Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38049924›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2023

'Smart' BLE wearables for digital contact tracing in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic-a process evaluation of the CONTACT feasibility study.

Carl A Thompson, Amrit Daffu-O'Reilly, Thomas Willis, Adam Gordon, Catherine Noakes, Kishwer Khaliq, Amanda Farrin, Andrew Kemp, Tom Hall, Chris Bojke and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Carl A ThompsonSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. c.a.thompson@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9369-1204
Amrit Daffu-O'ReillySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Thomas WillisTrials Research, Leeds Institute of Clinical, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Adam GordonDivision of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Catherine NoakesSchool of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Kishwer KhaliqSchool of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Amanda FarrinTrials Research, Leeds Institute of Clinical, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Andrew KempSchool of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Tom HallSouth Tyneside Council, South Shields, NE33 2RL, UK.
Chris BojkeAcademic Unit of Health Economics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Karen SpilsburySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.

Funding

Health Technology Assessment Programme NIHR132197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid and mass transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus amongst vulnerable people led to devastating effects from COVID-19 in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduced Bluetooth Low Energy 'smart' wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a basis for automated contact tracing in, and feedback on infection risks and patterns to, care homes to try and improve infection prevention and control (IPC). We planned a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of CONTACT. To be feasible, homes had to adopt CONTACT's technology and new ways of working. This paper reports on the process evaluation conducted alongside CONTACT's feasibility study and explains why it lacked the feasibility and acceptability for a definitive RCT.

methodsThis mixed method process evaluation used Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) qualitative (interviews, field notes, study case report forms and documents, and observation) and quantitative (survey instruments, counts of activity) data to plan, implement, and analyse the mechanisms, effects, and contextual factors that shaped the feasibility and acceptability of the CONTACT intervention.

resultsThirteen themes within four core NPT constructs explained CONTACT's lack of feasibility. Coherence: the home's varied in the scale and extent of commitment and understanding of the technology and study procedures. Leadership credibility was important but compromised by competing priorities. Management and direct care staff saw CONTACT differently. Work to promote (cognitive participation) and enact (collective action) CONTACT was burdensome and failed to be prioritised over competing COVID-19-related demands on time and scarce human and cognitive resources. Ultimately, staff appraisal of the value of CONTACT-generated information and study procedures (reflexivity) was that any utility for IPC was insufficient to outweigh the perceived burden and complexity involved.

conclusionsDespite implementation failure, dismissing BLE wearables' potential for contact tracing is premature. In non-pandemic conditions, with more time, better co-design and integration of theory-driven implementation strategies tailored to care homes' unique contexts, researchers could enhance normalisation in readiness for future pandemic challenges.

trial registrationISRCTN registration: 11,204,126 registered 17/02/2021.

Indexed as

BLE WearablesCare homesContact tracingCOVID-19DigitalLong-term careNormalisation Process TheoryProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID38049924
PMCPMC10694939

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.