Shifting play experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: family responses to pandemic restrictions

ABSTRACT

Children’s play has shifted within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly with increased time within the family home. This study responds to the following research questions: How did COVID-19 restrictions influence children’s play within and outside the home? How did parents describe their role in their children’s play during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic? Canadian Maritime families (n = 30) took part in three telephone interviews during the pandemic (July 2020, November 2020 and April 2021). Data were analyzed using qualitative description and thematic analysis to inductively identify codes and establish themes, including: (1) Facilitating play within the home; (2) Opportunities related to play outside the home; and (3) Shifting play in the outdoor environment. As families adhere to public health directives in response to COVID-19, children’s play experiences were shaped by a movement toward an increased emphasis on the outdoor environment and fewer playmates. Ongoing research is needed to understand the potential impacts on children’s development over time.

KEYWORDS:

• Play
• early childhood
• COVID-19
• environments
• parents

Introduction

Play is an essential part of a child’s development through interactions with the world, development of new skills and supporting confidence and resilience. Research consistently demonstrates that play experiences and environments profoundly influence physical, emotional, social, cognitive, and language development (Black et al. 2017; Easterbrooks et al. 2013; McCain, Mustard, and Shanker 2007; Mustard 2006). Challenges during early childhood, such as experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, may adversely affect a child’s development, with the potential for lifelong consequences. Although young children would typically spend a significant amount of time in community-based settings (school, child care, community programs), closures and restrictions from the pandemic have drastically shifted the focus of the experiences into the family home. Therefore, it is important to understand how the family has supported children’s play activity during the pandemic to better understand the potential impacts on young children. This study describes how families responded to the public health restrictions throughout the pandemic and the related influences on children’s play.

Literature review

Play is a multi-faceted concept and is ambiguous, equivocal, and acts as a social response to the players within the immediate circumstance (Henricks 2014; Pursi and Lipponen 2018; Sutton-Smith 1997). Often defined by its intrinsic nature, play is a voluntary, meaningful, and symbolic activity, that children choose to partake in (Anderson 2021; Pronin Fromberg 2005). This conceptualization of play stems from observable behavior yet overlooks the concept of playfulness as a psychological state of the child where autonomy, choice and control afforded to children also provides a context for social interaction (Howard 2019). Social play involves intentional interactions with the environment, the materials and other play partners (Sutton-Smith 1997) whether it be peers, siblings, or adults. Through a summary of previous research involving children and teachers, Howard (2019) suggests children’s perception of what constitutes play references the presence or absence of an adult, degree of choice in initiating or directing the activity, and location or context of the activity. Children’s perceptions of play develop through experiences at home and in other contexts, such as early learning environments and school. These perceptions develop over time as experiences expand, particularly through interactions of adults in these environments alongside of play materials (Pursi and Lipponen 2018).

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, children’s environments and social opportunities for play were drastically altered as early childhood and school environments shut down in a rapid global response. There is evidence building related to the stress that families were facing due to job loss and isolation, balancing parenting while working from home or struggling to find child care as an essential worker (Del Boca et al. 2020; Manzo and Minello 2020). Parents, and especially mothers (Lewis 2020), have balanced added responsibilities of child care and education by supporting play, creating learning opportunities, and providing meals at home that may otherwise have been supported by early childhood programs (Andrew et al. 2020). Research has described the pandemic impacts on play related to employment, income and the physical environment (e.g. having time away from work to play, money to purchase play equipment, and access to safe outdoor space) (Brocklebank, Bedford, and Griffiths 2014; Dodd et al. 2021; Parent et al. 2021; Stienwandt et al. 2020). Early in the pandemic, strict lockdowns and restrictions created barriers that obstructed access to play spaces outside the child’s home. For example, some jurisdictions closed parks and outdoor spaces and discouraged travel outside of an individual’s immediate community (de Lannoy et al. 2020), and corresponding research has suggested a decrease in overall movement and outdoor play, especially at the beginning of the pandemic (Bingham et al. 2021; de Lannoy et al. 2020; Moore et al. 2020). Public health restrictions have also impacted children’s play with others, with one study describing this loss through reduced access to organized activities (Pelletier, Cornish, and Sanders 2021). In contrast, other research has described an increase in outdoor unstructured play, such as free play, running or use of spaces like streets or yards (Dunton, Do, and Wang 2020; Moore et al. 2021; Nathan et al. 2021; Pelletier, Cornish, and Sanders 2021), including an increase in outdoor activities for children living in rural areas (Aguilar-Farias et al. 2021; Mitra et al. 2020). Further, parents perceptions related to risk during the pandemic have been found to influence the level of play children were able to experience outside the home during the pandemic, with highly anxious parents being less likely to bring their children to playgrounds or parks (McCormack et al. 2020). Alternatively, some parents have provided opportunities for play with others through collaborating with other parents to ensure comfort and reinforcing restrictions, such as maintaining physical distancing and use of the outdoor space (Pelletier, Cornish, and Sanders 2021).

