Correction: Assessing the impact of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission in German schools on decision-making processes: a multi-component qualitative analysis
Katharina Wabnitz, Mike Rueb, Eva A. Rehfuess, Brigitte Strahwald, Lisa M. Pfadenhauer
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHealth Policy Implementation Science · Delphi Technique in Research · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
**Correction: Health Research Policy and Systems (2023) 21:138 ** 10.1186/s12961-023-01072-9
Following publication of the original article [1] it was reported that there was an error in Fig. 1c, Fig. 1d and in Appendix 4.
In Fig. 1c Thuringia was wrongly coded in green and should have been grey.
Figure 1d indicated four Federal States classified as having reported that the guideline influenced recommendations or guidelines for schools (in green), but this should be five.
In the Table of Appendix 4 the response given in column ‘d) Did the guideline influence information, recommendations, or requirements for schools?’ for the Federal State Hesse was given as ‘Unclear’ but should be ‘Yes’.
The incorrect and correct versions of Fig. 1 and the corrected version of Appendix 4 with the corrected response in bold are given below. The original article has been updated.
Incorrect Fig. 1 .
Correct Fig. 1Fig. 1. Impact of the S3-guideline on decision-making processes, according to answers to four main questions as part of the FoIA inquiries by Federal States. Green = yes, red = no, grey = no answer, shaded = unclear .
Correct Appendix 4.
Annex 4: Tabular overview of results in component 1.Federal Statea) Is the guideline known in the ministry for education?b) Was the guideline discussed in the ministry for education?c) Was the guideline considered for decisions?d) Did the guideline influence information, recommendations, or requirements for schools?Illustrative quotes from response lettersBaden-WürttembergYesUnclearYesYesBavariaNo answerNo answerNo answerNo answerBerlinNo answerNo answerNo answerNo answerBrandenburgNo answerNo answerNo answerNo answerBremenYesNo answerNo answerNo answerHamburgUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclear*“In light of this development, the publication of the S3-guideline in February 2021 happened quite late. Many of the measures mentioned there were already implemented in Hamburg in 2020. The BSB [Hamburg Education Authority, Behörde für Schule und Berufsbildung Hamburg] coordinates the measures for the school sector with the health authority where recommendations […] such as relevant guidelines are evaluated […] Whether the S3 guideline is known in the BSB's area of responsibility, and if so, to what level of detail, is not known.”HesseYesYesYesYesMecklenburg-West PomeraniaYesYesYesYes“A detailed check against the guideline was carried out […] with regards to the infection protection and hygiene measures in force at schools at the time in question […] The […] examination concluded that the majority of recommendations are already […] being implemented and that there is […] no increased need for action […]. …] With regard to physical education which did not take place due to the general school closures at the beginning of 2021, the S3-guideline contributed to a regulation in the hygiene plan for the schools, according to which physical education can be carried out in those grades that are taught in presence within the framework of the school's organisational discretion.”Lower SaxonyNo answerNo answerNo answerNo answerNorth Rhine-WestphaliaNo answerNo answerNo answerNo answerRhineland-PalatinateYesYesUnclearUnclearSaarlandYesYesYesYes“We were able to determine that we were largely in line with the recommendations of the S3-guideline with our specifications on hygiene and infection protection at schools. Only regarding the obligation to wear masks, we "only" recommended face coverings and not medical masks as recommended in the guideline.”SaxonyYesYesYesUnclear“The guideline is one of many pieces of information to be considered. No detailed information can be given retroactively as to which specific information is to be found where in the [hygiene framework directive for schools of Saxony]. This would have warranted a separate request when the guideline was published.”Saxony-AnhaltYesYesYesUnclear“The guideline was and is being considered in the ongoing revision of the [hygiene framework directive for schools of Saxony-Anhalt]. It was found that most recommendations formulated in the S3-guideline had been implemented […] the guideline confirmed the hygiene measures already taken in schools by Saxony-Anhalt.”*Schleswig–HolsteinYesYesYesYesThuringiaNo answerNo answerNo answerNo answer