Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34383766›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A holistic approach for suppression of COVID-19 spread in workplaces and universities.

Sarah F Poole, Jessica Gronsbell, Dale Winter, Stefanie Nickels, Roie Levy, Bin Fu, Maximilien Burq, Sohrab Saeb, Matthew D Edwards, Michael K Behr and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The US Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Surveillance Environment: An Ecological Analysis of the Relationship of Testing Adequacy in the Context of Vaccination.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah F PooleVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0528-0577
Jessica GronsbellVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Dale WinterVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Stefanie NickelsVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Roie LevyVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Bin FuVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Maximilien BurqVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Sohrab SaebVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Matthew D EdwardsVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Michael K BehrVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Vignesh KumaresanVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Alexander R MacalaladVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7802-5617
Sneh ShahVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Michelle PrevostVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Nigel SnoadVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5474-250X
Michael P BrennerGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, United States of America.
Lance J MyersVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Paul VargheseVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Robert M CaliffVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Vindell WashingtonVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Vivian S LeeVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Menachem FromerVerily Life Sciences, South San Francisco, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3749-4342
Google (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As society has moved past the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis that relied on broad-spectrum shutdowns as a stopgap method, industries and institutions have faced the daunting question of how to return to a stabilized state of activities and more fully reopen the economy. A core problem is how to return people to their workplaces and educational institutions in a manner that is safe, ethical, grounded in science, and takes into account the unique factors and needs of each organization and community. In this paper, we introduce an epidemiological model (the "Community-Workplace" model) that accounts for SARS-CoV-2 transmission within the workplace, within the surrounding community, and between them. We use this multi-group deterministic compartmental model to consider various testing strategies that, together with symptom screening, exposure tracking, and nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) such as mask wearing and physical distancing, aim to reduce disease spread in the workplace. Our framework is designed to be adaptable to a variety of specific workplace environments to support planning efforts as reopenings continue. Using this model, we consider a number of case studies, including an office workplace, a factory floor, and a university campus. Analysis of these cases illustrates that continuous testing can help a workplace avoid an outbreak by reducing undetected infectiousness even in high-contact environments. We find that a university setting, where individuals spend more time on campus and have a higher contact load, requires more testing to remain safe, compared to a factory or office setting. Under the modeling assumptions, we find that maintaining a prevalence below 3% can be achieved in an office setting by testing its workforce every two weeks, whereas achieving this same goal for a university could require as much as fourfold more testing (i.e., testing the entire campus population twice a week). Our model also simulates the dynamics of reduced spread that result from the introduction of mitigation measures when test results reveal the early stages of a workplace outbreak. We use this to show that a vigilant university that has the ability to quickly react to outbreaks can be justified in implementing testing at the same rate as a lower-risk office workplace. Finally, we quantify the devastating impact that an outbreak in a small-town college could have on the surrounding community, which supports the notion that communities can be better protected by supporting their local places of business in preventing onsite spread of disease.

Indexed as

Physical DistancingUniversitiesWorkplaceContact TracingCOVID-19Disease OutbreaksHumans

Identifiers

PMID34383766
PMCPMC8360595
OpenAlexW3188324350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.