A novel approach for evaluating contact patterns and risk mitigation strategies for COVID-19 in English primary schools with application of structured expert judgement

  1. R. S. J. Sparks
  2. W. P. Aspinall
  3. E. Brooks-Pollock
  4. R. M. Cooke
  5. L. Danon
  6. J. Barclay
  7. J. H. Scarrow
  8. J. Cox

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Personal contacts drive COVID-19 infections. After being closed (23 March 2020) UK primary schools partially re-opened on 1 June 2020 with social distancing and new risk mitigation strategies. We conducted a structured expert elicitation of teachers to quantify primary school contact patterns and how contact rates changed upon re-opening with risk mitigation measures in place. These rates, with uncertainties, were determined using a performance-based algorithm. We report mean number of contacts per day for four cohorts within schools, with associated 90% confidence ranges. Prior to lockdown, younger children (Reception and Year 1) made 15 contacts per day [range 8.35] within school, older children (Year 6) 18 contacts [range 5.55], teaching staff 25 contacts [range 4.55] and non-classroom staff 11 contacts [range 2.27]. After re-opening, the mean number of contacts was reduced by 53% for young children, 62% for older children, 60% for classroom staff and 64% for other staff. Contacts between teaching and non-teaching staff reduced by 80%. The distributions of contacts per person are asymmetric with heavy tail reflecting a few individuals with high contact numbers. Questions on risk mitigation and supplementary structured interviews elucidated how new measures reduced daily contacts in-school and contribute to infection risk reduction.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1098/rsos.201566
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.13.20170068: (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.

    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 10.1101/2020.08.13.20170068v1 on medRxiv