Table 2.
Childcare arrangements and household costs due to school closures*,**
| Ushuaia n (%; 95% CI) | Jujuy n (%; 95% CI) | P‐value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Childcare arrangements (n = 202) | |||
| Relative or family friend cared for children | 103 (82; 75–88) | 67 (88; 81–95) | 0·196 |
| Hired nanny | 16 (13; 7–18) | 5 (7; 1–12) | 0·123 |
| Other special arrangement | 4 (3; 0–6) | 3 (4; 0–8) | 0·777 |
| Children were left alone | 3 (2; 0–5) | 1 (1; 0–4) | 0·564 |
| Households with costs due to the closures | |||
| Childcare expenses (n = 214) | 8 (6; 2–10) | 3 (4; 0–8) | 0·561 |
| Other expenses (n = 194) | 27 (21; 14–29) | 30 (44; 32–56) | <0·001 |
| Transportation | 7 (6; 2–10) | 13 (19; 10–29) | 0·009 |
| Food | 8 (6; 2–11) | 18 (26; 16–37) | 0·001 |
| Other miscellaneous | 21 (17; 10–23) | 21 (31; 20–42) | 0·029 |
| Lost workdays (n = 198) | 36 (27; 20–34) | 7 (11; 3–19) | 0·002 |
| Lost work income (n = 192) | 4 (3; 0–6) | 4 (6; 0–13) | 0·329 |
| Ushuaia # days (95% CI) | Jujuy # days (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Average number of workdays lost | |||
| Workdays lost, all households (n = 191) | 2·3 (1·6–3·1) | 0·3 (0·0–0·5) | <0·001 |
| Workdays lost, only those with lost days (n = 36) | 9·7 (8·6–10·9) | 3·2 (2·3–4·1) | <0·001 |
| Ushuaia ARG$ (95% CI) | Jujuy ARG$ (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct and indirect costs: all households | |||
| Childcare expenses (n = 214) | 36 (6–66) | 7 (0–15) | 0·062 |
| Other expenses (n = 176) | 48 (26–69) | 86 (31–140) | 0·201 |
| Lost work income (n = 192) | 35 (0–72) | 13 (0–26) | 0·293 |
| Direct and indirect costs: only households with expenses or lost workdays | |||
| Childcare (n = 11) | 625 (406–843) | 170 (77–263) | <0·001 |
| Other expenditures (n = 39) | 273 (210–336) | 277 (127–426) | 0·935 |
| Lost work income (n = 37) | 141 (0–293) | 156 (40–272) | 0·872 |
*Confidence intervals and P‐values were estimated using 2000 bootstrapped samples.
**Boldface indicates point estimates for percentages and is used only for easier reading of the table.