Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39358817›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2024

CONTACT: a non-randomised feasibility study of bluetooth-enabled wearables for contact tracing in UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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, Baines Wing, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. c.a.thompson@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9369-1204
Thomas WillisLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Amanda FarrinLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Adam GordonAcademic Centre for Healthy Ageing, Queen Mary University, London, E1 2AD, UK.
Amrit Dafu-O'ReillySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Baines Wing, Leeds, LS2 9JT, 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.
Andrew KempSchool of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds, UK.
Tom HallSouth Tyneside Council, South Shields, NE33 2RL, UK.
Chris BojkeSchool of Medicine, Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Karen SpilsburySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Baines Wing, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.

Funding

Health Technology Assessment Programme NIHR132197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe need for effective non-pharmaceutical infection prevention measures such as contact tracing in pandemics remains in care homes, but traditional approaches to contact tracing are not feasible in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduces Bluetooth-enabled wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a potential solution for automated contact tracing. Using structured reports and reports triggered by positive COVID-19 cases in homes, we fed contact patterns and trends back to homes to support better-informed infection prevention decisions and reduce blanket application of restrictive measures. This paper reports on the evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention prior to a planned definitive cluster randomised trial of the CONTACT BLE wearable intervention.

methodsCONTACT was a non-randomised mixed-method feasibility study over 2 months in four English care homes. Recruitment was via care home research networks, with individual consent. Data collection methods included routine data from the devices, case report forms, qualitative interviews (with staff and residents), field observation of care, and an adapted version of the NoMaD survey instrument to explore implementation using Normalisation Process Theory. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using a framework approach and Normalisation Process Theory. Intervention and study delivery were evaluated against predefined progression criteria.

resultsOf 156 eligible residents, 105 agreed to wear a device, with 102 (97%) starting the intervention. Of 225 eligible staff, 82% (n = 178) participated. Device loss and damage were significant: 11% of resident devices were lost or damaged, ~ 50% were replaced. Staff lost fewer devices, just 6%, but less than 10% were replaced. Fob wearables needed more battery changes than card-type devices (15% vs. 0%). Structured and reactive feedback was variably understood by homes but unlikely to be acted on. Researcher support for interpreting reports was valued. Homes found information useful when it confirmed rather than challenged preconceived contact patterns. Staff privacy concerns were a barrier to adoption. Study procedures added to existing work, making participation burdensome. Study participation benefits did not outweigh perceived burden and were amplified by the pandemic context. CONTACT did not meet its quantitative or qualitative progression criteria.

conclusionCONTACT found a large-scale definitive trial of BLE wearables for contact tracing and feedback-informed IPC in care homes unfeasible and unacceptable - at least in the context of shifting COVID-19 pandemic demands. Future research should co-design interventions and studies with care homes, focusing on successful intervention implementation as well as technical effectiveness.

trial registrationISRCTN registration: 11204126 registered 17/02/2021.

Indexed as

Bluetooth-enabled wearablesCare homesComplex interventionsCOVID-19Digital contact tracingFeasibilityLong-term care

Identifiers

PMID39358817
PMCPMC11445870

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.