Association Between COVID-19 Exposure and Self-reported Compliance With Public Health Guidelines Among Essential Employees at an Institution of Higher Education in the US

  1. Tracy L. Nelson
  2. Bailey K. Fosdick
  3. Laurie M. Biela
  4. Hayden Schoenberg
  5. Sarah Mast
  6. Emma McGinnis
  7. Michael C. Young
  8. Lori Lynn
  9. Scott Fahrner
  10. Laura Nolt
  11. Tina Dihle
  12. Kendra Quicke
  13. Emily N. Gallichotte
  14. Emily Fitzmeyer
  15. Greg D. Ebel
  16. Kristy Pabilonia
  17. Nicole Ehrhart
  18. Sue VandeWoude

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.16543
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.21.21251651: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Procedures: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Colorado State University (CSU).
    Consent: Participants gave their informed consent prior to enrollment.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Serology and qRT-PCR Testing: Serum was tested for IgG antibodies seroreactive to SARS-CoV-2 antigens by the National Jewish Health CLIA Diagnostic Laboratory using an Abbott Architect IgG SARS-CoV-2 testing platform. 9-10 RNA was extracted from nasal swabs and qRT-PCR was performed as previously described.
    IgG
    suggested: None
    SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations of this study include the use of self-reported data which could have resulted in response bias for reported protective behaviors. This was a cross-sectional study so we could not determine temporality between protective behaviors and COVID-19 outcomes; however, given that there were not any positive cases and only two participants who were seropositive for COVID-19 suggests previous exposure unlikely influenced protective behaviors, and that protective behaviors contributed to the low level of disease in this population. There may have also been nonresponse bias, whereby those who were invited and did not participate differed in some way from those who did. However, our participation rate (33.7%) and number of respondents (n=508) was significant and helps to mitigate this concern.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.21.21251651v1 on medRxiv