Publications

Child-related Policies in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in 40 Countries uses evidence to present a broad-ranging analysis of the child-related policies and activities undertaken by the 40 European Union (EU) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. This working paper focuses on six policy fields: education, early childhood education and care (ECEC), parental leave, income support, food support and health-related provision. 

It concludes that:

Child and family policy was active during the COVID-19 pandemic

Developments tended to focus on protecting adults from risks rather than children.

Child-related measures took time to evolve and were, as a result, reactive in manner

There was a wide variety of measures adopted across countries.

This working paper was partially funded by the University of Oxford and UNICEF Innocenti – Global Office of Research and Foresight.

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 
 
This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. 

Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations.
 
The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.   

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 
 
This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. 

Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations.
 
The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.   

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 
 
This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. 

Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations.
 
The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.   

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 
 
This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. 

Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations.
 
The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.   

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 
 
This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. 

Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations.
 
The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.   

As vaccine availability has increased in much of the world, challenges remain related to acceptance and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, further compounded by global inequities in vaccine access and the emergence of new variants. As such, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) continue to be an important tool in slowing and preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. 
 
This series of rapid evidence assessments (REA), using the COM-B model as a theoretical framework, sought to understand the existing evidence about who delays or refuses COVID-19 vaccination and who does not adhere to NPI measures, why and in what contexts. The objective is to inform tailored policies and interventions that support vaccination acceptance and adoption of recommended NPI measures, drawing in the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. 

Demographics did not consistently predict non-adherence to protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of psychological capability, people with less COVID-19 knowledge are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and not adhere to social distancing. In terms of social opportunities, people who perceive less social normative pressure to engage in protective behaviours are more likely to not adhere to social distancing and mask wearing recommendations. In terms of reflective motivations, people who perceive the protective behaviour to be less effective are more likely to delay or refuse vaccination and avoid mask wearing; people who perceive themselves to have less control over protective behaviours are less likely to adopt social distancing and mask wearing behaviours; and people who perceive themselves to be less susceptible to catching COVID-19 are more likely to avoid or refuse vaccination and to not adhere to mask wearing recommendations.
 
The series of REAs was used to develop an evidence-informed practical toolkit for policy makers and practitioners to inform decision making around future efforts to promote uptake and maintenance of some or all recommended NPIs to mitigate the spread of outbreaks of transmissible respiratory diseases, including potential new and emerging pandemic threats.   

This COVID-19 Digest explores this 'crisis of care'. It examines the evidence that has emerged in recent years on how COVID-19 has affected the care that women and children provide and receive. 12 studies, selected from the Innocenti's Children and COVID-19 Research Library, are highlighted to provide insights into several dimensions of the crisis that are highly relevant to children's well-being and that can provide lessons for responding to other types of crises that the world is facing or will face in the future. 
 
The pandemic, associated lockdowns, and other containment measures have had a disproportionate impact on the care and domestic work of women, particularly those who experience other intersecting inequalities, including race, class, gender identity, and location. This Digest examines the impact of the pandemic on gender imbalances in paid and unpaid work, focusing in particular on vulnerable and marginalized women and girls. Whether care and domestic work are unpaid in the home or paid, limited public or private investment in care services increases the cost of meeting families' care and domestic needs. These activities are overwhelmingly carried out by women and girls worldwide, affecting their educational and employment prospects and creating gender inequalities in leisure time. They are usually carried out without any monetary compensation or are paid at low rates. They are also likely to increase in the face of shocks and stresses such as those experienced by COVID-19.

This report outlines the polycrisis in which the world finds itself — multiple, simultaneous shocks with strong interdependencies, intensified in an ever-more integrated world — along with eight trends that will shape child rights and well-being in the coming year. The trends explored are: 

 

1. The pandemic's harms will continue to be counted - but reforms of health architecture and medical breakthroughs offer hope for children.
2. Efforts to tame inflation will have unintended negative effects on child poverty and well-being - requiring policy measures that protect investments for vulnerable families and children.
3. Multiple factors will contribute to continued food and nutrition insecurity - with increasing calls for greater climate adaptation and food systems reform to prevent food poverty in children.
4. The worsening energy crisis may cause immediate harm to children - but the focus on energy sustainability provides hope for a greener future.
5. Unmet needs and underinvestment in children warrant reforms of financial flows to developing countries - while renewed attention on climate finance and debt relief holds promise.
6. Threats to democratic rights such as freedom of expression are expected to continue - but social movements, including those led by young people and women, are likely to push back.
7. Increasing factionalism will put further stress on multilateralism - but efforts to address children's and young people's concerns may offer opportunities to find common ground.
8. The internet will continue to fragment and become less global, resulting in further disparities for children - prompting a greater push for openness, fairness and inclusion.

 

How can we harness the power of mobile technologies to track learning in emergencies? Identifying ways to improve assessments in emergencies is incredibly important as there remains large gaps in understanding how children are learning in crisis settings. This report aims to provide practitioners with practical guidance and resources on using mobile technology to conduct learning assessments in emergency settings. It is the second of a two-part series on uses of mobile phones for education in emergency programmes and draws from a review of the existing literature as well as feedback from education in emergencies practitioners.

In 2021, an estimated 37 million children were forcibly displaced across the globe. Ensuring these children continue their education in times of crisis is a significant challenge. One tool that can help children stay in education is basic mobile phones. Basic mobile phones can provide learning through multiple channels, such as text messages, voice calls, nudges and lessons through radio broadcasts. This report outlines, in detail, how mobile phones can be applied as a learning tool in emergency settings. It also provides practical case studies and references for how mobile phones have been used to teach students, support parents and train teachers.

This report is also part of the On Call two-part series on the uses of mobile technologies for education in emergency settings, with the second report focusing on mobile technologies for learning assessments.

The COVID-19 pandemic transformed internet connectivity from an important asset to an essential piece of infrastructure. Yet two thirds of the world’s school-aged children still have no fixed internet connection at home. This lack of connectivity limits their ability to go online; prevents them from participating and competing in the modern economy; and risks isolating them from the world.

This research brief presents new data on children’s internet access in five countries in Eastern and Southern Africa. It provides estimates of the frequency with which children use the internet and assesses the most common barriers they face. Finally, it explores the potential consequences of leaving these bottlenecks unaddressed.