While there is emerging research on play environments and physical activity outcomes during the pandemic, there is less known about parental involvement in children’s play as they managed increased responsibilities at home alongside of fewer play environments outside the home. The range of opportunities for play that children had throughout the pandemic can be examined through the level of parental involvement and their related perceptions and values of these experiences. Research suggests that some parents may not view play as a support for learning, and as a result may not prioritize these experiences (Carolan et al. 2021). Further, adults can take a variety of roles in children’s play, ranging from being uninvolved to being a redirector by interrupting the play experience with questions and guidance that bring the play into reality (Johnson, Christie, and Wardle 2005). While the roles at each end of the continuum tend to not promote an optimal engagement in play, those in the middle of the continuum (e.g. the onlooker, the stage manager, co-player, play leader, and director) are considered to be favorable in fostering play opportunities through minimal but intentional involvement (Figure 1) (Johnson, Christie, and Wardle 2005). This continuum provides a lens to examine the role(s) adults, and in this case parents, have played in fostering children’s play experiences as they navigated their own realities during the pandemic, which may have shifted their approach to play with their child (Trumello et al. 2022).

Figure 1. Facilitative roles play continuum.

Research purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine parental responses to their children’s play as a result of the COVID-19 restrictions. Specifically, we asked: How did COVID-19 restrictions influence children’s play within and outside the home? How did Canadian Maritime parents describe their role in their children’s play during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic? The Maritime region where this study was conducted experiences existing vulnerabilities in early childhood development, poor economic growth, and high rates of food insecurity and child poverty (Frank and Fisher 2020; Government of Canada 2020; Province of Nova Scotia 2022). Furthermore, at the beginning of the pandemic, the region was recognized for its more stringent containment measures with greater restrictions to gathering limits, and modifications or closures to programs and services (Rocha, Singh, and Perkins 2020), which resulted in uniquely low COVID case numbers relative to the rest of Canada. Figure 2 provides an overview of COVID related information in each province during the research study and further context on regional policies. For example, the term ‘bubble’ was commonly used in the region to describe a small cohort or cluster of people who socialize without masks and physical distancing with each other and minimize interactions with others. A regional bubble also emerged following the first wave (referred to at the ‘Atlantic Bubble’) through common quarantine requirements for those traveling from outside of the respective provinces.

Figure 2. Project and pandemic timeline.

Method

This study is situated within a broader research project that used a phased, sequential, explanatory mixed method design exploring: (1) How COVID-19 changed family life; (2) How parents with young children adjusted to family life; and (3) What supports families accessed and needed. Research ethics approval was obtained for this study from X and Y University (REB 2019-183). This study focuses on the data obtained from family interviews and uses a Qualitative Description (QD) approach to explore changing perceptions of families throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing for a focus on providing a rich description of the direct accounts of families experience (Neergaard et al. 2009; Sandelowski 2010). QD also allowed the researchers to remain close to the data throughout the analytical process (Neergaard et al. 2009) and aligns with a social constructivist framework reflecting the belief in the co-construction of parents knowledge through their interactions with people and the environment throughout the COVID-19 pandemic (Dodd-Nufrio 2011).

Participants

Families were invited to participate in a telephone interview at three time-points in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick (July and November 2020, April 2021). Participants were recruited through identifying their interest in additional research as part of a cross-sectional survey early in the pandemic (April/May 2020). All interested participants were contacted by email, and those that responded were invited to take part in the interview process following a verbal informed consent process, which was repeated at each interview timepoint.

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Canadian Maritime families (n = 30) by telephone informed by the preliminary results of the first online survey, which allowed greater depth to the data through open-ended questions and probing to their experiences in the evolving and novel COVID-19 pandemic (Adams 2010). Following interview 1, one participant withdrew from the study as they moved outside of the region. A trained and experienced research staff conducted the interviews, which ranged from 30 to 60 min. Interview questions across timepoints (July 2020, November 2020 and April 2021) were responsive to the COVID-19 realities and participant context, however, all participants responded to questions regarding children’s play (Figure 2 and Table 1). Throughout the study, the research team reflected on relevant prompts that emerged during the interviews and applied that information to subsequent interviews.

Table 1. Interview context and examples.

