographic Characteristics (Confounders)
Race
Black2 (11.1%)16 (88.9%)18 (12.4%)
Hispanic12 (33.3%)24 (66.7%)36 (24.8%)
Multiracial/Other5 (26.3%)14 (73.7%)19 (13.1%)
White26 (36.1%)46 (63.9%)72 (49.7%)
School Level *
High School6 (18.2%)27 (81.8%)33 (22.8%)
Middle School9 (19.6%)47 (80.4%)46 (31.7%)
Primary School30 (45.5%)36 (54.5%)66 (45.5%)
Sex
Females21 (28.8%)52 (71.2%)73 (50.3%)
Males24 (33.3%)48 (66.7%)72 (49.7%)
Income
Median Family Income$110,500 $100,000 $100,000
Parental loss of income
Yes6 (28.6%)15 (71.4%)21 (14.5%)
No39 (31.5%)85 (68.5%)124 (85.5)
Health related attitudes and behaviors
Are parents concerned with COVID-19 vaccine safety for children? *
Not too concerned/not concerned at all11 (55.0%)9 (45.0%)20 (13.8%)
Some concern/Very Concerned27 (26.2%)76 (73.8%)103 (71.0%)
Not Sure7 (31.8%)15 (68.2%)22 (15.2%)
Does parent plan to vaccinate child against COVID-19
Yes22 (33.3%)44 (66.7%)66 (45.5%)
No3 (25%)9 (75%)12 (8.3%)
Not Sure20 (29.9%)47 (70.1%)67 (46.2%)
Parent working in medical setting
Yes18 (37.5%)30 (62.5%)48 (33.1%)
No27 (27.8%)70 (72.2%)97 (66.9%)
Child receive the flu vaccine in the Fall of 2019 or Winter/Spring of 2020? *
Yes40 (37.4%)67 (62.6%)107 (73.8%)
No5 (13.2%)33 (86.8%)38 (26.2%)
KAP and Unwanted BehaviorsMean (Std Dev)Mean (Std Dev)Mean (Std Dev)
Knowledge Score15.00 (0.879)14.55 (1.58)14.69 (1.427)
Attitude Score **6.96 (1.821)8.07 (1.821)7.72 (1.548)
Practice Score **5.93 (1.176)6.58 (0.997)6.38 (1.093)
Unwanted Behavior Score1.56 (1.439)1.69 (1.398)1.65 (1.407)
Other Parental CharacteristicsMean (Std Dev)Mean (Std Dev)Mean (Std Dev)
Healthy Days25.13 (7.021)24.53 (7.368)24.72 (7.234)
Optimism Score17.91 (4.486)17.22 (4.620)17.43 (4.575)
Resilience Score3.17 (1.11)3.07 (1.33)3.11 (1.26)
Child Participation in Sports
Yes18 (29.5%)43 (70.5%)61 (42.1%)
No27 (32.1%)57 (67.9%)84 (57.9%)
Psychosocial health
Students At Risk for either Anxiety, Depression, or OCD29 (34.9%)54 (65.1%)83 (57.2%)
Students At High Risk for either Anxiety, Depression, or OCD7 (36.8%)12 (63.2%)19 (13.1%)
Anxiety-related symptoms (At Risk)21 (34.4%)40 (65.6%)61 (42.1%)
Anxiety-related symptoms (High Risk)5 (35.7%)9 (64.3%)14 (9.7%)
Depressive symptoms (At risk)24 (36.9%)41 (63.1%)65 (44.8%)
Depressive symptoms (High risk)1 (12.5%)7 (87.5%)8 (5.5%)
OCD-related symptoms (At Risk)19 (31.7%)41 (68.3%)60 (41.4%)
OCD-related symptoms (High Risk)6 (37.5%)10 (62.5%)16 (11%)
* p < 0.05 using a Chi-Square test to compare those attending school in-person vs. ERE. ** p < 0.05 using an Independent Sample t-test to compare those attending school in-person vs. ERE.
Table
Table 2. Nested Logistic Regression Models Examining the Effects of Sociodemographic Characteristics, Learning Environment, Parental Health Attitudes and Behaviors, and other Selected Factors on Students Presenting as At Risk for Anxiety.
Table 2. Nested Logistic Regression Models Examining the Effects of Sociodemographic Characteristics, Learning Environment, Parental Health Attitudes and Behaviors, and other Selected Factors on Students Presenting as At Risk for Anxiety.
