ArticleBMC public health2024
Evaluating completion rates of COVID-19 contact tracing surveys in New York City.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceContact tracing is the process of identifying people who have recently been in contact with someone diagnosed with an infectious disease. During an outbreak, data collected from contact tracing can inform interventions to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Understanding factors associated with completion rates of contact tracing surveys can help design improved interview protocols for ongoing and future programs.
objectiveTo identify factors associated with completion rates of COVID-19 contact tracing surveys in New York City (NYC) and evaluate the utility of a predictive model to improve completion rates, we analyze laboratory-confirmed and probable COVID-19 cases and their self-reported contacts in NYC from October 1st 2020 to May 10th 2021.
methodsWe analyzed 742,807 case investigation calls made during the study period. Using a log-binomial regression model, we examined the impact of age, time of day of phone call, and zip code-level demographic and socioeconomic factors on interview completion rates. We further developed a random forest model to predict the best phone call time and performed a counterfactual analysis to evaluate the change of completion rates if the predicative model were used.
resultsThe percentage of contact tracing surveys that were completed was 79.4%, with substantial variations across ZIP code areas. Using a log-binomial regression model, we found that the age of index case (an individual who has tested positive through PCR or antigen testing and is thus subjected to a case investigation) had a significant effect on the completion of case investigation - compared with young adults (the reference group,24 years old < age < = 65 years old), the completion rate for seniors (age > 65 years old) were lower by 12.1% (95%CI: 11.1% - 13.3%), and the completion rate for youth group (age < = 24 years old) were lower by 1.6% (95%CI: 0.6% -2.6%). In addition, phone calls made from 6 to 9 pm had a 4.1% (95% CI: 1.8% - 6.3%) higher completion rate compared with the reference group of phone calls attempted from 12 and 3 pm. We further used a random forest algorithm to assess its potential utility for selecting the time of day of phone call. In counterfactual simulations, the overall completion rate in NYC was marginally improved by 1.2%; however, certain ZIP code areas had improvements up to 7.8%.
conclusionThese findings suggest that age and time of day of phone call were associated with completion rates of case investigations. It is possible to develop predictive models to estimate better phone call time for improving completion rates in certain communities.
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.