Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37415096›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Longitudinal social contact data analysis: insights from 2 years of data collection in Belgium during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Neilshan Loedy, Pietro Coletti, James Wambua, Lisa Hermans, Lander Willem, Christopher I Jarvis, Kerry L M Wong, W John Edmunds, Alexis Robert, Quentin J Leclerc and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Neilshan LoedyData Science Institute, I-BioStat, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium. neilshan.loedy@uhasselt.be.
Pietro ColettiData Science Institute, I-BioStat, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
James WambuaData Science Institute, I-BioStat, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Lisa HermansData Science Institute, I-BioStat, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Lander WillemCentre for Health Economics Research and Modelling Infectious Diseases, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Christopher I JarvisCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Kerry L M WongCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
W John EdmundsCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Alexis RobertCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Quentin J LeclercCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Amy GimmaCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Geert MolenberghsData Science Institute, I-BioStat, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Philippe BeutelsCentre for Health Economics Research and Modelling Infectious Diseases, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Christel FaesData Science Institute, I-BioStat, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Niel HensData Science Institute, I-BioStat, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Hasselt University · BELondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBInstitut Pasteur · FRKU Leuven · BEUniversity of Antwerp · BEUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

European Research Council 682540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the CoMix study, a longitudinal behavioral survey, was designed to monitor social contacts and public awareness in multiple countries, including Belgium. As a longitudinal survey, it is vulnerable to participants' "survey fatigue", which may impact inferences.

methodsA negative binomial generalized additive model for location, scale, and shape (NBI GAMLSS) was adopted to estimate the number of contacts reported between age groups and to deal with under-reporting due to fatigue within the study. The dropout process was analyzed with first-order auto-regressive logistic regression to identify factors that influence dropout. Using the so-called next generation principle, we calculated the effect of under-reporting due to fatigue on estimating the reproduction number.

resultsFewer contacts were reported as people participated longer in the survey, which suggests under-reporting due to survey fatigue. Participant dropout is significantly affected by household size and age categories, but not significantly affected by the number of contacts reported in any of the two latest waves. This indicates covariate-dependent missing completely at random (MCAR) in the dropout pattern, when missing at random (MAR) is the alternative. However, we cannot rule out more complex mechanisms such as missing not at random (MNAR). Moreover, under-reporting due to fatigue is found to be consistent over time and implies a 15-30% reduction in both the number of contacts and the reproduction number ([Formula: see text]) ratio between correcting and not correcting for under-reporting. Lastly, we found that correcting for fatigue did not change the pattern of relative incidence between age groups also when considering age-specific heterogeneity in susceptibility and infectivity.

conclusionsCoMix data highlights the variability of contact patterns across age groups and time, revealing the mechanisms governing the spread/transmission of COVID-19/airborne diseases in the population. Although such longitudinal contact surveys are prone to the under-reporting due to participant fatigue and drop-out, we showed that these factors can be identified and corrected using NBI GAMLSS. This information can be used to improve the design of similar, future surveys.

Indexed as

COVID-19BelgiumHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesBias assessmentCOVID-19SARS-CoV-2Social contact dataSurvey fatigueUnder-reporting

Identifiers

PMID37415096
PMCPMC10326964
OpenAlexW4383374361

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.