The Impacts of Testing Cadence, Mode of Instruction, and Student Density on Fall 2020 COVID-19 Rates On Campus

  1. Christopher W. Stubbs
  2. Michael Springer
  3. Tasha S. Thomas

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We analyzed the COVID-19 infection rate among undergraduate students at 9 colleges and Universities in the greater Boston area and 4 comparison schools elsewhere, from Fall 2020. We assessed whether the cumulative rate of infection is dependent on the mode of instruction (in-person, hybrid, or remote), on the number and density of dorm-resident undergraduates, and/or on COVID-19 testing cadence. We limited our analysis to institutions that have implemented at least weekly PCR testing of dormitory-resident undergraduates. Our primary conclusions are that (i) the fraction of students that succumbed to a COVID-19 infection up through Nov 22, 2020 shows no correlation with either the total number of students on campus, or the fractional occupancy of dormitories, (ii) remote instruction vs. hybrid instruction has no significant measurable impact on cumulative infection rate, and (iii) there is evidence that testing 2 or 3 times per week is correlated with lower infection rates than weekly testing. These data are consistent with a hypothesis of students predominantly acquiring infection off-campus, with little community transmission within dormitory housing. This implies good student compliance with face mask and social distancing protocols.

We review the incidence of COVID-19 infection among under-graduate students for selected colleges and universities that conducted at least weekly COVID-19 testing during the Fall of 2020. We analyzed the infection-rate dependence on number of students on campus, dormitory residential density, instructional methodology (remote vs. hybrid), and testing cadence. This compilation of outcomes can help inform policy decisions for congregate settings.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.08.20244574: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.08.20244574v1 on medRxiv