ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2024
Time trends and modifiable factors of COVID-19 contact tracing coverage, Geneva, Switzerland, June 2020 to February 2022.
Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundContact tracing was one of the central non-pharmaceutical interventions implemented worldwide to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2, but its effectiveness depends on its ability to detect contacts.AimEvaluate the proportion of secondary infections captured by the contact tracing system in Geneva.MethodsWe analysed 166,892 concomitant infections occurring at the same given address from June 2020 until February 2022 using an extensive operational database of SARS-CoV-2 tests in Geneva. We used permutation to compare the total number of secondary infections occurring at the same address with that reported through manual contact tracing.ResultsContact tracing captured on average 41% of secondary infections, varying from 23% during epidemic peaks to 60% during low epidemic activity. People living in wealthy neighbourhoods were less likely to report contacts (odds ratio (OR): 1.6). People living in apartment buildings were also less likely to report contacts than those living in a house (OR: 1.1-3.1) depending on the SARS-CoV-2 variant, the building size and the presence of shops. This under-reporting of contacts in apartment buildings decreased during periods of mandatory wearing of face masks and restrictions on private gatherings.ConclusionContact tracing alone did not detect sufficient secondary infections to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Campaigns targeting specific populations, such as those in wealthy areas or apartment buildings, could enhance coverage. Additionally, measures like wearing face masks, improving ventilation and implementing restrictions on gatherings should also be considered to reduce infections resulting from interactions that may not be perceived as high risk.
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.