Wellbeing, coping with homeschooling, and leisure behavior at different COVID‐19‐related lockdowns: A longitudinal study in 9‐ to 16‐year‐old German children

Abstract Background School closures are an effective measure against the spread of Covid‐19. However, they pose a major challenge to children, especially to those from socially disadvantaged families. The present study compared the wellbeing, coping with homeschooling, and leisure behavior of children and adolescents at two different periods of school closures in Germany. Wellbeing was also compared with wellbeing before the pandemic. Methods Within the framework of the cohort study LIFE Child, 152 9‐ to 16‐year‐old children completed online surveys on wellbeing (KIDSCREEN‐27 scales on physical wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, and peer and social support), coping with homeschooling (concentration, motivation, fun, mastering of schoolwork, fear of bad marks), and leisure behavior (TV time, computer gaming time, indoor physical activity) during two COVID‐19‐related lockdowns in March 2020 (t1) and in January 2021 (t2). Data from both time points were compared using mixed‐effect models. Wellbeing was additionally compared with the wellbeing in 2019, before COVID‐19 (t0). We also assessed the effects of the socio‐economic status (SES) on all outcomes and changes between time points. Results All considered wellbeing scores declined significantly between t0 and t1. Physical wellbeing decreased further between t1 and t2, while social support increased. Coping with homeschooling degraded significantly between t1 and t2, while leisure behavior did not change significantly. Lower SES was associated with lower physical wellbeing, poorer coping with homeschooling, longer computer gaming times, and a stronger decrease of concentration on schoolwork from t1 to t2. Conclusion Repeated school closures have a negative effect on already compromised physical wellbeing and coping with homeschooling, especially in children from lower social strata.


INTRODUCTION
Since the beginning of 2020, we have been in a pandemic caused by the corona virus SARS-CoV-2. Economic and social life was shut down repeatedly to prevent the virus from spreading rapidly, with particularly extensive measures in the spring 2020 and the fall and winter 2020/21. In most countries, including Germany, these lockdowns also included the closure of schools. For children and their families, these times were very challenging. Many parents experienced a triple burden of work, childcare, and homeschooling. Children had to stay at home and forgo contact with their peers. In addition, homeschooling imposed challenges by the requirements of higher self-discipline and concentration abilities. It could also lead to an increase in conflicts between parents and children. Potential negative effects of school closures and social isolation on (mental) health, as well as on behavior and schooling, were discussed early on (Golberstein et al., 2020).
Regarding mental health, several longitudinal studies compared the wellbeing of children and adolescents before the pandemic and during the beginning of the pandemic/first lockdown in spring 2020.
Concerning leisure behavior, previous longitudinal or retrospective studies, including our own preliminary work, showed longer screen times during the first lockdown than before the pandemic (Pietrobelli et al., 2020;Pombo et al., 2021;Vogel et al., 2021;Xiang et al., 2020).
Regarding physical activity, several previous studies suggest a decrease during the lockdown (Eyler et al., 2021;Pietrobelli et al., 2020;Pombo et al., 2021;Xiang et al., 2020;Yomoda & Kurita, 2021). With respect to other leisure activities, own preliminary work showed that the frequency of interactive activities (handicrafts, board games) decreased from the beginning to the end of the first lockdown in spring 2020, suggesting that the duration of an exceptional situation may affect these activities negatively .
Regarding possible effects of school closures or homeschooling on children's education, a large European study revealed that about 20% of parents were dissatisfied with the quality of homeschooling material and about 40% of them lacked support from schools or teachers during the first school closures in spring 2020, especially if their children had mental health problems (Thorell et al., 2021). Two longitudinal studies in elementary students, including own preliminary work, showed that children were enthusiastic about doing their schoolwork, but that motivation  and completion of homework and online courses (Cui et al., 2021) declined from the beginning of the first lockdown to 1 month later.
All of the studies presented here were conducted in Europe, North America, or Asia; studies on wellbeing, health behavior, or homeschooling in lower-middle income countries in Africa or Asia are sparse. However, recent reviews suggest that the challenges to mental health and education during the pandemic are particularly strong in these countries (Kar et al., 2020;Kola et al., 2021;Spaull & van der Berg, 2020;Yukich et al., 2021).
Although several longitudinal studies compared mental health before and during the pandemic, they mainly concentrated on the initial pandemic (spring 2020). Studies investigating children's wellbeing and behavior later in the pandemic are sparse. One longitudinal study conducted in the United States examined trends in adolescents' mental health from spring to summer 2020 (Hawes et al., 2021). It showed a peak in depression and anxiety symptoms in March 2020, followed by a decline through summer 2020. This result suggests that mental health might be particularly poor at pandemic peaks, but improve as the infectious situation improves. However, as this study looked at a short period including only one pandemic peak, it remains unclear how mental health would develop during further pandemic peaks.
The present study assessed and compared wellbeing, leisure behavior, and coping with homeschooling during two pandemic periods, both characterized by high infection rates and, subsequently, harsh anti-pandemic measures, including school closures (lockdown in March 2020 and lockdown in January 2021). Regarding wellbeing, we compared the data with data collected in the year before the pandemic. Based on previous studies, we expected that children and adolescents would suffer more during renewed school closures (second lockdown) than during the initial school closure (first lockdown). Therefore, we hypothesized wellbeing, coping with homeschooling, and physical activity to be lower and media use to be higher during the second than during the first lockdown. Regarding SES effects, we expected wellbeing and coping with homeschooling to be lower in children from lower social strata. Furthermore, the decrease in wellbeing and coping with homeschooling was hypothesized to be stronger in these children.

