Adherence to and experiences of K–12 students in modified and standard home quarantine during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Missouri

Mary Claire Worrell; Sara Malone; Patrick Dawson; Stephanie A. Fritz; Ebony Thomas; Bre Peeler; Catherine Rains; Sarah C. Tinker; John C. Neatherlin; Lisa Barrios; Jon Mooney; Katie Towns; Jason Newland; Johanna S. Salzer

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275404

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2022
5 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Editor PONE-D-22-25634Adherence to and experiences of K–12 students in modified and standard home quarantine during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in MissouriPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Worrell, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “All the students, families, educators, nurses, administrators, and staff members from participating schools and school districts in Saint Louis and Springfield, Missouri; CDC COVID-19 Response Team (Catherine Rasberry, Elizabeth Haller, Hailey Reid, Monica LaBelle, Neha Cramer); Saint Louis University (Adrienne Beckett-Ansa, Allie Bodin, Ashley Gomel, Rachel Leimkuehler, Elena Dalleo Locascio, Mary Beal, Rachel L. Mazzara, Riley Voss, Ruband Mahmood, Samantha Hayes); Springfield-Greene County Health Department (Kathryn Wall, Brad Stulce, Sean Barnhill); University of Missouri School of Medicine (Dr. David Haustein, Evan Garrad, Hosea Covington, Tricia Haynes, Spencer Blake Price), and Washington University in St. Louis (Alex Plattner, Cole Tipton, Ian T. Lackey, Jenna Rideout, Savanah Low, Suong Nguyen). We thank the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services who funded this investigation. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services(https://health.mo.gov/) provided funding to Washington University in St. Louis to support this study (no grant #, authors: SM, SAF, and JGN). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. 5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 6. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Powered by” Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf." 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Congrats for this excellent work. The study contributions are remarkable, and the manuscript has been very well-written and structured. The conclusions are well supported by the results. No recommendations are provided and it mau be accepted in its current form. Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the study is very interesting and worth being published. Nevertheless, the sections are not sufficiently developed to exhibit the value of the research undertaken by the authors. For this reason, I feel I can give the following suggestions: Literature review I suggest that the authors provide structure to their study. Additionally, the literature review needs to be properly structured (ie. explanation of the main theories, the different theoretical positions and contestations within the field and others). Methodology The authors should provide detailed information on the research design, the population of the study, the sampling techniques used and adequate information on the measures for the instrument. Please summarize the main findings of the study. It is very difficult for me to identify the main findings of the study. I have suggested that the authors provide very clear findings of their study. Please highlight the limitations and strengths. The current articles lacks structure and it is very difficult to read and understand. The authors should provide clear findings of their study. In its current form, readers will struggle to identify what the findings of the current study are and how the findings address weaknesses in previous studies. I think the authors can easily follow the suggestions I have given in this review and make a new version of their interesting paper. All best wishes. Reviewer #3: The manuscript was well written and organized. It reported the results of MQ and SQ regarding psychosocial health using percentages. Although no statistical testing was used, it still provided useful information. My only suggestion is to tone down the implications of the findings a bit regarding MQ strategies since the sample size was small, as the authors acknowledged. Reviewer #4: The manuscript title: Adherence to and experiences of K–12 students in modified and standard home quarantine during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Missouri., Overall, this manuscript is quite well written., It appropriate to publish to journal. Please recheck all references, table and figure again. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Teresa Pozo-Rico, PhD (Educational Psychology) Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ******** While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275404.r001
Revision 1
26 Oct 2022 Author Response Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. We have provided responses to your comments below. Reviewers' comments: Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Congrats for this excellent work. The study contributions are remarkable, and the manuscript has been very well-written and structured. The conclusions are well supported by the results. No recommendations are provided and it mau be accepted in its current form. • Thank you for your review! Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the study is very interesting and worth being published. Nevertheless, the sections are not sufficiently developed to exhibit the value of the research undertaken by the authors. For this reason, I feel I can give the following suggestions: • Thank you for your review and suggestions. Literature review I suggest that the authors provide structure to their study. Additionally, the literature review needs to be properly structured (ie. explanation of the main theories, the different theoretical positions and contestations within the field and others). • On lines 67-75, we discussed some of the previous literature regarding mental health impacts of COVID-19 on K-12 students; however, there are not investigations that compared different quarantine policies on these mental health impacts. On lines 76-81, we discussed previous literature on COVID-19 transmission in the K-12 setting. Methodology The authors should provide detailed information on the research design, the population of the study, the sampling techniques used and adequate information on the measures for the instrument. • We conducted a survey as part of a larger investigation into secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in K-12 schools. The methods for the larger investigation can be found in a manuscript that has recently been accepted with PlosOne (lines 108-112) • The population of the study is students in modified quarantine and standard quarantine in Missouri (lines 112-121, 128-137), where we defined the criteria for close contact and the two types of quarantine. • The measures for the instrument were detailed in lines 140-145 and in Table 1, where you can find the questions asked on the survey. Please summarize the main findings of the study. It is very difficult for me to identify the main findings of the study. I have suggested that the authors provide very clear findings of their study. • We discuss the findings in the Discussion section and then summarize the main findings in the conclusion “Findings suggest that the negative impacts of on an individual’s daily life and stress on student close contacts and their families may occur less frequently in students in MQ than those in SQ and that the MQ policy has been accepted by many parents in Greene County as an alternative to SQ. Despite students in MQ having increased frequencies of participation in non-school associated activities as compared to students in SQ, the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among students in MQ has been demonstrated to be low.” (Lines 350-365) Please highlight the limitations and strengths. • We discussed the limitations of the investigation on lines 340-358. The current articles lacks structure and it is very difficult to read and understand. The authors should provide clear findings of their study. In its current form, readers will struggle to identify what the findings of the current study are and how the findings address weaknesses in previous studies. I think the authors can easily follow the suggestions I have given in this review and make a new version of their interesting paper. All best wishes. • Thank you for your suggestions. We had included section sub-headings to help guide the reader through the article. Reviewer #3: The manuscript was well written and organized. It reported the results of MQ and SQ regarding psychosocial health using percentages. Although no statistical testing was used, it still provided useful information. My only suggestion is to tone down the implications of the findings a bit regarding MQ strategies since the sample size was small, as the authors acknowledged. • Thank you for your review. We have added an additional statement in the conclusion to tone down the implications as suggested and note that more robust investigations are needed in this area. Reviewer #4: The manuscript title: Adherence to and experiences of K–12 students in modified and standard home quarantine during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Missouri., Overall, this manuscript is quite well written., It appropriate to publish to journal. Please recheck all references, table and figure again. • Thank you for your review. We check the references are removed one duplicate reference. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275404.r002
21 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Editor Adherence to and experiences of K–12 students in modified and standard home quarantine during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Missouri PONE-D-22-25634R1 Dear Dr. Worrell, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275404.r003
Formally Accepted
29 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Editor PONE-D-22-25634R1 Adherence to and experiences of K–12 students in modified and standard home quarantine during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Missouri Dear Dr. Worrell: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Alejandro Vega-Muñoz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275404.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .