ArticleBMC public health2025
Belgium's SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing effectively curbed transmission, yet challenges persist in terms of delays, scalability and population adherence.
Article in BMC 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThrough contact tracing, researchers could reconstruct chains of linked cases by linking High-Risk Exposure Contacts (HREC) testing positive to their index case. We present chain-level descriptives, delays and an individual-level analysis of the events that determine chain progression.
methodsWe used data from contact tracing outside of collectivities between September 2020 and March 2022 in Belgium. We present chain-level generation counts and structure. The individual-level analysis focusses on the events necessary to establish transmission chains from index cases: inclusion, successful contact with the call center, reporting HREC, identifying HREC and testing of HREC. We adjusted for age, sex, household, calendar time, region, vaccination, laboratory-confirmed prior infection, viral load, symptoms and the place in the transmission chain: we differentiated Cases Identified As HREC (CIAH, index cases that had been identified as HREC of another index case) from primary cases.
resultsThe percentage of CIAH over all cases was 14% and most CIAH (63%) were household-members of the index case. Unsuccessful contact of cases (34% of all index cases) and reporting no HREC (53% of successfully contacted index cases) ended most chains. Among identified HREC, 75% had at least one test result. Persons age 65 and over were less likely successfully contacted (OR 0.59 (95%CI 0.58–0.59)), reporting HREC (OR 0.55 (95%CI 0.54–0.56)) or tested as HREC (OR 0.87 (95%CI 0.85–0.89), reference 25–44 year old). Compared to primary cases, CIAH were associated with less HREC and lower HREC test positivity. Delays however were comparable. The delay from symptom-onset to test result exceeded 4 days for 29% of CIAH.
conclusionsWhile contact tracing effectively reduced transmission within identified chains, over 80% of cases remained unlinked due to, amongst others, contact failures and non-reporting of HREC. Future efforts would benefit from operational improvements and enhanced population participation.
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.