Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25423343›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Comparison of contact patterns relevant for transmission of respiratory pathogens in Thailand and The Netherlands using respondent-driven sampling.

Mart L Stein, Jim E van Steenbergen, Vincent Buskens, Peter G M van der Heijden, Charnchudhi Chanyasanha, Mathuros Tipayamongkholgul, Anna E Thorson, Linus Bengtsson, Xin Lu, Mirjam E E Kretzschmar

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Contact Mixing Patterns and Population Movement among Migrant Workers in an Urban Setting in Thailand.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Observational
  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

10 authors.

Mart L SteinJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Jim E van SteenbergenCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Centre for Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Vincent BuskensFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter G M van der HeijdenFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Southampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Charnchudhi ChanyasanhaDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mathuros TipayamongkholgulDepartment of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Anna E ThorsonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Linus BengtssonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Flowminder Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden.
Xin LuDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; College of Information System and Management, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China; Flowminder Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mirjam E E KretzschmarJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding infection dynamics of respiratory diseases requires the identification and quantification of behavioural, social and environmental factors that permit the transmission of these infections between humans. Little empirical information is available about contact patterns within real-world social networks, let alone on differences in these contact networks between populations that differ considerably on a socio-cultural level. Here we compared contact network data that were collected in The Netherlands and Thailand using a similar online respondent-driven method. By asking participants to recruit contact persons we studied network links relevant for the transmission of respiratory infections. We studied correlations between recruiter and recruited contacts to investigate mixing patterns in the observed social network components. In both countries, mixing patterns were assortative by demographic variables and random by total numbers of contacts. However, in Thailand participants reported overall more contacts which resulted in higher effective contact rates. Our findings provide new insights on numbers of contacts and mixing patterns in two different populations. These data could be used to improve parameterisation of mathematical models used to design control strategies. Although the spread of infections through populations depends on more factors, found similarities suggest that spread may be similar in The Netherlands and Thailand.

Indexed as

Contact TracingHumansNetherlandsRespiratory Tract InfectionsThailand

Identifiers

PMID25423343
PMCPMC4244136

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.