Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26525046›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2015

Social encounter profiles of greater Melbourne residents, by location--a telephone survey.

David A Rolls, Nicholas L Geard, Deborah J Warr, Paula M Nathan, Garry L Robins, Philippa E Pattison, James M McCaw, Jodie McVernon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David A RollsMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. drolls@unimelb.edu.au.
Nicholas L GeardModelling and Simulation Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. nicholas.geard@unimelb.edu.au.
Deborah J WarrMcCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. djwarr@unimelb.edu.au.
Paula M NathanModelling and Simulation Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. pmnathan@unimelb.edu.au.
Garry L RobinsMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. garrylr@unimelb.edu.au.
Philippa E PattisonMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. pepatt@unimelb.edu.au.
James M McCawModelling and Simulation Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. jamesm@unimelb.edu.au.
Jodie McVernonModelling and Simulation Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. j.mcvernon@unimelb.edu.au.
University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModels of infectious disease increasingly seek to incorporate heterogeneity of social interactions to more accurately characterise disease spread. We measured attributes of social encounters in two areas of Greater Melbourne, using a telephone survey.

methodsA market research company conducted computer assisted telephone interviews (CATIs) of residents of the Boroondara and Hume local government areas (LGAs), which differ markedly in ethnic composition, age distribution and household socioeconomic status. Survey items included household demographic and socio-economic characteristics, locations visited during the preceding day, and social encounters involving two-way conversation or physical contact. Descriptive summary measures were reported and compared using weight adjusted Wald tests of group means.

resultsThe overall response rate was 37.6%, higher in Boroondara [n = 650, (46%)] than Hume [n = 657 (32%)]. Survey conduct through the CATI format was challenging, with implications for representativeness and data quality. Marked heterogeneity of encounter profiles was observed across age groups and locations. Household settings afforded greatest opportunity for prolonged close contact, particularly between women and children. Young and middle-aged men reported more age-assortative mixing, often with non-household members. Preliminary comparisons between LGAs suggested that mixing occurred in different settings. In addition, gender differences in mixing with household and non-household members, including strangers, were observed by area.

conclusionsSurvey administration by CATI was challenging, but rich data were obtained, revealing marked heterogeneity of social behaviour. Marked dissimilarities in patterns of prolonged close mixing were demonstrated by gender. In addition, preliminary observations of between-area differences in socialisation warrant further evaluation.

Indexed as

Social BehaviorSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedAge DistributionAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolCommunicable DiseasesEthnicityFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26525046
PMCPMC4631075
OpenAlexW1893852201

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.