Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131863›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2023

Attitudes towards booster, testing and isolation, and their impact on COVID-19 response in winter 2022/2023 in France, Belgium, and Italy: a cross-sectional survey and modelling study.

Giulia de Meijere, Eugenio Valdano, Claudio Castellano, Marion Debin, Charly Kengne-Kuetche, Clément Turbelin, Harold Noël, Joshua S Weitz, Daniela Paolotti, Lisa Hermans and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Giulia de MeijereGran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), L'Aquila, Italy.
Eugenio ValdanoSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP), Paris, France.
Claudio CastellanoIstituto dei Sistemi Complessi (ISC-CNR), Roma, Italy.
Marion DebinSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP), Paris, France.
Charly Kengne-KuetcheSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP), Paris, France.
Clément TurbelinSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP), Paris, France.
Harold NoëlSanté Publique France, Saint-Maurice, France.
Joshua S WeitzSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Daniela PaolottiISI Foundation, Turin, Italy.
Lisa HermansData Science Institute, I-biostat, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Niel HensData Science Institute, I-biostat, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Vittoria ColizzaSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP), Paris, France.
Inserm · FRCentro Ricerche Enrico Fermi · ITGeorgia Institute of Technology · USHasselt University · BEInstitute for Complex Systems · ITInstitute for Scientific Interchange · ITSanté Publique France · FRUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: European countries are focusing on testing, isolation, and boosting strategies to counter the 2022/2023 winter surge due to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants. However, widespread pandemic fatigue and limited compliance potentially undermine mitigation efforts. Methods: To establish a baseline for interventions, we ran a multicountry survey to assess respondents' willingness to receive booster vaccination and comply with testing and isolation mandates. Integrating survey and estimated immunity data in a branching process epidemic spreading model, we evaluated the effectiveness and costs of current protocols in France, Belgium, and Italy to manage the winter wave. Findings: The vast majority of survey participants (N = 4594) was willing to adhere to testing (>91%) and rapid isolation (>88%) across the three countries. Pronounced differences emerged in the declared senior adherence to booster vaccination (73% in France, 94% in Belgium, 86% in Italy). Epidemic model results estimate that testing and isolation protocols would confer significant benefit in reducing transmission (17-24% reduction, from R = 1.6 to R = 1.3 in France and Belgium, to R = 1.2 in Italy) with declared adherence. Achieving a mitigating level similar to the French protocol, the Belgian protocol would require 35% fewer tests (from 1 test to 0.65 test per infected person) and avoid the long isolation periods of the Italian protocol (average of 6 days vs. 11). A cost barrier to test would significantly decrease adherence in France and Belgium, undermining protocols' effectiveness. Interpretation: Simpler mandates for isolation may increase awareness and actual compliance, reducing testing costs, without compromising mitigation. High booster vaccination uptake remains key for the control of the winter wave. Funding: The European Commission, ANRS-Maladies Infectieuses Émergentes, the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, the Chaires Blaise Pascal Program of the Île-de-France region.

Indexed as

AdherenceBoosterIsolationOmicronPublic healthSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37131863
PMCPMC10035813
OpenAlexW4360603387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.