	Pandemic context	Focus of questions	Question Examples Related to Current Research Study
Interview 1: 07/15/2020-07/31/2020	Participants reflected on their family’s experiences of play and physical activity during the first wave lockdown while also sharing their experiences of returning to activities and gatherings after some restrictions had been lifted.	The questions in the first set of interviews were related to changes to routine, loss of services, desired supports and were focused on changes to family life and routines caused by COVID-19.	I would like to learn about your family life (probed for child activities, neighborhood, parenting, employment, etc.). We were all asked to follow physical distancing rules to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Did your family find these difficult to follow? How did these rules change daily life for your family? How did your child/children respond? Are there any resources or supports you wish you had since the start of COVID-19? Probe around resources to support children’s play, at-home learning, development, etc
Interview 2: 11/16/2020-11/30/2020	All three provinces still held relatively loose restrictions aside from a few zones in New Brunswick that implemented tighter restrictions in response to rising cases.	The questions in the second set of interviews were related to the re-opening of many supports and services and how they were experiencing the changing guidelines.	In your last interview you mentioned … .(family life description). Is this still the same? Are there choices you have made to limit your risk of COVID-19 in your family routines or activities? How have these changes impacted your family? How has your child’s play changed compared to before the pandemic began? Do they play alone? With other children? Probe about play with others. Where do your children play (indoors, outdoors, school, home, supervised, unsupervised)?
Interview 3: 04/20/2021-05/14/2021	Fewer restrictions, apart from a few zones in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which tightened restrictions towards the end of the interviews.	Participants were asked about their experiences with supports and services and if/how parents had changed how they responded to the guidelines.	Similar to your last interview, I’d like to ask to get a better sense of your family life at this point in time. (probed for any changes) In your last interview you had described limiting the risk of COVID-19 in your family routines by (insert context). Has anything changed? In your last interview you said that your child typically plays with other children (description of previous context). Has this changed at all since we last spoke?

Data analysis

Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and QSR NVivo Version 11 was used to manage and code the data. All identifying information was removed from participant responses and pseudonyms were applied to all data points. Data were analyzed using a qualitative description approach and thematic analysis to inductively identify and define emerging codes and establish themes. QD was appropriate for the analysis of this data as it allowed for a rich description of families’ experiences through direct reports of their perspectives, using everyday language similar to their own (Neergaard et al. 2009; Sandelowski 2010) aligning with the social constructivist framework (Dodd-Nufrio 2011). Two members of the research team who conducted and transcribed the interviews familiarized themselves with the data (XX and XX). Following an independent review of several transcripts, the two researchers met to establish initial codes that organize and label the data. Meetings were held with the broader team, and more frequent discussions with the principal investigators (XX and XX) to ensure reflexivity from the beginning of the coding process to theme development. Themes were established by exploring cross-case comparisons, identified by patterns and connections both within and across participants’ experiences to identify unique and common findings through qualitative description. Themes and sub-themes were then examined for patterns and connections to the elements of the play continuum as established by Johnson, Christie, and Wardle 2005. Rigor was ensured through developing a rich description of participants experiences related to play (see Table 2) and with multiple researchers inductively identifying and defining emerging codes with constant comparison to re-read, re-code and refine coding as necessary to establish trustworthiness and dependability in the analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006; Willis et al. 2016).

Table 2. Participant characteristics and profiles.

