Day Camp in the Time of COVID-19: What Went Right?

  1. Sharon Nachman
  2. Gabrielle Brauner
  3. Aviva Beleck
  4. Andrew S. Handel

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate whether a successful camp experience can be achieved with implementation of COVID-19 education, screening and hygiene protocols, and designated cohorts during the summer of 2020.

Study Design

A survey study of summer day camp directors in the metro-New York area was conducted in September, 2020. The survey inquired about camper demographics, COVID-10 related policies, and the number of COVID-19 cases and exposures at each camp.

Results

Responses were received from 77% (23/30) of camp directors at the completion of the 2020 summer. There were 8,480 camper children and 3,698 staff across the 23 camps surveyed. A variety of precautions were taken to limit COVID-19 incidence among campers and staff, most often including COVID-19 screening at entry, cohorting campers, maximizing outdoor activities, mandating mask use when indoors, and frequent hand sanitizing. Six staff and one camper tested positive for COVID-19. There was no secondary spread within the staff or campers in any of the camps.

Conclusion

Camps successfully stayed open in the summer of 2020. The low level of COVID-19 in the community was critical to the initial success of camp opening. Policies that were consistent and maintained among the camps helped prevent further spread.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253309: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Our study was evaluated by the Stony Brook University Hospital institutional review board and deemed exempt.
    Consent: Study consent was assumed based upon completion of the survey instrument.
    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 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253309v1 on medRxiv