MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198723681 · doi:10.2196/30749

Determining the Prevalence and Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Prisons in England: Protocol for a Repeated Panel Survey and Enhanced Outbreak Study

2021· article· en· W3198723681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emma Plugge, Danielle Burke, Maciej Czachorowski, Kerry Gutridge, Fiona Maxwell, Nuala McGrath, Oscar O’Mara, Éamonn O’Moore, Julie Parkes

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPublic Health EnglandUniversity of SouthamptonDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsOutbreakMedicinePandemicEpidemiologyPublic healthPrisonIncidence (geometry)Infection controlCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family medicineDemographyInfectious disease (medical specialty)VirologyDiseasePsychologyNursingIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There are over 80,000 people imprisoned in England and Wales in 117 prisons. The management of the COVID-19 pandemic presents particular challenges in this setting where confined, crowded, and poorly ventilated conditions facilitate the rapid spread of infectious diseases. OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 in Prison Study aims to examine the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in prisons in England in order to inform public health policy and practice during the pandemic and recovery. The primary objective is to estimate the proportion of positive tests of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff within selected prisons. The secondary objectives include estimating the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection and examining how the proportion of positive tests and the incidence rate vary among individual, institutional, and system level factors. METHODS: Phase 1 comprises a repeated panel survey of prison residents and staff in a representative sample of 28 prisons across England. All residents and staff in the study prisons are eligible for inclusion. Participants will be tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a nasopharyngeal swab twice (6 weeks apart). Staff will also be tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Phase 2 focuses on SARS-CoV-2 infection in prisons with recognized COVID-19 outbreaks. Any prison in England will be eligible to participate if an outbreak is declared. In 3 outbreak prisons, all participating staff and residents will be tested for SARS-CoV-2 antigens at the following 3 timepoints: as soon as possible after the outbreak is declared (day 0), 7 days later (day 7), and at day 28. They will be swabbed twice (a nasal swab for lateral flow device testing and a nasopharyngeal swab for polymerase chain reaction testing). Testing will be done by external contractors. Data will also be collected on individual, prison level, and community factors. Data will be stored and handled at the University of Southampton and Public Health England. Summary statistics will summarize the prison and participant characteristics. For the primary objective, simple proportions of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and incidence rates will be calculated. Linear regression will examine the individual, institutional, system, and community factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection within prisons. RESULTS: The UK Government's Department for Health and Social Care funds the study. Data collection started on July 20, 2020, and will end on May 31, 2021. As of May 2021, we had enrolled 4192 staff members and 6496 imprisoned people in the study. Data analysis has started, and we expect to publish the initial findings in summer/autumn 2021. The main ethical consideration is the inclusion of prisoners, who are vulnerable participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide unique data to inform the public health management of SARS-CoV-2 in prisons. Its findings will be of relevance to health policy makers and practitioners working in prisons. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30749.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.431
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207