Province	NB	NS	PEI
Interview Participant
Mothers	9	9	10
Fathers	1	1	0
Parenting Arrangement
Single parents	1	0	0
Co-parenting in same home	7	9	10
Co-parenting in separate homes	2	1	0
Number of Children
1–2	8	9	6
3–4	2	1	3
5+	0	0	1
Child Ages
0–12 months	1	1	2
1–2 years	3	2	6
3–5 years	7	9	4
6–8 years	4	1	1
9 + years	2	1	3
Participant profiles by province
*I1 = Interview 1; I2 =  Interview 2; I3 = Interview 3
	Danielle co-parents her children (2 & 4 yrs) in a different home from their father. I1: She initiated play with her children by facilitating arts and craft activities, and by providing materials. I2&3: Danielle’s children typically played with a similar small group of friends, with parents who were also friends.	Jessica lives with her partner and two children (8 mos & 4 yrs). I1: Jessica was typically her older child’s play partner. I2&3: When restrictions were looser, her children typically only played with others at child care, and with the neighborhood children outdoors at the park.	Ellen lives with her two children (2 & newborn) and her partner. I1: Ellen’s older child was not very interested in independent play and wanted to play with her parents more often so they engaged in structured play activities together. I2&3: After returning to child care, she became more interested in independent play again. She also played occasionally with other children at the playground.
	Molly co-parents her child (4 yrs) in a different home from her father. I1: Molly’s daughter typically played independently with books and toys. I2&3: When restrictions were looser, Molly’s daughter played with children from two families who are part of their close social circle.	Lauren lives with her two children (21 mos and 3 yrs) and partner. I1: Lauren played with her children more than before the pandemic, and they played with each other as well. I2&3: Their children typically play with other children at child care, and outdoors with children from two other families.	Abigail lives with her child (8 mos) and her partner. Her child is pretty young so play usually involves hopping in his jumper. I2&3: Abigail’s child was starting to play with toys at this time and typically only played with others at child care.
	Josée lives with her four children (5, 7, 14, & 16 yrs) and her partner. When cases have been low, the family would have other children over to their house to play but when the cases and restrictions were higher throughout the pandemic, they would play with each other and their dog instead.	Paige lives with her child (5 yrs) and her partner. I1: Paige’s child mainly engaged in independent play consisting of role play and screen time, and a little bit of family play. I2&3: Paige’s child played with neighborhood children outdoors, and when cases were low, would play with a, small group of children indoors.	Chelsea lives with her child (10 mos) and her partner. I1: Chelsea and her child had been doing outdoor play groups. I2: Her child began engaging in independent play and play with parents. Chelsea set up some playdates but the children didn’t really play together yet because they were so young. I3: Her child’s ability to play with others and be social has grown over the course of the study.
	Thomas lives with his child who has additional developmental needs (7 yrs) and his partner. He completed 2/3 of the interviews. I1&2: Play occurred in this family outside of their apartment. Thomas tried to keep a play routine in place for his daughter as she functions best in routine. Thomas expressed that her was finding it difficult to play with his child while working as she prefers playing with a parent over playing independently.	Susan lives with her two children (2 yrs and newborn) and her partner. I1: Susan tried to play outdoors 1–2 times per day with her older child. Her child has a dedicated play room for independent free play I2&3: Susan’s child occasionally plays with neighborhood children outdoors when it feels safe to do so.	Madeline lives with her child (20 mos) and her partner. I1: Her child engaged in a lot of unstructured play as well as some parent-facilitated creative play with arts and crafts, and reading. I2&3: Madeline’s child still engaged in a lot of independent play, and also played occasionally with others outdoors, and had a few indoor play dates with children in their child care bubble during the winter months.
	Marcia lives with her partner and their two children (2 mos & 6 yrs). I1: Marcia’s older child mainly engaged in independent play including arts, crafts, workbooks, along with TV time. I2&3: Later in the pandemic, Marcia’s child began playing with children from their school bubble occasionally.	Barbara lives with her child (5 yrs), her partner and her partner’s parents. I1: Her child’s play was very self-directed before pandemic but her child wanted to play with their parents more often once the lockdown occurred. I2&3: Barbara’s child typically only played with other children at school and occasionally with cousins.	Jean lives with her two children (3 & 12 yrs) and her partner. I1: At the beginning of the pandemic, Jean’s family engaged in parent-child play and sibling play and eventually moved to the older child engaging in a lot of screen time and the younger child engaging in independent play such as arts and crafts. I2: Jean’s children began to play with children from their close social circle indoors and outdoors, as well as at school and child care.
	Olivia lives with her three children (1, 5, & 8 yrs) and her partner, and they home school their children. I1: Play was a mixture of the participant scheduling structured activities for children, and free play. I2&3: Play usually happened with children from two other families indoors and with some other friends outdoors.	Neil lives with his two children (4 & 7 yrs) and his partner. Play in this family was similar across all interviews. Since restrictions initially lifted, Neil’s older child played outdoors with his neighborhood friends and independently on his iPad. Neil’s younger child had autism and preferred to play by himself, near the other children. Likes to be around other children but not necessarily playing with them.	Astrid lives with her two children (2 yrs & newborn) and her partner. I1: Astrid facilitates a lot of her older child’s play by providing play materials and playing with her outdoors. Her child also engages in a lot of independent play. I2: Astrid’s older child plays with other children at child care and with neighborhood children outside of child care. She also engaged in a lot of screen time.
	Chloe is a single parent to one child (3 yrs). I1: Toward the beginning of the pandemic, Chloe facilitated her child’s independent play during work hours by providing craft materials and screen time, and played games, went outdoors, and made crafts with her child whenever she could. I2&3: Continued independent and mother-child play and avoided group play for the most part. Occasionally played with Chloe’s friend’s kids and extended family.	Catherine lives with her child (5 yrs) and her partner. Catherine is also an essential worker. I1: Catherine didn’t want her child to be engaged in too much structured activity but also wanted to avoid too much screen time so she facilitated her child’s play with arts and crafts, games, etc. Lots of parent-child play, not much independent play. I2&3: Catherine’s child typically played with other neighborhood children in smaller groups outdoors and occasionally indoors.	Emma lives with her three children (1, 2, 12 yrs) and her partner. I1: Her oldest child enjoyed screen time and biking and her younger children played outdoors with their parents in their pool and with outdoor toys. Indoors, they played with crafts and puzzles. Most play with younger children was initiated by parents. I2&3: Emma’s children still engage in most of their play at home. They also play with other children at child care and at school as well as with a few children of Emma’s friends occasionally.
	Anne lives with her children (22 mos and newborn) and her partner. I1: Anne’s older child played a lot on his own and with his parents for outdoor play and reading – similar play to before pandemic. I2&3: Played with children at child care and occasionally with neighborhood children.	Lily lives with her child (3 yrs) her partner, and her partner’s brother. I1: Lily’s child missed playing with his friends. He wasn’t interested in independent play and he often requested engaging in dramatic play with his mother. I2&3: Since going back to child care, he became more interested in engaging in independent play. He only played with other children while at child care.	Samantha lives with her two children (1 & 3 yrs) and her partner. I1: Samantha’s kids played together more than they did before the pandemic. Lots of imaginary play, creative activities and outdoor play initiated by parents. I2: Play occurred with others in the neighborhood, distantly and outdoors. I3: They progressed to indoor playdates with neighborhood children.
	Hannah lives with her two children (5 & 9 yrs) and her partner. Hannah is a stay-at-home parent. I1: Hannah prioritized having her children engage in lots of independent play and outdoor time. Her children played with each other more often than before the pandemic. I2&3: Hannah’s children occasionally played with other children at school outdoors after the school day ended.	Janice lives with her three children (6, 17, 21 yrs) and her partner. I1: Janice’s children engaged in more screen time than pre-pandemic. They did a lot of family activities directed by parents such as bonfires, puzzles and other creative activities. I2&3: Began playing with a small group of neighborhood children and at first made sure they were socially distant but started to let them play closer to each other when cases were low.	Cora lives with her partner and their blended family with five children (4, 5, 9, 12, 14 yrs). I1: Play was a mix of independent play and play guided by Cora. All children enjoyed playing together with toys, outdoor play, doing crafts and other structured activities, as well as screen time. I2&3: Cora’s kids still engaged in outdoor play, baking, and screentime. They also began to play with other children in close social circle and with friends from the community organization they belong to.
	Mary lives with her two children (3 & 5 yrs) and her partner I1: Mary’s children engaged in a lot of parent-initiated play and sibling play. Her kids missed playing with others. I2&3: The pandemic has brought Mary’s children closer together. They engaged in lots of outdoor play. They occasionally played with other children from one ‘bubble family’.	Hailey co-parents her child (3 yrs) with her child’s father in different homes. I1: Hailey’s child engaged in more screen time than before the pandemic. She found it hard to balance playing with him and working, and found that he lost interest in independent play activities quickly. I2: When restrictions loosened, he played with neighborhood children outdoors and Hailey had more time to play with him because she could work more efficiently when he was at child care.	Monica lives with her three children (20 mos, 4, 8 yrs) and her partner. I1: Monica’s children engaged in lots of outdoor play and organized activities as well as increased screentime. Most activities were initiated by parents. I2&3: Monica’s children were playing together more often than pre-pandemic. They had indoor and outdoor play dates with children in their classroom bubble but not as often as pre-pandemic. Avoided playdates at others houses but felt ok to have friends over.

