Network analysis of England's single parent household COVID-19 control policy impact: a proof-of-concept study

  1. N. L. Edelman
  2. P. Simon
  3. J. A. Cassell
  4. I. Z. Kiss

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Lockdowns have been a core infection control measure in many countries during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In England's first lockdown, children of single parent households (SPHs) were permitted to move between parental homes. By the second lockdown, SPH support bubbles between households were also permitted, enabling larger within-household networks. We investigated the combined impact of these approaches on household transmission dynamics, to inform policymaking for control and support mechanisms in a respiratory pandemic context. This network modelling study applied percolation theory to a base model of SPHs constructed using population survey estimates of SPH family size. To explore putative impact, varying estimates were applied regarding extent of bubbling and proportion of different-parentage within SPHs (DSPHs) (in which children do not share both the same parents). Results indicate that the formation of giant components (in which COVID-19 household transmission accelerates) are more contingent on DSPHs than on formation of bubbles between SPHs, and that bubbling with another SPH will accelerate giant component formation where one or both are DSPHs. Public health guidance should include supportive measures that mitigate the increased transmission risk afforded by support bubbling among DSPHs. Future network, mathematical and epidemiological studies should examine both independent and combined impact of policies.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1017/s0950268822000905
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.26.21265363: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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 10.1101/2021.10.26.21265363v1 on medRxiv