Independent VariablesModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5
RaceaOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)
White (Reference)----------
Black0.42 (0.12–1.43)0.42 (0.12–1.47)0.66 (0.16–2.72)0.66 (0.16–2.71)0.88 (0.2–3.82)
Hispanic1.02 (0.42–2.51)1.02 (0.42–2.52)1.76 (0.61–5.09)1.75 (0.6–5.08)1.86 (0.62–5.6)
Multiracial1.31 (0.42–4.08)1.31 (0.42–4.14)2.65 (0.64–11.07)2.61 (0.62–11.03)3.32 (0.74–14.82)
School Level
High School (Reference)----------
Middle School4.34 (1.44–13.07) *4.34 (1.44–13.07) *5.61 (1.63–19.26) *5.59 (1.63–19.22) *6.17 (1.74–21.9) *
Primary School5.25 (1.87–14.75) *5.22 (1.83–14.91) *7.64 (2.24–25.98) *7.66 (2.25–26.05) *6.73 (1.92–23.51) *
Sex
Male (Reference)----------
Female1.83 (0.88–3.8)1.83 (0.88–3.8)2.11 (0.91–4.89)2.14 (0.91–5.05)2.24 (0.93–5.39)
Income Level
Income above median (Reference)----------
Income below median2.41 (0.82–7.12)2.4 (0.81–7.13)2.18 (0.59–8)2.22 (0.59–8.27)2.44 (0.63–9.51)
Learning Environment
ERE (Reference) --------
In-Person 1.03 (0.46–2.28)1.17 (0.42–3.27)1.18 (0.42–3.28)1.13 (0.39–3.26)
Parental Health Attitudes and Behaviors
Attitude Score 1.36 (0.98–1.89)1.37 (0.97–1.92)1.33 (0.95–1.86)
Knowledge Score 1.62 (1.12–2.35) *1.63 (1.12–2.36) *1.71 (1.17–2.48) *
Do you plan on having your child(ren) vaccinated against COVID-19 when a vaccine becomes available?
No (Reference) ------
Yes 5.71 (0.78–41.81)5.69 (0.78–41.31)5.47 (0.61–48.67)
Not Sure 3.98 (0.59–27.06)3.92 (0.58–26.62)3.31 (0.39–27.77)
Child receiving flu vaccine in 2019 ** 1.29 (0.42–3.96)1.28 (0.42–3.94)1.55 (0.48–5.04)
Exercised less than before the pandemic ** 1.91 (0.75–4.83)1.93 (0.75–4.96)1.64 (0.62–4.36)
Drank more alcohol than I did before the pandemic ** 2 (0.7–5.7)2.01 (0.7–5.74)2.07 (0.71–6.07)
Ate more unhealthy food than I did before the pandemic ** 0.9 (0.37–2.2)0.91 (0.37–2.24)0.84 (0.34–2.1)
Avoided going to the doctor for a non-COVID-19-related problem ** 1.79 (0.69–4.63)1.78 (0.69–4.62)1.78 (0.69–4.62)
Parental self-reported health
Healthy Days 1.01 (0.95–1.07)1.01 (0.95–1.07)
Is child practicing sports
No (Reference) --
Yes 0.36 (0.14–0.93) *
Fit (-2 Log Likelihood)177.421177.417145.724145.697141.129
Constant0.1410.1400.0000.0000.000
* p < 0.05, ** The reference value for these variables is parents/children not engaging in the behaviors.
Table
Table 3. Nested Logistic Regression Models Examining the Effects of Sociodemographic Characteristics, Learning Environment, Parental Health Attitudes and Behaviors, and other Selected Factors on Students Presenting as At Risk for Depression.
Table 3. Nested Logistic Regression Models Examining the Effects of Sociodemographic Characteristics, Learning Environment, Parental Health Attitudes and Behaviors, and other Selected Factors on Students Presenting as At Risk for Depression.
Independent VariablesModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5
RaceaOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)
