Psychosocial and Behavioral Outcomes and Transmission Prevention Behaviors: Working During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

  1. Araliya M. Senerat
  2. Zachary C. Pope
  3. Sarah A. Rydell
  4. Aidan F. Mullan
  5. Véronique L. Roger
  6. Mark A. Pereira

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2021.08.014
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.11.21256774: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: This study was approved by the University of Minnesota (IRB #: STUDY00010426) and Mayo Clinic (IRB #: 20-007642) Institutional Review Boards.
    Consent: All study participants gave informed consent.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data were cleaned using Microsoft Excel and uploaded to Python 3.9 for further cleaning and analyses using Jupyter Notebook for Windows 1.3.1093.
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)

    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:
    Study limitations should be noted. First, participants were a convenience sample. Over 200 companies were contacted, but the companies that did partake in the survey had previously worked with, or were connected to, the research institutions. This convenience sample skewed the educational status of participants, with more than half of participants having a graduate degree. Second, while we asked about job status, we did not ask if employees identified as essential or non-essential workers due to the multidimensional nature of the companies. Future questionnaires should include perceptions of essential worker status or have a defined strategy to determine if employees are considered essential or non-essential workers. Finally, this was a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective survey. The questions asking about outcomes and perceptions “Before COVID-19” were therefore retrospective and subject to recall bias. However, we have future papers planned to describe prospective observations related to our ongoing follow-up CAPTURE Surveys. The survey was subjective and only asked about perceptions, feelings, and behaviors. Objective measures should be considered for future studies when feasible. Nevertheless, the study had its strengths including: (1) a large sample size; (2) a wide range of WFH percentages; and (3) a sample of non-healthcare employees. These strengths provided unique insight into psychosocial and behavioral responses of employees working outside of the healthcare ...

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.05.11.21256774v1 on medRxiv