Resources Required for Implementation of SARS‐CoV ‐2 Screening in Massachusetts K‐12 Public Schools in Winter/Spring 2021
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The financial costs and human resource requirements at the school and district level to implement a SARS‐CoV‐2 screening program are not well known.
METHODS
A consortium of Massachusetts public K‐12 schools was formed to implement and evaluate a range of SARS‐CoV‐2 screening approaches. Participating districts were surveyed weekly about their programs, including: type of assay used, individual vs. pooled screening, approaches to return of results and deconvolution of positive pools, number and type of personnel, and hours spent implementing the screening program, and hours spent on program implementation.
RESULTS
In 21 participating districts, over 21 weeks from January to June 2021, the positivity rate was 0.0% to 0.21% among students and 0.0% to 0.13% among educators/staff. The average weekly cost to implement a screening program, including assay and personnel costs, was $17.00 per person tested; this was $46.68 for individual screenings and $15.61 for pooled screenings. The total weekly costs by district ranged from $1,644 to $93,486, and districts screened between 58 and 3675 people per week.
CONCLUSIONS
Where screening is recommended for the 2021 to 2022 school year due to high COVID‐19 incidence, understanding the human resources and finances required to implement screening will assist district policymakers in planning.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.10.21267568: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: 27 Reasons for continuing with previous vendors included familiarity with the vendor staff, consent processes, and result software.
Field Sample Permit: In addition, some vendors initially outside the state-supported program offered in-lab deconvolution, in which specimens from all individuals were retained and could be re-tested in the event of positive pool, without need for collection of a second sample.
IRB: Human subjects: This study was approved as “not human subjects research” by the Mass General Brigham institutional review board.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.10.21267568: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: 27 Reasons for continuing with previous vendors included familiarity with the vendor staff, consent processes, and result software.
Field Sample Permit: In addition, some vendors initially outside the state-supported program offered in-lab deconvolution, in which specimens from all individuals were retained and could be re-tested in the event of positive pool, without need for collection of a second sample.
IRB: Human subjects: This study was approved as “not human subjects research” by the Mass General Brigham institutional review board.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:There were several limitations inherent to our study. First, district participation was incomplete and varied weekly, leading us to rely primarily on last-reported-week data. While higher and more regular participation would improve generalizability, we are thankful for voluntary survey responses by district staff already working tirelessly to implement both virtual and in-person learning during the pandemic. Second, questions about the personnel number and hours spent offered responses only in strata (e.g., 1-5 hours; 10-15 people). Our cost estimates assumed the mid-point of these ranges, although use of upper and lower bounds did not substantially change results. Third, we assigned hourly wages for parents and volunteers based on a state-wide estimate of hourly wage;30 local opportunity costs may have differed. Fourth, costs reported here do not include the materials needed at school to administer tests, including disposable gloves, hand sanitizer, cleaning supplies, and personal protective equipment for staff.36,48 Importantly, the 21 districts in this study include a lower proportion of Black and Hispanic students, English-language learners, and economically disadvantaged students than the state-wide average. While the costs of assays will likely be similar in most settings, resources needed for implementation may differ widely, for example, the availability of parent volunteers and the time needed for outreach, education, and obtaining consent for all participating stud...
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.
- No funding statement was detected.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