White (Reference)----------
Black0.16 (0.04–0.68) *0.17 (0.04–0.73) *0.22 (0.04–1.1)0.23 (0.05–1.12)0.31 (0.06–1.59)
Hispanic1.18 (0.47–2.94)1.2 (0.48–3.01)1.4 (0.52–3.75)1.39 (0.52–3.72)1.42 (0.51–3.96)
Multiracial0.66 (0.21–2.1)0.69 (0.21–2.21)0.96 (0.26–3.56)0.92 (0.25–3.47)1.15 (0.29–4.61)
School Level
High School (Reference)----------
Middle School5.64 (1.83–17.41) *5.66 (1.83–17.49) *6.09 (1.76–21.14) *6.09 (1.74–21.28) *6.55 (1.79–23.98) *
Primary School6.42 (2.23–18.48) *6.09 (2.09–17.78) *6.2 (1.89–20.36) *6.24 (1.88–20.69) *5.4 (1.56–18.66) *
Sex
Male (Reference)----------
Female2.27 (1.07–4.78) *2.29 (1.08–4.85) *2.84 (1.24–6.5) *2.87 (1.24–6.62) *2.99 (1.27–7.03) *
Income Level
Income above median (Reference)----------
Income below median1.75 (0.57–5.39)1.69 (0.54–5.26)0.94 (0.27–3.29)0.96 (0.28–3.32)1 (0.28–3.6)
Learning Environment
ERE (Reference) --------
In-Person 1.27 (0.57–2.86)2.18 (0.83–5.72)2.31 (0.87–6.15)2.35 (0.86–6.42)
Parental Health Attitudes and behaviors
Attitude Score 1.3 (0.97–1.74)1.3 (0.97–1.75)1.28 (0.95–1.71)
Exercised less than before the pandemic ** 2.17 (0.88–5.34)2.29 (0.92–5.72)1.88 (0.73–4.83)
Drank more alcohol than I did before the pandemic ** 2.39 (0.85–6.67)2.14 (0.75–6.16)2.17 (0.74–6.37)
Ate more unhealthy food than I did before the pandemic ** 1.51 (0.64–3.57)1.55 (0.65–3.69)1.46 (0.6–3.55)
Avoided going to the doctor for a non-COVID-19-related problem ** 1.63 (0.62–4.25)1.56 (0.6–4.08)1.58 (0.59–4.22)
Parent working Frontline
No (Reference) ----
Yes 0.64 (0.27–1.53)0.78 (0.32–1.91)
Is child practicing sports
No (Reference) --
Yes 0.38 (0.15–0.93) *
Fit (-2 Log Likelihood)170.683170.345149.868148.835144.245
Constant0.1450.1350.0060.0060.010
* p < 0.05, ** The reference value for these variables is parents/children not engaging in the behaviors.
Table
Table 4. Nested Logistic Regression Models Examining the Effects of Sociodemographic Characteristics, Learning Environment, Parental Health Attitudes and Behaviors, and other Selected Factors on Students Presenting as At Risk for OCD.
Table 4. Nested Logistic Regression Models Examining the Effects of Sociodemographic Characteristics, Learning Environment, Parental Health Attitudes and Behaviors, and other Selected Factors on Students Presenting as At Risk for OCD.
Independent VariablesModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5
RaceaOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)aOR (95% CI)
White (Reference)----------
Black0.86 (0.29–2.56)0.84 (0.28–2.57)1.67 (0.42–6.57)1.66 (0.42–6.57)2.24 (0.54–9.26)
Hispanic0.52 (0.21–1.26)0.52 (0.21–1.26)0.77 (0.26–2.32)0.78 (0.26–2.38)0.83 (0.26–2.67)
Multiracial0.89 (0.3–2.64)0.89 (0.3–2.64)1.46 (0.37–5.73)1.45 (0.36–5.81)1.99 (0.47–8.39)
School Level
High School (Reference)----------
Middle School1.28 (0.49–3.35)1.28 (0.49–3.35)1.37 (0.42–4.43)1.37 (0.42–4.46)1.53 (0.45–5.21)
Primary School1.7 (0.7–4.13)1.72 (0.69–4.27)1.78 (0.57–5.53)1.79 (0.57–5.6)1.45 (0.43–4.83)
Sex
Male (Reference)----------