Results

At the time of the first interview, sixteen participants had one child, eight had two children, and six had three or more children (Table 2). Most participants were mothers and were co-parenting in the same home as their partner. Participants had varying work situations as some were working outside the home and others were working from the home, some were on maternity leave or were home caring for their children, and a couple were part-time students. Across the interview timepoints, we identified three interrelated themes related to the influence of the public health restrictions and parents’ role in their children’s play during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) Facilitating play within the family home; (2) Opportunities related to social play beyond the family home; and (3) Shifting play in the outdoor environment. Participant narratives and pseudonyms can be found in Table 2 to illustrate the range of experiences.

Theme one: facilitating play within the family home

During the first interview parents reflected on the lockdown that occurred during the first wave of the pandemic when most play experiences occurred in the home. Participants shared that they organized play for their children to prevent boredom and the partnership for play with parents and siblings that occurred within the home.

Organizing play to prevent boredom. During the first interview, participants talked about the abrupt change in routine caused by the lockdown. They described that most of their pre-pandemic lives occurred outside of the family home, whereas all interactions and play experiences shifted to within the home during the first wave. While reflecting on their experiences during the lockdown in this first wave, some parents spoke about how they responded to their children’s perceived boredom. Often, participants stated that they kept their child occupied by directing their play with the provision of activities, crafts, toys or screen time. Some participants indicated that ‘entertaining’ their children through planned activities allowed them to balance other responsibilities, such as working from home: ‘Usually before this started I was really strict [with screen time]..and then obviously that all got thrown out of the window with all of the things going on cause I can’t work my jobs and then try to entertain him’ [Hailey, Int. 1].

However, participants sometimes indicated that children quickly lost interest in the facilitated activities, and interrupted their parents’ work with requests to play or with expressions of boredom:

We would buy different supplies and do art projects or make things out of things, color, play with Play-Doh, spend a lot of money you know on these different sets and different things to keep her occupied and in a span of a given day it would be all of those things that she would need because after 15, 20 minutes she’d get bored with what she was doing she wanted something else. [Chloe, Int. 1]

Play partners within the home. Over half of participants described their experiences of play occurring within the household family during the first wave of the pandemic. Restrictions limited children’s play with others outside the home, and participants described parents and siblings engaging in playful interactions with the child. Some participants spoke about joining child-directed play which was most common among parents who had one child, or an infant/toddler and an older child. The type of parent-to-child play varied among participants, ranging from reading together to playing outside. Further, some participants spoke about their children actively engaging them in imaginative play: ‘ … that interaction he’s not getting from other children … he wants to just sit and he wants you to play with his little dolls or play with his toys and have those narratives, so that’s really changed.’ [Lily, Int. 1]

Some participants who had multiple children described an increase in play among siblings, with some that specifically stating that pandemic had encouraged greater sibling play: ‘My kids play together all the time … since they haven’t had as much opportunity to play with other children, they’ve played with each other and they’re closer than ever, I think’ [Mary, Int. 2]. Siblings seemed to find things to do that they both enjoyed or tried new activities because the other was interested in it.

Theme two: opportunities for play beyond the family and the home

As schools and child care re-opened, and public health restrictions on social gatherings were lessened, the focus on play in the interviews shifted from play within the home, to play with others outside of the immediate household.

Play within social bubbles. Participants spoke about the creation of social bubbles outside of school and child care, which provided opportunities for social interaction and play. In Interview 2 (November 2020) and 3 (April 2021), participants spoke of organizing in-person play dates for their children, often with extended family members or close friends. One participant said:

We’ve got two other families that we visit, both are very close friends … I guess through the summer we did some camping with some friends but again it’s mostly outdoors and not on top of each other so it wasn’t so bad. [Lauren, Int. 2]

There were also instances of free play, such as loosely structured sports and other games, in interviews 2 and 3, typically with neighborhood children. Many parents emphasized that they tried to ensure their children remained six feet away from others during play. All reporting parents seemed to be comfortable with this free play, often mentioning that children’s playmates were often consistent. The mindset was that the familiarity of these children provided a sense of security:

I’m not really over-vigilant because these kids, especially the ones on our road all go on the same bus to the same school, and to me they’ve got more risk of exposure at school than they do in the neighbourhood with the same four kids. [Catherine, Int. 3]

In the third interview, when participants were asked how they felt about their children playing closely with others at child care or school, the majority indicated that they felt okay with their children interacting with their peers, the most common reason being that they knew that their children were being ‘bubbled’ within their classrooms thereby minimizing the contact. However, some participants felt hesitation, especially when case numbers rose. For example, a few participants described responding to the increasing COVID-19 case numbers when making decisions about their children’s play experiences, such as one that said: ‘Yesterday he was playing with his little friend the neighbour's son and they were wrestling and we said “no, we've told you about COVID we can't be doing all this roughhousing” especially because the numbers are starting to increase.’ [Janice, Int 2]

Play through extracurricular activities. With the re-opening of services such as schools and extracurricular activities under public health restrictions (e.g. group limits, physical distancing, masks) participants described the decisions they made regarding their children’s access to public spaces and activities. Over half of participants did not feel comfortable enrolling their children in extracurricular activities at some point during the pandemic. The most common reason for not enrolling their children was to limit their possibility of being exposed to COVID-19. One participant was worried about the hands-on nature of their child’s sport: ‘I'm a little bit still apprehensive … my son would take part in like Ju-jitsu and since that's hands on contact sport I haven't wanted him to go in it in fear that he's going to get sick’ [Jean, Int. 2].

Many participants enrolled their children in recreational activities at some point during the pandemic. These parents spoke of their consideration of the lower number of COVID cases and the additional public health measures that activities were required to adopt to operate. One participant explained: ‘The actual process has been streamlined. So swimming lessons more efficient, there's less kids, it’s more one-on-one, the class sizes are small and stuff so for the same amount of money he’s actually getting a better service’ [Monica, Int. 3].

Aside from the influence of restrictions, families discussed their concerns of their children’s developmental and social emotional needs when making this decision. Some participants also discussed the social opportunities that children missed during months of lockdown: ‘she needs some sort of activities that promote her social interaction and teaches her how to—how to be social, how to talk to people, how to listen to cues and doing all of that’ [Chloe, Int. 2]. However, this was often a tough decision.

Theme three: shifting play in the outdoor environment

The final theme related to the shift in play spaces to the outdoor environment, which was described across all interview timepoints through access to outdoor play spaces, restrictions that hindered outdoor play with other children and the perceptions of safety from COVID-19 during outdoor play.

Access to outdoor play spaces. Most participants prioritized outdoor time when possible in the first interview, through playing in the backyard, parks, walking in the neighborhood or hiking. Many participants described outdoor play as a family activity and several described child-led outdoor play. One participant who had been recently laid off described the value of having outdoor space during the period of heightened restrictions: ‘We're all here together and there was literally nowhere to go and we were quite fortunate that we have space like we live on an acreage on a private road so we were able still walk around outside’ [Paige, Int. 1].

Restrictions hindering outdoor play with other children. Although outdoor play seemed to be a common response to the restrictions, there were challenges that limited opportunities to accessing outdoor play environments to play with other children. During interview 1, participants reflected upon the closures to parks and playgrounds between March of 2020 to June of 2020 across the Maritime provinces. While most participants had access to outdoor spaces for play in their own yards or neighboring areas, two participants had to find alternative locations for outdoor play. One participant took their children to a parking lot to play basketball when they knew no one would be there. The other participant stated:

We have kind of a backyard area at the building that I live in but it’s a little 10-foot-wide strip of grass and then the parking lot so we do play back there. We just be careful with cars. We spend a lot of time kind of walking around the block. I used to take him to another park that’s not too far from us very often but I've been kind of avoiding all of that recently. [Hailey, Int. 1]

Playgrounds and parks had re-opened by the time of the first interview, however some participants described a shift in how they interacted with public outdoor spaces with several parents describing hesitating to visit, or completely avoiding parks and playgrounds. For example, one participant said: ‘Before COVID hit if they said “mom I'm bored” we would go drive to another playground. We had to say to them “This is all we have, we have to make the best of what we have”’ [Monica, Int. 1].

Finally, some participants described the changes to weather as impacting opportunities for outdoor play. With outdoor spaces being the preferred place for play, a few parents worried about how the cold weather would impact their children’s ability to play with others: ‘Playing with their friends outside has been really great so it's not inside visits really, but I know as the temperature goes down, we're not going to be able to do that much. I think they'll miss that’ [Olivia, Int. 2].

Perceptions of safety during outdoor play. Across all interviews, outdoor social play was perceived as a safer option than indoor social play, as parents felt there was less risk of potential transmission of COVID. One parent described their reason for focusing on outdoor play as COVID cases began to rise during the third wave in Spring 2021: ‘I think we’re just gonna take a break on [indoor playdates] like we still have kids in the neighbourhood that she can play outside with’ [Paige, Int. 3]. Further, outdoor activities may have provided a refuge for some from the added restrictions of inside places and gatherings.

Discussion

Children’s play experiences are influenced by interpersonal and environmental factors (Brocklebank, Bedford, and Griffiths 2014; Coyl-Shepherd and Hanlon 2013; Dunifon, Fomby, and Musick 2017). With the additional context of the pandemic, the function and form of children’s play has been shaped by the restrictions imposed on the environments in which they spend most of their time, and how the adults around them respond (Aguilar-Farias et al. 2021; Howard 2019; McCormack et al. 2020; Mitra et al. 2020; Stienwandt et al. 2020). Furthermore, Sutton-Smith states that ideas held regarding play reflect the context of what is occurring socially and historically (Brown et al. 2017; Sutton-Smith 1997). Other pre-pandemic studies have also explored parents’ perception of the function of children’s play, sometimes through as lens of play-based learning (Carolan et al., 2021). However, through the lens of the pandemic, play was often referred to as a way to keep children occupied and gain social interactions outside the home, given the limits from pandemic restrictions. Participants in this study shared their experiences with the changes in their children’s play through the context of the changing public health restrictions in response to the spread of the virus in 2020–2021. Internationally, there have been varied public health responses to the pandemic and the related impacts for families based on limits to social gatherings and closures or modification to programs and services. The Canadian Maritime provinces provide a lens from a region with more stringent public health restrictions throughout the pandemic and the related impacts on children’s play and may provide transferable results for regions with similar approaches to the pandemic.

Although outdoor play was not a primary focus in our interviews, it was an identified finding likely due to the increased emphasis on outdoor environments in public health messaging during COVID-19. The findings of the current study corroborate previous research that has reported an increased emphasis on the outdoor environment as the preferred spaces for social play with other children, especially as the pandemic has evolved (Burke et al. 2021; Halsall 2021; Pelletier, Cornish, and Sanders 2021). The increased emphasis on outdoor play found in our study is promising that although some previous research has reported a decrease in the overall movement behaviors of children since the pandemic (Mitra et al. 2020; Moore et al. 2020), children seem to be playing more in outdoor spaces. Our study also confirmed factors that might influence play, such as having access to safe outdoor play spaces, which has been impacted by restrictions that have directly obstructed access to play spaces (de Lannoy et al. 2020; Riazi et al. 2021; Sewell and Goldfeld 2021). Although the closures of playgrounds and parks was a short-term and temporary policy, some participants reported that they accessed these spaces less than before the pandemic, even after the closure was lifted. As the pandemic continued and there was evidence on the more limited transmission of the virus in outdoor settings (Qian et al. 2020), local public health advice began to encourage outdoor gatherings, which may have influenced the emphasis on outdoor play experiences that was reported in this study.

