ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2024
Comparing multiple infection control measures in a nursing home setting: a simulation study.
Article in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the validity and reliability of geotracking devices in urban settings of Nairobi, Kenya.Spatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCompare the effectiveness of multiple mitigation measures designed to protect nursing home residents from infectious disease outbreaks.
designAgent-based simulation study.
settingSimulation environment of a small nursing home.
methodsWe collected temporally detailed and spatially fine-grained location information from nursing home healthcare workers (HCWs) using sensor motes. We used these data to power an agent-based simulation of a COVID-19 outbreak using realistic time-varying estimates of infectivity and diagnostic sensitivity. Under varying community prevalence and transmissibility, we compared the mitigating effects of (i) regular screening and isolation, (ii) inter-resident contact restrictions, (iii) reduced HCW presenteeism, and (iv) modified HCW scheduling.
resultsAcross all configurations tested, screening every other day and isolating positive cases decreased the attack rate by an average of 27% to 0.501 on average, while contact restrictions decreased the attack rate by an average of 35%, resulting in an attack rate of only 0.240, approximately half that of screening/isolation. Combining both interventions impressively produced an attack rate of only 0.029. Halving the observed presenteeism rate led to an 18% decrease in the attack rate, but if combined with screening every 6 days, the effect of reducing presenteeism was negligible. Altering work schedules had negligible effects on the attack rate.
conclusionsUniversal contact restrictions are highly effective for protecting vulnerable nursing home residents, yet adversely affect physical and mental health. In high transmission and/or high community prevalence situations, restricting inter-resident contact to groups of 4 was effective and made highly effective when paired with weekly testing.
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.