Female1.34 (0.67–2.69)1.34 (0.67–2.68)1.56 (0.67–3.59)1.57 (0.67–3.7)1.64 (0.68–3.97)
Income Level
Income above median (Reference)----------
Income below median2.09 (0.76–5.73)2.1 (0.76–5.8)1.55 (0.43–5.58)1.58 (0.43–5.84)1.7 (0.44–6.51)
Learning Environment
ERE (Reference) --------
In-Person 0.95 (0.44–2.06)1.42 (0.49–4.11)1.42 (0.49–4.11)1.31 (0.43–3.94)
Parental Health Attitudes and behaviors
Attitude Score 1.64 (1.14–2.37) *1.65 (1.13–2.39) *1.6 (1.1–2.34) *
Knowledge Score 1.29 (0.89–1.86)1.29 (0.89–1.87)1.42 (0.96–2.1)
Do you plan on having your child(ren) vaccinated against COVID-19 when a vaccine becomes available?
No (Reference) ------
Yes 8.05 (0.75–86.6)8.19 (0.73–91.45)8.29 (0.56–121.78)
Not Sure 5.62 (0.55–57.39)5.65 (0.53–59.9)5.21 (0.37–73.43)
Child receiving flu vaccine in 2019 ** 1.98 (0.63–6.28)1.98 (0.62–6.3)2.35 (0.7–7.96)
Exercised less than before the pandemic ** 2.44 (0.96–6.2)2.46 (0.96–6.3)2.05 (0.77–5.49)
Drank more alcohol than I did before the pandemic ** 1.93 (0.66–5.61)1.96 (0.66–5.77)2.16 (0.7–6.72)
Postponed vaccination for myself or my child ** 1.35 (0.48–3.81)1.35 (0.48–3.83)1.65 (0.56–4.83)
Avoided going to the doctor for a non-COVID-19-related problem ** 2.56 (0.98–6.66)2.56 (0.98–6.66)2.54 (0.96–6.72)
Parental self-reported health/resilience
Healthy Days 1 (0.93–1.07)1.02 (0.95–1.09)
Resilience Score 0.97 (0.65–1.45)1.06 (0.7–1.62)
Is child practicing sports
No (Reference) --
Yes 0.31 (0.11–0.85) *
Fit (-2 Log Likelihood)189.717189.699144.162144.137138.606
Constant0.4800.4870.0000.0000.000
* p < 0.05, ** The reference value for these variables is parents/children not engaging in the behaviors.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Acosta, D.; Fujii, Y.; Joyce-Beaulieu, D.; Jacobs, K.D.; Maurelli, A.T.; Nelson, E.J.; McKune, S.L. Psychosocial Health of K-12 Students Engaged in Emergency Remote Education and In-Person Schooling: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168564

AMA Style

Acosta D, Fujii Y, Joyce-Beaulieu D, Jacobs KD, Maurelli AT, Nelson EJ, McKune SL. Psychosocial Health of K-12 Students Engaged in Emergency Remote Education and In-Person Schooling: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(16):8564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168564

Chicago/Turabian Style

Acosta, Daniel, Yui Fujii, Diana Joyce-Beaulieu, K. D. Jacobs, Anthony T. Maurelli, Eric J. Nelson, and Sarah L. McKune. 2021. "Psychosocial Health of K-12 Students Engaged in Emergency Remote Education and In-Person Schooling: A Cross-Sectional Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 16: 8564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168564

APA Style

Acosta, D., Fujii, Y., Joyce-Beaulieu, D., Jacobs, K. D., Maurelli, A. T., Nelson, E. J., & McKune, S. L. (2021). Psychosocial Health of K-12 Students Engaged in Emergency Remote Education and In-Person Schooling: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8564. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168564

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop