Day Camp in the Time of COVID-19: What Went Right?
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
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
-
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 Statement IRB: 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.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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 …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 Statement IRB: 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.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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.
-