Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24612900›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2014

How should social mixing be measured: comparing web-based survey and sensor-based methods.

Timo Smieszek, Victoria C Barclay, Indulaxmi Seeni, Jeanette J Rainey, Hongjiang Gao, Amra Uzicanin, Marcel Salathé

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Digital contact tracing technologies in epidemics: a rapid review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Measuring social networks in primates: wearable sensors versus direct observations.Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Timo SmieszekCenter for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Department of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. timo.smieszek@phe.gov.uk.
Victoria C Barclay
Indulaxmi Seeni
Jeanette J Rainey
Hongjiang Gao
Amra Uzicanin
Marcel Salathé

Funding

NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000178-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContact surveys and diaries have conventionally been used to measure contact networks in different settings for elucidating infectious disease transmission dynamics of respiratory infections. More recently, technological advances have permitted the use of wireless sensor devices, which can be worn by individuals interacting in a particular social context to record high resolution mixing patterns. To date, a direct comparison of these two different methods for collecting contact data has not been performed.

methodsWe studied the contact network at a United States high school in the spring of 2012. All school members (i.e., students, teachers, and other staff) were invited to wear wireless sensor devices for a single school day, and asked to remember and report the name and duration of all of their close proximity conversational contacts for that day in an online contact survey. We compared the two methods in terms of the resulting network densities, nodal degrees, and degree distributions. We also assessed the correspondence between the methods at the dyadic and individual levels.

resultsWe found limited congruence in recorded contact data between the online contact survey and wireless sensors. In particular, there was only negligible correlation between the two methods for nodal degree, and the degree distribution differed substantially between both methods. We found that survey underreporting was a significant source of the difference between the two methods, and that this difference could be improved by excluding individuals who reported only a few contact partners. Additionally, survey reporting was more accurate for contacts of longer duration, and very inaccurate for contacts of shorter duration. Finally, female participants tended to report more accurately than male participants.

conclusionsOnline contact surveys and wireless sensor devices collected incongruent network data from an identical setting. This finding suggests that these two methods cannot be used interchangeably for informing models of infectious disease dynamics.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalSocial BehaviorWireless TechnologyContact TracingData CollectionFacultyFemaleHumansInternetMaleMedical RecordsRespiratory Tract InfectionsSchoolsSocial EnvironmentStudentsTelemetry

Identifiers

PMID24612900
PMCPMC3984737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.