ArticleEuropean journal of public health2025
The influence of case factors and system factors on the timeliness of testing and contact tracing for COVID-19 in The Netherlands.
Article in European journal of public health, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Source and contact tracing (SCT) is essential to control the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and the timeliness of SCT is crucial. As little is known about its real-world effectiveness, we investigated the timeliness of SCT in the Netherlands and its determinants. We used routine COVID-19 SCT data from all individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at nine Dutch public health services between 1 June 2020 and 28 February 2021 (N = 384 591). We calculated median time intervals between SCT stages. We used multilevel logistic regression to study associations between case factors and system factors, and total SCT delay (symptom onset to SCT initiation >3 days), patient delay (symptom onset to making test appointment >1 day), and response delay (making test appointment to SCT initiation >2 days). The median total SCT interval time was 3 days (interquartile range 2-5). Older age and being a migrant had higher odds of delay; working in health care or education had lower odds of delay. A higher caseload and a scaled-down SCT had higher odds of delay. For age and country of birth, stronger associations with patient delay, and weaker associations with response delay were found. Although SCT during the COVID-19 pandemic might have had merits in prompting people to isolate or quarantine before the availability of a vaccine, the observed interval times indicate that SCT was not fast enough to have a large effect on interrupting transmission chains. Although promising, the added value of digital SCT tools remains uncertain.
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.