ArticleBMC public health2023
COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. 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
backgroundWhen conducting COVID-19 contact tracing, pre-defined criteria allow differentiating high-risk contacts (HRC) from low-risk contacts (LRC). Our study aimed to evaluate whether contact tracers in Belgium followed these criteria in practice and whether their deviations improved the infection risk assessment.
methodWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in Belgium, through an anonymous online survey, sent to 111,763 workers by email. First, we evaluated the concordance between the guideline-based classification of HRC or LRC and the tracer's classification. We computed positive and negative agreements between both. Second, we used a multivariate Poisson regression to calculate the risk ratio (RR) of testing positive depending on the risk classification by the contact tracer and by the guideline-based risk classification.
resultsFor our first research question, we included 1105 participants. The positive agreement between the guideline-based classification in HRC or LRC and the tracer's classification was 0.53 (95% CI 0.49-0.57) and the negative agreement 0.70 (95% CI: 0.67-0.72). The type of contact tracer (occupational doctors, internal tracer, general practitioner, other) did not significantly influence the results. For the second research question, we included 589 participants. The RR of testing positive after an HRC compared to an LRC was 3.10 (95% CI: 2.71-3.56) when classified by the contact tracer and 2.24 (95% CI: 1.94-2.60) when classified by the guideline-based criteria.
conclusionOur study indicates that contact tracers did not apply pre-defined criteria for classifying high and low risk contacts. Risk stratification by contact tracers predicts who is at risk of infection better than guidelines only. This result indicates that a knowledgeable tracer can target testing better than a general guideline, asking for a debate on how to adapt the guidelines.
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.