Using Digital Tools for Contact Tracing to Improve COVID-19 Safety in Schools: Qualitative Study Exploring Views and Experiences Among School Staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".