Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers to engagement with contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks: A rapid review of the evidence.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Until a vaccine is developed, a test, trace and isolate strategy is the most effective method of controlling the COVID-19 outbreak. Contact tracing and case isolation are common methods for controlling infectious disease outbreaks. However, the effectiveness of any contact tracing system rests on public engagement. Numerous factors may influence an individual's willingness to engage with a contact tracing system. Understanding these factors has become urgent during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE:To identify facilitators and barriers to uptake of, and engagement with, contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks. METHOD:A rapid systematic review was conducted to identify papers based on primary research, written in English, and that assessed facilitators, barriers, and other factors associated with the uptake of, and engagement with, a contact tracing system. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Four themes were identified as facilitators to the uptake of, and engagement with, contact tracing: collective responsibility; personal benefit; co-production of contact tracing systems; and the perception of the system as efficient, rigorous and reliable. Five themes were identified as barriers to the uptake of, and engagement with, contact tracing: privacy concerns; mistrust and/or apprehension; unmet need for more information and support; fear of stigmatization; and mode-specific challenges. CONCLUSIONS:By focusing on the factors that have been identified, contact tracing services are more likely to get people to engage with them, identify more potentially ill contacts, and reduce transmission.

SUBMITTER: Megnin-Viggars O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7595276 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Facilitators and barriers to engagement with contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks: A rapid review of the evidence.

Megnin-Viggars Odette O Carter Patrice P Melendez-Torres G J GJ Weston Dale D Rubin G James GJ

PloS one 20201029 10

<h4>Background</h4>Until a vaccine is developed, a test, trace and isolate strategy is the most effective method of controlling the COVID-19 outbreak. Contact tracing and case isolation are common methods for controlling infectious disease outbreaks. However, the effectiveness of any contact tracing system rests on public engagement. Numerous factors may influence an individual's willingness to engage with a contact tracing system. Understanding these factors has become urgent during the COVID-1 ...[more]

PMID: 33120402

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the enormous potential of mobile health (mHealth) apps for COVID-19 contact tracing, the adoption rate in most countries remains low. Thus, the objective of the current study is to identify facilitators and barriers of mHealth apps adoption for COVID-19 contact tracing based on existing studies.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of mHealth studies before December 2021 that evaluate facilitators and barriers associated with the adoption of mHealth apps for COVID-19 contact tracing. We assessed the risk of bias for all included studies using the Cochrane tool. We based our narrative synthesis on the facilitators-barriers to the adoption of mHealth framework comprising seven key factors.ResultsA total of 27 articles were reviewed from 16 countries representing high income countries (France, German, Italy, United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Singapore, Belgium, Republic Ireland, Netherland, Poland, and Japan), middle-income countries (Fiji), and low-middle income countries (India). We identified the main facilitators of mHealth adoption: perceived risks to COVID-19, trust, perceived benefit, social norm, and technology readiness. The main barriers of mHealth adoption were data privacy/security concerns. Among sociodemographic factors, females, lower education, lower-income, and older individual are barriers to adoption in low-middle income countries, while most of those factors were not significantly associated with adoption in a high-income country.ConclusionThe findings imply that resolving data privacy/security issues while developing trust, perceived benefits, social norms, and technology preparedness could be effective strategies for increasing adoption intentions and app use among the general public. In low-middle-income countries, addressing digital divide is critical to the app's adoption.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=249500, identifier RD42021249500 (PROSPERO).

Project description:BackgroundOnline respondent-driven detection (RDD) is a novel method of case finding that can enhance contact tracing (CT). However, the advantages and challenges of RDD for CT have not yet been investigated from the perspective of public health professionals (PHPs). Therefore, it remains unclear if, and under what circumstances, PHPs are willing to apply RDD for CT.MethodsBetween March and April 2019, we conducted semi-structured interviews with Dutch PHPs responsible for CT in practice. Questions were derived from the 'diffusion of innovations' theory. Between May and June 2019, we distributed an online questionnaire among 260 Dutch PHPs to quantify the main qualitative findings. Using different hypothetical scenarios, we assessed anticipated advantages and challenges of RDD, and PHPs' intention to apply RDD for CT.ResultsTwelve interviews were held, and 70 PHPs completed the online questionnaire. A majority of questionnaire respondents (71%) had a positive intention towards using RDD for CT. Anticipated advantages of RDD were 'accommodating easy and autonomous participation in CT of index cases and contact persons', and 'reaching contact persons more efficiently'. Anticipated challenges were 'limited opportunities for PHPs to support, motivate, and coordinate the execution of CT', 'not being able to adequately convey measures to index cases and contact persons', and 'anticipated unrest among index cases and contact persons'. Circumstances under which PHPs anticipated RDD applicable for CT included index cases and contact persons being reluctant to share information directly with PHPs, digitally skilled and literate persons being involved, and large scale CT. Circumstances under which PHPs anticipated RDD less applicable for CT included severe consequences of missing information or contact persons for individual or public health, involvement of complex or impactful measures for index cases and contact persons, and a disease being perceived as severe or sensitive by index cases and their contact persons.ConclusionsPHPs generally perceived RDD as a potentially beneficial method for public health practice, that may help overcome challenges present in traditional CT, and could be used during outbreaks of infectious diseases that spread via close contact. The circumstances under which CT is performed, appear to strongly influence PHPs' intention to use RDD for CT.