In this study, we examined the elements of a play continuum for patterns and connections to the experiences shared by parents that were shaped by sociocultural influences and belief systems, including parental values of play, through the milieu of the COVID-19 pandemic. This provided an opportunity to consider both of our research questions: how children’s play has been shaped within their immediate family home environment during the pandemic, and the described role of parents in enabling choice and context of the play activities (Howard 2019). With children out of child care and school during the first wave of the pandemic, parent participants in this study described a perceived need to organize and facilitate their child’s play. Participants did so by providing their children with activities and other forms of entertainment, taking on the role of the stage-manager by providing their children with the material (Johnson, Christie, and Wardle 2005). Correspondingly, Choi, Tessler, and Kao (2020) found that parents in Korea and the US had also increased their spending on items for entertainment like arts and crafts or toys that addressed motor skills, required little preparation from an adult and held the possibility to entertain a child for some time during the first wave of the pandemic (Choi, Tessler, and Kao 2020) This finding is reflected in our study through parent discussion of preparing arts and craft materials and allowing screen time, which was described as a strategy to prevent boredom and allow the parent to work. Allowing children to engage in play while the adult completes other tasks is identified in early childhood education literature as an uninvolved role (see Figure 1) (Johnson, Christie, and Wardle 2005). For children, time without the involvement of an adult could allow the child to play uninterrupted, furthering play of their own interests. However, participants in the current study further described that the activities they set up did not hold their child’s attention for very long and they found themselves balancing the tasks facilitating multiple activities for their children throughout the day while working or doing other household tasks. This may have occurred when parents were selecting the play activities, playing the role of the stage-manager (see Figure 1) (Johnson, Christie, and Wardle 2005), which may not have been centered on a child’s interest, choice or initiation of an activity (Gaviria-Loaiza et al. 2017; Howard 2019).

A few participants in the current study spoke about engaging in their children’s narrative play, usually at the request of the child. In this instance, participants would have taken on the role of the co-player as defined by Johnson, Christie, and Wardle (2005), following the child’s lead as the play progresses allowing the child to build on the interactions with the adult (Gaviria-Loaiza et al. 2017; Johnson, Christie, and Wardle 2005). For these participants, most had only one child aged one to five-years-old and had at least one parent who was at home full-time. One study conducted during the pandemic found an association between high-levels of hands-on play with parental employment and anxiety among those with unmet child care needs during the pandemic (Stienwandt et al. 2020). For parents who had to balance work duties and respond to their child’s needs throughout the day, this role might have been difficult to adopt. The current findings are similar to those of another pandemic study, in which they found that parents with increased at-home work responsibilities were negatively associated with perceptions of being able to play with their children (Dewhirst, Cascio, and Casey 2022). Further examples of co-play opportunities were shared by participants often when discussing play among siblings, or with peers as restrictions loosened and peer-to-peer interactions were more common. Research prior to the pandemic has found that the presence or absence of siblings can influence time spent with parents, increasing for those with no siblings (Dunifon, Fomby, and Musick 2017). The results of the current study suggest that in the context of COVID-19, having a sibling may have influenced the dynamic of children’s at-home play experiences and parental involvement, with parents describing increased sibling play. Instances of parents as play partners and play among siblings were primarily reported in the first two interviews, suggesting the potential implications of tighter restrictions and uncertainty early in the pandemic, resulting in more play at home.

A strength of this study is that data were collected at three different timepoints, allowing elucidation of perspectives across relevant points in time that corresponded with three different waves of the pandemic and a multiple interview format that allowed our team to tailor the interviews to their individual experiences and develop trust over time. It is important to note that parents’ experiences will have varied based on regional and individual circumstance. To support transferability (Korstjens and Moser 2018), we have provided a rich description of the nature of the pandemic in relation to influences on children’s play in the Canadian Maritime provinces and participant demographics to help others identify the extent to which the findings might apply in similar pandemic contexts. It is important to note its limitations, particularly due to our sample. We recruited our participants as part of an initial survey early in the pandemic, where most of participants had higher household income and lived in two-parent households and had the capacity to complete a survey during a very disruptive time. Participants in this study reflected a variety of family structures, but there was limited discussion of cultural influences related to play or socioeconomic status, suggesting a potential limit in the diversity of our sample. This research also relies heavily on parental perspectives of play. Recognizing the intrinsic nature of play, what parents shared about their children’s play may not entirely represent children’s experiences of play during the pandemic. Future research should consider methods to recruit a more diverse sample of participants to continue to monitor the impacts of restrictions play experiences for children.

Conclusions and implications

This study offers a unique perspective as data were collected across the changing context of public health restrictions imposed in response to COVID-19 cases. Research conducted during the pandemic is contextually specific, in that the experiences are shaped by current realities. At the beginning of the pandemic, parents in many countries encountered a difficult balance of work, household and caregiving responsibilities, managing many of these roles at the same time. This study suggests more limited engagement of parents with play, acting as a facilitator or organizer, to allow them to tend to other responsibilities. This may be a result of the added responsibilities of parents in addition to changing expectation of the child related to play at home. Families described the difficult decisions they made regarding their child’s play with others, beyond the home, with a greater emphasis being placed on outdoor activities. Further research is needed to understand how parental values and capacities have continued to impact children’s play experiences over time and the potential impacts on their development and well-being.

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Mount Saint Vincent University Research Ethics Board, 2019-183) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participants in this research for taking the time to share their important experiences during the pandemic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Award # 447925) and a Mount Saint Vincent University COVID-19 Rapid Response Grant. This research was also undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program.