MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4301393523 · doi:10.2196/36412

Using Digital Tools for Contact Tracing to Improve COVID-19 Safety in Schools: Qualitative Study Exploring Views and Experiences Among School Staff

2022· article· en· W4301393523 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sofia Chantziara, Amberly Brigden, Claire McCallum, Ian Craddock

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueCOVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUK Research and Innovation
Mots-clésContact tracingThematic analysisMedical educationPsychologyQualitative researchSocial distanceNonprobability samplingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PedagogyMedicineSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Throughout the pandemic, governments worldwide have issued guidelines to manage the spread and impact of COVID-19 in schools, including measures around social distancing and contact tracing. Whether schools required support to implement these guidelines has not yet been explored in depth. Despite the development of a range of technologies to tackle COVID-19, such as contact-tracing apps and electronic vaccine certificates, research on their usefulness in school settings has been limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to explore the needs of school staff in managing COVID-19 and their experiences and perspectives on technological support in relation to contact tracing. School staff are the ones likely to make key implementation decisions regarding new technologies, and they are also the ones responsible for using the new tools daily. Including both management staff and class teachers in the development of school-based technologies can lead to their successful adoption by schools. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with UK school staff, including primary and secondary school teachers and school managers. Thematic analysis, facilitated by NVivo, was used to analyze the data. Two of the authors independently coded 5 (28%) of the interviews and reached a consensus on a coding framework. RESULTS: Via purposive sampling, we recruited 18 participants from 5 schools. Findings showed that primary schools did not perform contact tracing, while in secondary schools, digital seating plans were used to identify close contacts in the classroom and manual investigations were also conducted identify social contacts. Participants reported that despite their efforts, high-risk interactions between students were not adequately monitored. There was a need to improve accuracy when identifying close contacts in common areas where students congregate. Proximity tracking, use of access cards, and closed-circuit television (CCTV) emerged as potential solutions, but there were concerns surrounding false alerts, burden, and security. CONCLUSIONS: School staff have found it difficult to monitor and implement social distancing and contact-tracing provisions. There are opportunities for mobile digital technologies and CCTV to support school staff in keeping their students and colleagues safe; however, these must place minimal demands on staff and prioritize security measures. Study findings can help researchers and practitioners who work in different contexts and settings understand what particular challenges are faced by school staff, and inform further research on the design and application of digital solutions for contact tracing.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,109
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0030,016
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,338
Tête enseignante GPT0,502
Écart entre enseignants0,164 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Formative ResearchMême sujetCOVID-19 Digital Contact TracingTravaux en français237 207