Workplace contact patterns in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study

  1. Sarah Beale
  2. Susan Hoskins
  3. Thomas Byrne
  4. Wing Lam Erica Fong
  5. Ellen Fragaszy
  6. Cyril Geismar
  7. Jana Kovar
  8. Annalan M.D. Navaratnam
  9. Vincent Nguyen
  10. Parth Patel
  11. Alexei Yavlinsky
  12. Anne M. Johnson
  13. Martie Van Tongeren
  14. Robert W. Aldridge
  15. Andrew Hayward

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100352
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.16.21267906: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethics Approval: The Virus Watch study was approved by the Hampstead NHS Health Research Authority Ethics Committee: 20/HRA/2320, and conformed to the ethical standards set out in the Declaration of Helsinki.
    Consent: All participants provided informed consent for all aspects of the study.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Outcomes: All outcomes for this study were derived from electronic contact diaries delivered using REDCap 25, which prompted participants to select all settings where they spent time during a recent 24-hour period (between 5am on Monday and 5am Tuesday of the survey week).
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)

    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:
    Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of this study include the large, diverse cohort that allowed us to investigate workplace contact across a range of occupational groups. Repeated surveys covered key periods of the second and third pandemic waves in England, and were repeated after major changes in pandemic-related restrictions over time. Several important limitations, however, should be considered in interpreting these findings. The study cohort is not representative of the English population. Both occupation and contact patterns were measured in broad categories. Occupational groups are likely to include specific roles with different risk profiles, but we lacked power to investigate in further detail. Notably, contact patterns amongst the Transport and Mobile Machine operative group may have been influenced by the relatively large proportion of large goods and delivery drivers relative to public transport workers; however, we were unable to disaggregate these occupations further. Self-reported contact and activities may have been impacted by recall bias and social desirability bias, particularly during periods of stringent restrictions. Findings are not generalisable to the first pandemic wave when many infections may have occurred, particularly in some frontline occupational groups such as health and social care workers 20,27–29. Linking these findings directly to infection risk was beyond the scope of the present study. Each contact survey related to a single weekday in...

    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.

    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 10.1101/2021.12.16.21267906 on medRxiv