The Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19 in Workers and Residents of Nursing Homes in Geneva: A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including social distancing, wearing personal protective equipment, and lockdown measures, have been at the forefront of outbreak control in nursing homes. We used a mixed methodology to assess which NPIs nursing homes in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, followed for their staff and residents during the first wave of the pandemic, between March 1, 2020 and June 1, 2020. For the qualitative component, we interviewed the attending physicians and/or director of each nursing home. Based on in-vivo codes, NPIs for nursing home workers and residents in each nursing home were thematically classified as: maximally restrictive, moderately restrictive, and minimally restrictive. In the quantitative component, we calculated incident rate ratios (IRR) for infection between the three levels of COVID-19-related measures taken in these nursing homes. We found an equal distribution of maximally (n=4), moderately (n=4), and minimally (n=4) restrictive NPIs. The extent of restriction did not show to be significantly associated with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 cases among residents (maximally restrictive IRR = 3.90, 95%CI 0.82-45.54, p = 0.184; moderately restrictive IRR = 3.55, 95%CI 0.75-41.42, p = 0.212 ; minimally restrictive IRR = reference). Variabilities in NPIs adopted by nursing homes, and the number of COVID-19 cases appear to be randomly affected.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".