Contact tracing indicators for COVID-19: Rapid scoping review and conceptual framework

dc.contributor.authorVogt, Florian
dc.contributor.authorKurup, Karishma Krishna
dc.contributor.authorMussleman, Paul
dc.contributor.authorHabrun, Caroline
dc.contributor.authorCrowe, Madeleine
dc.contributor.authorWoodward, Alexandra
dc.contributor.authorJaramillo-Gutierrez, Giovanna
dc.contributor.authorKaldor, John
dc.contributor.authorVong, Sirenda
dc.contributor.authorVilas, Victor del Rio
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-15T01:42:59Z
dc.date.available2023-05-15T01:42:59Z
dc.date.issued2022-02-28
dc.date.updated2022-03-06T09:05:53Z
dc.description.abstractBackground: Contact tracing is one of the key interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic but its implementation varies widely across countries. There is little guidance on how to monitor contact tracing performance, and no systematic overview of indicators to assess contact tracing systems or conceptual framework for such indicators exists to date. Methods: We conducted a rapid scoping review using a systematic literature search strategy in the peer-reviewed and grey literature as well as open source online documents. We developed a conceptual framework to map indicators by type (input, process, output, outcome, impact) and thematic area (human resources, financial resources, case investigation, contact identification, contact testing, contact follow up, case isolation, contact quarantine, transmission chain interruption, incidence reduction). Results: We identified a total of 153 contact tracing indicators from 1,555 peer-reviewed studies, 894 studies from grey literature sources, and 15 sources from internet searches. Two-thirds of indicators were process indicators (102; 67%), while 48 (31%) indicators were output indicators. Only three (2%) indicators were input indicators. Indicators covered seven out of ten conceptualized thematic areas, with more than half being related to either case investigation (37; 24%) or contact identification (44; 29%). There were no indicators for the input area “financial resources”, the outcome area “transmission chain interruption”, and the impact area “incidence reduction”. Conclusions: Almost all identified indicators were either process or output indicators focusing on case investigation, contact identification, case isolation or contact quarantine. We identified important gaps in input, outcome and impact indicators, which constrains evidence-based assessment of contact tracing systems. A universally agreed set of indicators is needed to allow for cross-system comparisons and to improve the performance of contact tracing systems.en_AU
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/291037
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.provenanceThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.en_AU
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_AU
dc.rights© 2022 Vogt et al.en_AU
dc.rights.licenseCreative Commons Attribution Licenseen_AU
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_AU
dc.sourcePLOS ONEen_AU
dc.titleContact tracing indicators for COVID-19: Rapid scoping review and conceptual frameworken_AU
dc.typeJournal articleen_AU
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Accessen_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.issue2en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpagee0264433-9en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.startpagee0264433-1en_AU
local.description.notesImported from PLOSen_AU
local.identifier.citationvolume17en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0264433en_AU
local.publisher.urlhttps://journals.plos.org/en_AU
local.type.statusPublished Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
journal.pone.0264433.pdf
Size:
577.63 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: