ArticleThe Lancet. Public health2022
Effectiveness evaluation of digital contact tracing for COVID-19 in New South Wales, Australia.
Article in The Lancet. Public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.
- Representation of marginalised populations in digital surveillance for notifiable conditions in Australia: a systematic review.Perspectives in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Infection rate and factors affecting close contacts of COVID-19 cases: A systematic review.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Transforming a Pandemic Tool Into a Public Health Asset: Modified Delphi Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Assessing the Impact of Haulage Drivers in Uganda's COVID-19 Delta Wave.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2025Article
- Quantifying the impact of contact tracing interview prioritisation strategies on disease transmission: A modelling study.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Role of digital technology in epidemic control: a scoping review on COVID-19 and Ebola.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Contact tracing strategies for infectious diseases: A systematic literature review.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Digital Contact Tracing Implementation Among Leaders and Health Care Workers in a Pediatric Hospital During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Improving COVID-19 contact tracing and testing of exposed individuals in Cameroon using digital health technology: a cluster randomised trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Estimating the human bottleneck for contact tracing.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Effects of User Experience in Automated Information Processing on Perceived Usefulness of Digital Contact-Tracing Apps: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Population and contact tracer uptake of New Zealand's QR-code-based digital contact tracing app for COVID-19.Epidemiology and infection · 2024Article
- Examining nurses' understanding and knowledge about preparation for COVID-19 in Ardabil hospitals in Iran.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Time trends and modifiable factors of COVID-19 contact tracing coverage, Geneva, Switzerland, June 2020 to February 2022.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024Article
- The epidemiological impact of digital and manual contact tracing on the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in the Netherlands: Empirical evidence.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Community-Based Digital Contact Tracing of Emerging Infectious Diseases: Design and Implementation Study With Empirical COVID-19 Cases.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Individual level analysis of digital proximity tracing for COVID-19 in Belgium highlights major bottlenecks.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Modernizing the Objectives and Organization of Case Investigation and Contact Tracing for the 21st Century.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2023Article
- Assessing the efficacy of health countermeasures on arrival time of infectious diseases.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2023Article
- Systematic scoping review of the implementation, adoption, use, and effectiveness of digital contact tracing interventions for COVID-19 in the Western Pacific Region.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital proximity tracing apps were rolled out early in the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries to complement conventional contact tracing. Empirical evidence about their benefits for pandemic response remains scarce. We evaluated the effectiveness and usefulness of COVIDSafe, Australia's national smartphone-based proximity tracing app for COVID-19.
methodsIn this prospective study, done in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, we included all individuals in the state who were older than 12 years with confirmed, locally acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection between May 4 and Nov 4, 2020. We used data from the NSW Notifiable Conditions Information Management System, the national COVIDSafe database, and information from case interviews, including information on app usage, the number of app-suggested contacts, and the number of app-suggested contacts determined by public health staff to be actual close contacts. We calculated the positive predictive value and sensitivity of COVIDSafe, its additional contact yield, and the number of averted public exposure events. Semi-structured interviews with public health staff were done to assess the app's perceived usefulness.
findingsThere were 619 confirmed COVID-19 cases with more than 25 300 close contacts identified by conventional contact tracing during the study period. COVIDSafe was used by 137 (22%) cases and detected 205 contacts, 79 (39%) of whom met the close contact definition. Its positive predictive value was therefore 39%. 35 (15%) of the 236 close contacts who could have been expected to have been using the app during the study period were identified by the app, making its estimated sensitivity 15%. 79 (0·3%) of the estimated 25 300 contacts in NSW were app-suggested and met the close contact definition. The app detected 17 (<0·1%) additional close contacts who were not identified by conventional contact tracing. COVIDSafe generated a substantial additional perceived workload for public health staff and was not considered useful.
interpretationThe low uptake of the app among cases probably led to a reduced sensitivity estimate in our study, given that only contacts who were using the app could be detected. COVIDSafe was not sufficiently effective to make a meaningful contribution to the COVID-19 response in Australia's most populous state over a 6 month period. We provide an empirical evaluation of this digital contact tracing app that questions the potential benefits of digital contact tracing apps to the public health response to COVID-19. Effectiveness evaluations should be integrated into future implementations of proximity contact tracing systems to justify their investment.
fundingNew South Wales Ministry of Health (Australia); National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.