Effectiveness of 3 Versus 6 ft of Physical Distancing for Controlling Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among Primary and Secondary Students and Staff: A Retrospective, Statewide Cohort Study
- PMID: 33704422
- PMCID: PMC7989511
- DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciab230
Effectiveness of 3 Versus 6 ft of Physical Distancing for Controlling Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among Primary and Secondary Students and Staff: A Retrospective, Statewide Cohort Study
Erratum in
-
Corrigendum to: Effectiveness of 3 Versus 6 ft of Physical Distancing for Controlling Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among Primary and Secondary Students and Staff: A Retrospective, Statewide Cohort Study.Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Mar 23;74(6):1127-1129. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab1049. Clin Infect Dis. 2022. PMID: 35170734 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Abstract
Background: National and international guidelines differ about the optimal physical distancing between students for prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission; studies directly comparing the impact of ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing policies in school settings are lacking. Thus, our objective was to compare incident cases of SARS-CoV-2 in students and staff in Massachusetts public schools among districts with different physical distancing requirements. State guidance mandates masking for all school staff and for students in grades 2 and higher; the majority of districts required universal masking.
Methods: Community incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 cases among students in grades K-12 and staff participating in-person learning, and district infection control plans were linked. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for students and staff members in traditional public school districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing were estimated using log-binomial regression; models adjusted for community incidence are also reported.
Results: Among 251 eligible school districts, 537 336 students and 99 390 staff attended in-person instruction during the 16-week study period, representing 6 400 175 student learning weeks and 1 342 574 staff learning weeks. Student case rates were similar in the 242 districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing between students (IRR, 0.891; 95% confidence interval, .594-1.335); results were similar after adjustment for community incidence (adjusted IRR, 0.904; .616-1.325). Cases among school staff in districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing were also similar (IRR, 1.015, 95% confidence interval, .754-1.365).
Conclusions: Lower physical distancing requirements can be adopted in school settings with masking mandates without negatively affecting student or staff safety.
Keywords: COVID-19; adaptation; infection control; physical distancing; schools.
Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.
Comment in
-
Six Feet and the Classroom.Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Nov 16;73(10):1879-1881. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab274. Clin Infect Dis. 2021. PMID: 33782681 No abstract available.
-
Is 3 Feet of Physical Distancing Enough?Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Jan 29;74(2):368-370. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab439. Clin Infect Dis. 2022. PMID: 33988230 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Examining the Robustness of 3 Versus 6 Feet of Physical Distancing in Schools: A Reanalysis of van den Berg et al.Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Aug 24;75(1):e310-e311. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciac187. Clin Infect Dis. 2022. PMID: 35247259 No abstract available.
-
Reply to Klein and Harris.Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Aug 24;75(1):e312-e313. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciac190. Clin Infect Dis. 2022. PMID: 35253850 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous