Measuring the scientific effectiveness of contact tracing: Evidence from a natural experiment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fetzer T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8380024 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Peer review is the main institution responsible for the evaluation and gestation of scientific research. Although peer review is widely seen as vital to scientific evaluation, anecdotal evidence abounds of gatekeeping mistakes in leading journals, such as rejecting seminal contributions or accepting mediocre submissions. Systematic evidence regarding the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of scientific gatekeeping is scant, largely because access to rejected manuscripts from journals is rarely available. Using a dataset of 1,008 manuscripts submitted to three elite medical journals, we show differences in citation outcomes for articles that received different appraisals from editors and peer reviewers. Among rejected articles, desk-rejected manuscripts, deemed as unworthy of peer review by editors, received fewer citations than those sent for peer review. Among both rejected and accepted articles, manuscripts with lower scores from peer reviewers received relatively fewer citations when they were eventually published. However, hindsight reveals numerous questionable gatekeeping decisions. Of the 808 eventually published articles in our dataset, our three focal journals rejected many highly cited manuscripts, including the 14 most popular; roughly the top 2 percent. Of those 14 articles, 12 were desk-rejected. This finding raises concerns regarding whether peer review is ill--suited to recognize and gestate the most impactful ideas and research. Despite this finding, results show that in our case studies, on the whole, there was value added in peer review. Editors and peer reviewers generally--but not always-made good decisions regarding the identification and promotion of quality in scientific manuscripts.
| S-EPMC4299220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundContact tracing in association with quarantine and isolation is an important public health tool to control outbreaks of infectious diseases. This strategy has been widely implemented during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The effectiveness of this nonpharmaceutical intervention is largely dependent on social interactions within the population and its combination with other interventions. Given the high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, short serial intervals, and asymptomatic transmission patterns, the effectiveness of contact tracing for this novel viral agent is largely unknown.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify and synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of contact tracing on infectious viral disease outcomes based on prior scientific literature.MethodsAn evidence-based review was conducted to identify studies from the PubMed database, including preprint medRxiv server content, related to the effectiveness of contact tracing in viral outbreaks. The search dates were from database inception to July 24, 2020. Outcomes of interest included measures of incidence, transmission, hospitalization, and mortality.ResultsOut of 159 unique records retrieved, 45 (28.3%) records were reviewed at the full-text level, and 24 (15.1%) records met all inclusion criteria. The studies included utilized mathematical modeling (n=14), observational (n=8), and systematic review (n=2) approaches. Only 2 studies considered digital contact tracing. Contact tracing was mostly evaluated in combination with other nonpharmaceutical interventions and/or pharmaceutical interventions. Although some degree of effectiveness in decreasing viral disease incidence, transmission, and resulting hospitalizations and mortality was observed, these results were highly dependent on epidemic severity (R0 value), number of contacts traced (including presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases), timeliness, duration, and compliance with combined interventions (eg, isolation, quarantine, and treatment). Contact tracing effectiveness was particularly limited by logistical challenges associated with increased outbreak size and speed of infection spread.ConclusionsTimely deployment of contact tracing strategically layered with other nonpharmaceutical interventions could be an effective public health tool for mitigating and suppressing infectious outbreaks by decreasing viral disease incidence, transmission, and resulting hospitalizations and mortality.
| S-EPMC8496751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesConducting contact tracing (CT) programs in low- and middle-income countries is challenging, and there is no evidence of their effectiveness in Latin America. We evaluated the effectiveness of CT on reducing fatality from COVID-19 in Colombia.Study designThe study design is a retrospective cohort study with nation-wide data of suspected and confirmed cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) infection and their registered contacts.MethodsWe analyzed confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases and their chains of contact using a nation-wide registry from March 28, 2020 to January 13, 2021. To estimate the effect of CT on fatality, we adjusted a multilevel negative binomial model using the number of deaths and the number of people within a chain of contacts as the outcome variable and offset variable, respectively. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using different cutoff values of contacts traced and a logistic model for the effect of CT on death at an individual level.ResultsWe analyzed 1.4 million cases, 542,936 chains of contact, and 46,087 deaths. Only, 5.8% of total cases and contacts were included in a chain of a case and five or more contacts. We found that tracing of at least five contacts per case reduces fatality by 48% (95% confidence interval: 45-51), and, at the current levels of tracing in Colombia, it prevents 1.8% of deaths. Results obtained from the sensitivity analysis were consistent with the reduction of fatality at an individual level and higher protective effect with the higher number of contacts traced.ConclusionsIn Colombia, tracing of at least five contacts per case reduces fatality from COVID-19. The coverage and intensity of tracing needs to be increased as a strategy to mitigate fatality in Colombia.
| S-EPMC8289626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective control of an epidemic relies on the rapid discovery and isolation of infected individuals. Because many infectious diseases spread through interaction, contact tracing is widely used to facilitate case discovery and control. However, what determines the efficacy of contact tracing has not been fully understood. Here we reveal that, compared with 'forward' tracing (tracing to whom disease spreads), 'backward' tracing (tracing from whom disease spreads) is profoundly more effective. The effectiveness of backward tracing is due to simple but overlooked biases arising from the heterogeneity in contacts. We argue that, even if the directionality of infection is unknown, it is possible to perform backward-aiming contact tracing. Using simulations on both synthetic and high-resolution empirical contact datasets, we show that strategically executed contact tracing can prevent a substantial fraction of transmissions with a higher efficiency-in terms of prevented cases per isolation-than case isolation alone. Our results call for a revision of current contact-tracing strategies so that they leverage all forms of bias. It is particularly crucial that we incorporate backward and deep tracing in a digital context while adhering to the privacy-preserving requirements of these new platforms.
| S-EPMC8340850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundContact tracing plays an important role in the control of emerging infectious diseases, but little is known yet about its effectiveness. Here we deduce from a generic mathematical model how effectiveness of tracing relates to various aspects of time, such as the course of individual infectivity, the (variability in) time between infection and symptom-based detection, and delays in the tracing process. In addition, the possibility of iteratively tracing of yet asymptomatic infecteds is considered. With these insights we explain why contact tracing was and will be effective for control of smallpox and SARS, only partially effective for foot-and-mouth disease, and likely not effective for influenza.Methods and findingsWe investigate contact tracing in a model of an emerging epidemic that is flexible enough to use for most infections. We consider isolation of symptomatic infecteds as the basic scenario, and express effectiveness as the proportion of contacts that need to be traced for a reproduction ratio smaller than 1. We obtain general results for special cases, which are interpreted with respect to the likely success of tracing for influenza, smallpox, SARS, and foot-and-mouth disease epidemics.ConclusionsWe conclude that (1) there is no general predictive formula for the proportion to be traced as there is for the proportion to be vaccinated; (2) variability in time to detection is favourable for effective tracing; (3) tracing effectiveness need not be sensitive to the duration of the latent period and tracing delays; (4) iterative tracing primarily improves effectiveness when single-step tracing is on the brink of being effective.
| S-EPMC1762362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While Digital contact tracing (DCT) has been argued to be a valuable complement to manual tracing in the containment of COVID-19, no empirical evidence of its effectiveness is available to date. Here, we report the results of a 4-week population-based controlled experiment that took place in La Gomera (Canary Islands, Spain) between June and July 2020, where we assessed the epidemiological impact of the Spanish DCT app Radar Covid. After a substantial communication campaign, we estimate that at least 33% of the population adopted the technology and further showed relatively high adherence and compliance as well as a quick turnaround time. The app detects about 6.3 close-contacts per primary simulated infection, a significant percentage being contacts with strangers, although the spontaneous follow-up rate of these notified cases is low. Overall, these results provide experimental evidence of the potential usefulness of DCT during an epidemic outbreak in a real population.
| S-EPMC7838392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Contact tracing is currently one of the most effective measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to identify persons that would otherwise not be known or remembered and to keep the time delay when reporting an infection and when contacting people as short as possible, digital contact tracing using smartphones seems to be a reasonable measure additional to manual contact tracing. Although first modelling studies predicted a positive effect in terms of prompt contact tracing, no empirically reliable data are as yet available, neither on the population-wide benefit nor on the potential risks of contact tracing apps. Risk-benefit assessment of such an app includes investigating whether such an app fulfils its purpose, as also research on the effectiveness, risks and side effects, and implementation processes (e.?g. planning and inclusion of different participants). The aim of this article was to give an overview of possible public health benefits as well as technical, social, legal and ethical aspects of a contact-tracing app in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, conditions for the widest possible use of the app are presented.
| S-EPMC7536383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Contact tracing is one of the oldest social network health interventions used to reduce the diffusion of various infectious diseases. However, some infectious diseases like COVID-19 amass at such a great scope that traditional methods of conducting contact tracing (e.g., face-to-face interviews) remain difficult to implement, pointing to the need to develop reliable and valid survey approaches. The purpose of this research is to test the effectiveness of three different egocentric survey methods for extracting contact tracing data: (1) a baseline approach, (2) a retrieval cue approach, and (3) a context-based approach. A sample of 397 college students were randomized into one condition each. They were prompted to anonymously provide contacts and populated places visited from the past four days depending on what condition they were given. After controlling for various demographic, social identity, psychological, and physiological variables, participants in the context-based condition were significantly more likely to recall more contacts (medium effect size) and places (large effect size) than the other two conditions. Theoretically, the research supports suggestions by field theory that assume network recall can be significantly improved by activating relevant activity foci. Practically, the research contributes to the development of innovative social network data collection methods for contract tracing survey instruments.
| S-EPMC7916034 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSmartphone-based contact tracing apps can contribute to reducing COVID-19 transmission rates and thereby support countries emerging from lockdowns as restrictions are gradually eased.ObjectiveThe primary objective of our study is to determine the potential uptake of a contact tracing app in the Dutch population, depending on the characteristics of the app.MethodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted in a nationally representative sample of 900 Dutch respondents. Simulated maximum likelihood methods were used to estimate population average and individual-level preferences using a mixed logit model specification. Individual-level uptake probabilities were calculated based on the individual-level preference estimates and subsequently aggregated into the sample as well as subgroup-specific contact tracing app adoption rates.ResultsThe predicted app adoption rates ranged from 59.3% to 65.7% for the worst and best possible contact tracing app, respectively. The most realistic contact tracing app had a predicted adoption of 64.1%. The predicted adoption rates strongly varied by age group. For example, the adoption rates of the most realistic app ranged from 45.6% to 79.4% for people in the oldest and youngest age groups (ie, ≥75 years vs 15-34 years), respectively. Educational attainment, the presence of serious underlying health conditions, and the respondents' stance on COVID-19 infection risks were also correlated with the predicted adoption rates but to a lesser extent.ConclusionsA secure and privacy-respecting contact tracing app with the most realistic characteristics can obtain an adoption rate as high as 64% in the Netherlands. This exceeds the target uptake of 60% that has been formulated by the Dutch government. The main challenge will be to increase the uptake among older adults, who are least inclined to install and use a COVID-19 contact tracing app.
| S-EPMC7584977 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8847088 | biostudies-literature