ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
Application of COVIDTracer to Inform Public Health Workforce Planning in Alaska During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused social and economic disruption worldwide and spurred numerous mitigation strategies, including state investments in training a large contact tracing and case investigation workforce. A team at the University of Alaska Anchorage evaluated implementation of the COVID-19 contact tracing and case investigation program of the State of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, Section of Public Health Nursing. As part of that evaluation, the team used COVIDTracer, a spreadsheet modeling tool. COVIDTracer generated projections of COVID-19 case counts that informed estimates of workforce needs and case prioritization strategies. Case count projections approximated the reported epidemiologic curve with a median 7% difference in the first month. The accuracy of case count predictions declined after 1 month with a median difference of 80% in the second month. COVIDTracer inputs included previous case counts, the average length of time for telephone calls to cases and outreach to identified contacts, and the average number of contacts per case. As each variable increased, so too did estimated workforce needs. Decreasing the average time from exposure to outreach from 10 to 5 days reduced case counts estimated by COVIDTracer by approximately 93% during a 5-month period. COVIDTracer estimates informed Alaska's workforce planning and decisions about prioritizing case investigation during the pandemic. Lessons learned included the importance of being able to rapidly scale up and scale down workforce to adjust to a dynamic crisis and the limitations of prediction modeling (eg, that COVIDTracer was accurate for only about 1 month into the future). These findings may be useful for future pandemic preparedness planning and other public health emergency response activities.
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.