Assessing COVID-19 Pandemic Risk Perception and Response Preparedness in Veterinary and Animal Care Workers

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.04.21256626: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Approval for this study was received from The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Heath Institutional Review Board (JHSPH IRB).
    Consent: As primary data collection for the survey instrument was anonymous, written consent was not required by JHSPH IRB.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Survey data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    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:
    While this study is the first to evaluate pandemic preparedness in a novel, yet critical, worker population, our study does have certain limitations. Like most volunteer questionnaire study designs, our research study is at risk of recall bias (selective memory for certain experiences/information), social desirability bias (participant responses influenced by researchers’ goals), and self-selection bias (individuals who feel strongly about a topic are more likely to participate in a study). We saw a high number of respondents who did not complete all sections of the survey. It is uncertain if this is due to the design or technical aspects of the online questionnaire or to external factors (e.g., participants were interrupted while taking the survey during working hours). However, there was no significant difference in job and demographic characteristics between those who completed the survey compared to those who did not. Another limitation is that our study population may not reflect the target veterinary and animal care workforce, limiting the external generalizability of our findings, as in the case of our low racial diversity and high percentage of female participants (veterinary medical field in US estimated at 63.9% female in 2020).31 Our findings suggest a need for future directions in preparedness response research within this critical worker population to address two main areas. First, there is a need to understand the relationship between changes in operational prac...

    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.