Project description:BackgroundContact tracing is used for multiple infectious diseases, most recently for COVID-19, but data regarding its effectiveness in disease control are scarce. To address this knowledge gap and inform public health decision making for COVID-19, we systematically reviewed the existing literature to determine the effectiveness of contact tracing in the control of communicable illness.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception up to Nov 22, 2021, for published studies evaluating associations between provider-initiated contact tracing for transmissible infectious diseases and one of three outcomes of interest: case detection rates among contacts or at the community level, overall forward transmission, or overall disease incidence. Clinical trials and observational studies were eligible, with no language or date restrictions. Reference lists of reviews were searched for additional studies. We excluded studies without a control group, using only mathematical modelling, not reporting a primary outcome of interest, or solely examining patient-initiated contact tracing. One reviewer applied eligibility criteria to each screened abstract and full-text article, and two reviewers independently extracted summary effect estimates and additional data from eligible studies. Only data reported in published manuscripts or supplemental material was extracted. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (randomised studies) or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (non-randomised studies).FindingsWe identified 9050 unique citations, of which 47 studies met the inclusion criteria: six were focused on COVID-19, 20 on tuberculosis, eight on HIV, 12 on curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and one on measles. More than 2 million index patients were included across a variety of settings (both urban and rural areas and low-resource and high-resource settings). Of the 47 studies, 29 (61·7%) used observational designs, including all studies on COVID-19, and 18 (38·3%) were randomised controlled trials. 40 studies compared provider-initiated contact tracing with other interventions or evaluated expansions of provider-initiated contact tracing, and seven compared programmatic adaptations within provider-initiated contact tracing. 29 (72·5%) of the 40 studies evaluating the effect of provider-initiated contact tracing, including four (66·7%) of six COVID-19 studies, found contact tracing interventions were associated with improvements in at least one outcome of interest. 23 (48·9%) studies had low risk of bias, 22 (46·8%) studies had some risk of bias, and two (4·3%) studies (both randomised controlled trials on curable STIs) had high risk of bias.InterpretationProvider-initiated contact tracing can be an effective public health tool. However, the ability of authorities to make informed choices about its deployment might be limited by heterogenous approaches to contact tracing in studies, a scarcity of quantitative evidence on its effectiveness, and absence of specificity of tracing parameters most important for disease control.FundingThe Sullivan Family Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research, and US National Institutes of Health.

Project description:Background: COVID-19 has brought to the fore an urgent need for secure information and communication technology (ICT) supported healthcare delivery, as the pertinence of infection control and social distancing continues. Telemedicine for paediatric care warrants special consideration around logistics, consent and assent, child welfare and communication that may differ to adult services. There is no systematic evidence synthesis available that outlines the implementation issues for incorporating telemedicine to paediatric services generally, or how users perceive these issues. Methods: We conducted a rapid mixed-methods evidence synthesis to identify barriers, facilitators, and documented stakeholder experiences of implementing paediatric telemedicine, to inform the pandemic response. A systematic search was undertaken by a research librarian in MEDLINE for relevant studies. All identified records were blind double-screened by two reviewers. Implementation-related data were extracted, and studies quality appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative findings were analysed thematically and then mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Quantitative findings about barriers and facilitators for implementation were narratively synthesised. Results: We identified 27 eligible studies (19 quantitative; 5 mixed-methods, 3 qualitative). Important challenges highlighted from the perspective of the healthcare providers included issues with ICT proficiency, lack of confidence in the quality/reliability of the technology, connectivity issues, concerns around legal issues, increased administrative burden and/or fear of inability to conduct thorough examinations with reliance on subjective descriptions. Facilitators included clear dissemination of the aims of ICT services, involvement of staff throughout planning and implementation, sufficient training, and cultivation of telemedicine champions. Families often expressed preference for in-person visits but those who had tried tele-consultations, lived far from clinics, or perceived increased convenience with technology considered telemedicine more favourably. Concerns from parents included the responsibility of describing their child's condition in the absence of an in-person examination. Discussion: Healthcare providers and families who have experienced tele-consultations generally report high satisfaction and usability for such services. The use of ICT to facilitate paediatric healthcare consultations is feasible for certain clinical encounters and can work well with appropriate planning and quality facilities in place.