Key points
What's known � Wellbeing of children is impaired by pandemic-related school closures and contact restrictions.

What's new
� Compared to the pre-pandemic period, physical wellbeing was lower during the first COVID-19-related lockdown (spring 2020) and declined further from the first to the second lockdown (winter 2021). Similarly, coping with homeschooling was poorer during the second than during the first lockdown.

What's relevant
� During a pandemic, each new school closure potentially worsens the already reduced wellbeing and school motivation of children and adolescents. Therefore, school closures should be prevented for as long as possible.

Participants
Data were collected within the LIFE Child study, a cohort study conducted in the city of Leipzig (Germany) investigating healthy development from prenatal stage to young adulthood (Poulain et al., 2017). Study participants are recruited through advertising in hospitals, public health facilities, and schools and come mainly from the city of Leipzig and surrounding areas. The LIFE Child study was For the analyses of changes in wellbeing, data at t1 and t2 were completed by data collected before the pandemic, during the last regular visit in the LIFE Child study in 2019 (t0). Furthermore, we created a historical control group of LIFE Child participants who had provided information on wellbeing in the 2 years before the pandemic, that is, in 2018 and 2019. The controls were chosen matched (optimal matching algorithms) by age and sex with a case: control ratio of 1:3 (456 controls). The standardized mean age difference between the study sample and the control group was 0.0027 years. The variance ratio was 1.0021. Sex was matched exactly for all cases.

Measures
Wellbeing was assessed using the physical wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, and peer and social support scales of the KIDSCREEN-27 questionnaire on health-related QoL (Ravens-Sieberer et al., 2007).
As personal contact was prohibited during the survey periods, we added the words "including online and via phone" to the question of whether the child spent time with friends (peer and social support scale). Sum scores of each scale were t-transformed as described in the KIDSCREEN manual (Ravens-Sieberer et al., 2007). Coping with homeschooling was assessed by five questions (motivation, concentration, fun, mastering, fear of bad marks) rated on a five-point Likert scale (see Table 1). Leisure behavior was assessed by three questions (indoor physical activity, TV, computer games) rated on a five-point Likert scale (see Table 1). SES was assessed using a composite score combining information on parental education, occupation, and income (adapted to Lampert et al. (2014)). The score ranges from 3 to 21, with higher scores indicating higher SES. For descriptive purposes, this score was categorized as low, middle, or high, based on cut-off points deduced from a large representative German sample (Lampert et al., 2014).

Statistical analysis
Analyses were performed using R version 4.0 (R Core Team, 2017).
Categorical and ordinal data were described as frequencies and percentages. Continuous data were described as means and ranges.
Differences in wellbeing, coping with homeschooling, and leisure behavior (as dependent variables) depending on time, SES, or interactions between both (as independent variables) were investigated using multiple linear (Bates et al., 2014) or ordinal mixed-effect models (Christensen, 2019), with the subject included as random effect. Effects were presented as non-standardized regression coefficients (beta) or odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Interactions between time and SES were only included if the interaction term reached statistical significance (p < .05). Analyses were adjusted for the child's gender and age.
In the historical control group, differences in wellbeing between the two years before the pandemic (2019 and 2018) were assessed using paired t-tests.

RESULTS
The sample comprised 152 children aged 9-16 years who had completed the survey at both t1 (first lockdown) and t2 (second lockdown). Of these children, only 3% grew up in low SES families, while the majority grew up in families with either middle SES (52%) or high SES (45%).
Regarding wellbeing (n = 117), the mean KIDSCREEN t-scores at With respect to coping with homeschooling (n = 128), most children reported being able to concentrate, being motivated, and having fun quite often or very often (see Figure 2). Also, the majority reported mastering schoolwork and having no fear of bad marks (see Regarding leisure behavior (n = 134), the analysis revealed no significant changes between t1 and t2 (all p > .05). Most participants reported watching films/series about 1-2 h per day (49% at t1, 47% at t2), playing computer games a maximum of 30 min per day (50% at t1, 48% at t2), and being physically active indoors at least three times per week (46% at t1, 39% at t2). Across all time points, a higher SES T A B L E 1 Survey questions on coping with homeschooling and leisure behavior

DISCUSSION
This longitudinal study assessed wellbeing, coping with homeschooling, and leisure behavior of 9-to 16-year-old healthy children during the first and second COVID-19-related lockdowns in spring 2020 and in winter 2021. Schools were closed in both periods, so children had to do schoolwork at home. In addition, wellbeing was compared with wellbeing before the pandemic.
In line with previous findings (Achterberg et al., 2021;Bignardi et al., 2020;Conti et al., 2020;Hu & Qian, 2021;Hussong et al., 2021;Paschke et al., 2021;Ravens-Sieberer et al., 2021) and our own preliminary work , physical and psychological wellbeing as well as peer and social support were significantly lower during the first lockdown than before the pandemic. Given that wellbeing and social support had not changed significantly in the two years before the pandemic (2018-2019), these differences are likely to be explained by the pandemic or anti-pandemic measures, for example, school closures, which might negatively affect the wellbeing of children and adolescents. Most F I G U R E 1 Physical wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, and peer and social support before the Covid-19-pandemic (t0), during the first lockdown in spring 2020 (t1), and during the second lockdown in winter 2021 (t2). The triangles indicate the mean t-scores

F I G U R E 2
Coping with homeschooling during the first lockdown in spring 2020 (t1) and during the second lockdown in winter 2021 (t2) WELLBEING OF CHILDREN AT DIFFERENT COVID-19-RELATED LOCKDOWNS interestingly, the analyses revealed a further significant decline in physical wellbeing from the first to the second lockdown, suggesting that children and adolescents do not adjust to the pandemic over time but that renewed school closures further weaken their already reduced physical wellbeing. Regarding psychological wellbeing, however, we did not find a significant change from the first to the second lockdown, and for peer and social support, we even observed an increase (without reaching the initial level). These findings might be explained by less rigid social restrictions during the second than during the first lockdown. During the first lockdown, one was not allowed to meet people from other households, whereas during the second lockdown, it was possible.
Moreover, during the second lockdown, children up to the age of 12 were fully excluded from contact restrictions. With more personal contacts, peer and social support likely suffered less during the second than during the first lockdown. In addition, social support may have prevented further deterioration in psychological wellbeing.
Similar to (physical) wellbeing and in line with our expectations, coping with homeschooling decreased significantly from the first to the second lockdown. While concentration, motivation, fun, and mastering of schoolwork were lower during the second than the first lockdown, fear of bad marks showed a significant increase. In a previous study comparing concentration, motivation, and fun at two time points during the first lockdown (beginning and end, approximately 4 weeks apart), only motivation showed a significant decrease . Taken together, the findings of both studies indicate that coping with homeschooling declined more from the first lockdown to the next than within the first lockdown. This suggests that children's frustration in returning to learning at home after temporary school openings is very high.
In contrast to wellbeing and coping with homeschooling, indoor physical activity, TV time, and time playing computer games did not change significantly between the first and the second lockdown.
These leisure activities might represent robust behaviors exhibited with equal frequency in comparably challenging situations. In addition, these activities might be regulated by rules imposed by parents (e.g., regarding maximal screen times).
Regarding possible effects of familial SES on wellbeing, coping with homeschooling, and leisure activities, our hypotheses could largely be confirmed. As expected, children from socially disadvantaged families showed lower physical wellbeing, did less well with homeschooling, and played computer games more frequently than children from families with a higher SES. Furthermore, the decline in concentration from the first to the second lockdown was significantly stronger in children from families with lower SES.
This finding strengthens the assumption that school closures have a particularly negative impact on this vulnerable group (Golberstein et al., 2020). However, contrary to our hypotheses and previous findings (Conti et al., 2020;Paschke et al., 2021;Ravens-Sieberer et al., 2021), changes in wellbeing and other facets related to homeschooling did not differ significantly depending on SES. This may be explained by the fact that children from low SES families were underrepresented in this study (3%).

Strengths and limitations
The present study investigated several aspects of children's health and behavior relevant in challenging periods like pandemic-related school closures. Furthermore, we compared children's wellbeing at three time points before and during different periods of the pandemic and created a historical control group to show variations (or better said consistencies) in the years before the pandemic.
Despite these clear strengths, some limitations have to be mentioned.
First, the sample size was small and not representative in terms of SES (underrepresentation of low SES) and residency (underrepresentation of rural area). Therefore, generalizations to the entire population of children and adolescents are limited. Another limitation is that we did not assess information on wellbeing, coping with schoolwork, or leisure behavior between lockdowns, that is, when children went to school. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the observed differences between first and second lockdown can be explained simply by the duration of the pandemic and the general restrictions (independent of school closures).

CONCLUSION
The present findings suggest that renewed school closures after interim openings have a negative impact on physical wellbeing and coping with homeschooling. They, furthermore, suggest that less