PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Sparks, R.S.J.
AU  - Aspinall, W.P.
AU  - Brooks-Pollock, E.
AU  - Cooke, R.M.
AU  - Danon, L.
AU  - Barclay, J.
AU  - Scarrow, J.H.
AU  - Cox, J.H.
TI  - A novel approach for evaluating contact patterns and risk mitigation strategies for COVID-19 in English Primary Schools with application of Structured Expert Judgement
AID  - 10.1101/2020.08.13.20170068
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.08.13.20170068
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/14/2020.08.13.20170068.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/14/2020.08.13.20170068.full
AB  - Background Contact patterns are the drivers of close-contacts infections, such as COVID-19. In an effort to control COVID-19 transmission in the UK, schools were closed on 23 March 2020. With social distancing in place, Primary Schools were partially re-opened on 1 June 2020, with plans to fully re-open in September 2020. The impact of social distancing and risk mitigation measures on children’s contact patterns is not known.Methods We conducted a structured expert elicitation of a sample of Primary Headteachers to quantify contact patterns within schools in pre-COVID-19 times and how these patterns were expected to change upon re-opening. Point estimates with uncertainty were determined by a formal performance-based algorithm. Additionally, we surveyed school Headteachers about risk mitigation strategies and their anticipated effectiveness.Results Expert elicitation provides estimates of contact patterns that are consistent with contact surveys. We report mean number of contacts per day for four cohorts within schools along with a range at 90% confidence for the variations of contacts among individuals. Prior to lockdown, we estimate that, mean numbers per day, younger children (Reception and Year 1) made 15 contacts [range 8..35] within school, older children (Year 6) 18 contacts [range 5.. 55], teaching staff 25 contacts [range 4.. 55) and non-classroom staff 11 contacts [range 2.. 27]. Compared to pre-COVID times, after schools re-opened the mean number of contacts were reduced by about 53% for young children, about 62% for older children, about 60% for classroom staff and about 64% for other staff. Contacts between teaching and non-teaching staff reduced by 80%, which is consistent with other independent estimates. The distributions of contacts per person are asymmetric indicating a heavy tail of individuals with high contact numbers.Conclusions We interpret the reduction in children’s contacts as a consequence of efforts to reduce mixing with interventions such as forming groups of children (bubbles) who are organized to learn together to limit contacts. Distributions of contacts for children and adults can be used to inform COVID-19 transmission modelling. Our findings suggest that while official DfE guidelines form the basis for risk mitigation in schools, individual schools have adopted their own bespoke strategies, often going beyond the guidelines.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:University of East AngliaAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are in supplementary material material