Project description:BackgroundCommunication is a multifaceted process, ranging from linear, one-way approaches, such as transmitting a simple message, to continuous exchanges and feedback loops among stakeholders. In particular the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the critical need for timely, effective and credible evidence communication to increase awareness, levels of trust, and evidence uptake in policy and practice. However, whether to improve policy responses in crises or address more commonplace societal challenges, comprehensive guidance on evidence communication to decision-makers in health policies and systems remains limited. Our objective was to identify and systematize the global evidence on frameworks, guidance and tools supporting effective communication of research evidence to facilitate knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making processes, while also addressing barriers and facilitators.MethodsWe conducted a rapid scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Manual. Literature searches were performed across eight indexed databases and two sources of grey literature, without language or time restrictions. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed, and a narrative-interpretative synthesis was applied to present the findings.ResultsWe identified 16 documents presenting either complete frameworks or framework components, including guidance and tools, aimed at supporting evidence communication for policy development. These frameworks outlined strategies, theoretical models, barriers and facilitators, as well as insights into policy-makers' perspectives, communication needs, and preferences. Three primary evidence communication strategies, comprising eleven sub-strategies, emerged: "Health information packaging", "Targeting and tailoring messages to the audience", and "Combined communication strategies". Based on the documented barriers and facilitators at micro, meso and macro levels, critical factors for successful communication of evidence to policy-makers were identified.ConclusionsEffective communication is indispensable for facilitating knowledge translation and evidence-informed policy-making. Nonetheless gaps persist in frameworks designed to enhance research communication to policy-makers, particularly regarding the effectiveness of multiple communication strategies. To advance in this field, the development of comprehensive frameworks incorporating implementation strategies is warranted. Additionally, barriers and facilitators to implementing effective communication must be recognized and addressed taking diverse contexts into consideration. Registration https://zenodo.org/record/5578550.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review evidence on effectiveness of contact tracing apps (CTAs) for SARS-CoV-2 on epidemiological and clinical outcomes.DesignRapid systematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE (OVID), MEDLINE (PubMed), BioRxiv and MedRxiv were searched up to 28 October 2020.Study selectionStudies, both empirical and model-based, assessing effect of CTAs for SARS-CoV-2 on reproduction number (R), total number of infections, hospitalisation rate, mortality rate, and other epidemiologically and clinically relevant outcomes, were eligible for inclusion.Data extractionEmpirical and model-based studies were critically appraised using separate checklists. Data on type of study (ie, empirical or model-based), sample size, (simulated) time horizon, study population, CTA type (and associated interventions), comparator and outcomes assessed, were extracted. The most important findings were extracted and narratively summarised. Specifically for model-based studies, characteristics and values of important model parameters were collected.Results2140 studies were identified, of which 17 studies (2 empirical, 15 model-based studies) were eligible and included in this review. Both empirical studies were observational (non-randomised) studies and at high risk of bias, most importantly due to risk of confounding. Risk of bias of model-based studies was considered low for 12 out of 15 studies. Most studies demonstrated beneficial effects of CTAs on R, total number of infections and mortality rate. No studies assessed effect on hospitalisation. Effect size was dependent on model parameters values used, but in general, a beneficial effect was observed at CTA adoption rates of 20% or higher.ConclusionsCTAs have the potential to be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 related epidemiological and clinical outcomes, though effect size depends on other model parameters (eg, proportion of asymptomatic individuals, or testing delays), and interventions after CTA notification. Methodologically sound comparative empirical studies on effectiveness of CTAs are required to confirm findings from model-based studies.

Project description:IntroductionThe current COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for populational adherence to measures for the prevention and control of respiratory infectious diseases. However, their effectiveness depends on the population's preventive behaviour, which may be divergent from public policies. Therefore, this study aims to summarise and evaluate the evidence on barriers and facilitators to populational adherence to prevention and control measures in COVID-19 and other respiratory infectious diseases.Methods and analysisWe will search on MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies focusing on adults receiving protective behaviour recommendations to combat COVID-19 and other respiratory infectious diseases. The searches will be carried out from database's inception to the present. We will include studies that use qualitative methods in their data collection and analysis and studies that use mixed methods if they include any qualitative methods of analysis. Studies published in English, Portuguese and Spanish will be included. Two review authors will independently screen the studies for inclusion and extract data. We will assess the quality of the included studies using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme tool. For the assessment of the confidence in the synthesised findings, we will use the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research. Data analysis will be conducted using the best-fit framework approach based on adapted dimensions from the Health Belief Model and the Behaviour Change Wheel.Ethics and disseminationThis study will be conducted on published evidence, and thus, no ethical approval is required. The findings of this rapid qualitative evidence synthesis will be disseminated to academic audiences, health policy-makers and the general population. We will publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, present our findings in conferences, and disseminate results via social media. We also aim to present the research findings in plain language and disseminate the knowledge to the general population to increase public interest.Prospero registration numberCRD42020205750.

Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers to engagement with contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks: A rapid review of the evidence.

Publications

Facilitators and barriers to engagement with contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks: A rapid review of the evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets