Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(Supplement_2): S334-S337, 2022 Oct 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2051354

ABSTRACT

Vermont contact tracing consistently identified people at risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the prevalence ratio (PR) of COVID-19 among contacts compared with noncontacts when viral transmission was high (PR, 13.5 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 13.2-13.9]) was significantly less than when transmission was low (PR, 49.3 [95% CI, 43.2-56.3]).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Contact Tracing , Humans , Vermont
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(3): e224042, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1763161

ABSTRACT

Importance: Evidence of the impact of COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing (CICT) programs is lacking, but policy makers need this evidence to assess the value of such programs. Objective: To estimate COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations averted nationwide by US states' CICT programs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical model study used combined data from US CICT programs (eg, proportion of cases interviewed, contacts notified or monitored, and days to case and contact notification) with incidence data to model outcomes of CICT over a 60-day period (November 25, 2020, to January 23, 2021). The study estimated a range of outcomes by varying assumed compliance with isolation and quarantine recommendations. Fifty-nine state and territorial health departments that received federal funding supporting COVID-19 pandemic response activities were eligible for inclusion. Data analysis was performed from July to September 2021. Exposure: Public health case investigation and contact tracing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were numbers of cases and hospitalizations averted and the percentage of cases averted among cases not prevented by vaccination and other nonpharmaceutical interventions. Results: In total, 22 states and 1 territory reported all measures necessary for the analysis. These 23 jurisdictions covered 42.5% of the US population (approximately 140 million persons), spanned all 4 US Census regions, and reported data that reflected all 59 federally funded CICT programs. This study estimated that 1.11 million cases and 27 231 hospitalizations were averted by CICT programs under a scenario where 80% of interviewed cases and monitored contacts and 30% of notified contacts fully complied with isolation and quarantine guidance, eliminating their contributions to future transmission. As many as 1.36 million cases and 33 527 hospitalizations could have been prevented if all interviewed cases and monitored contacts had entered into and fully complied with isolation and quarantine guidelines upon being interviewed or notified. Across both scenarios and all jurisdictions, CICT averted an estimated median of 21.2% (range, 1.3%-65.8%) of the cases not prevented by vaccination and other nonpharmaceutical interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that CICT programs likely had a substantial role in curtailing the pandemic in most jurisdictions during the 2020 to 2021 winter peak. Differences in outcomes across jurisdictions indicate an opportunity to further improve CICT effectiveness. These estimates demonstrate the potential benefits from sustaining and improving these programs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Contact Tracing , Hospitalization , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control
3.
Front Public Health ; 9: 782296, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1572344

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Case investigation and contact tracing are important tools to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, particularly when implemented efficiently. Our objective was to evaluate participation in and timeliness of COVID-19 contact tracing and whether these measures changed over time. Methods: We retrospectively assessed COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing surveillance data from the Washington State centralized program for August 1-31, 2020 and October 1-31, 2020. We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing reports with contact tracing data to compare completeness, reporting of contacts, and program timeliness. Results: For August and October respectively, 4,600 (of 12,521) and 2,166 (of 16,269) individuals with COVID-19 were referred to the state program for case investigation. Investigators called 100% of referred individuals; 65% (August) and 76% (October) were interviewed. Of individuals interviewed, 33% reported contacts in August and 45% in October, with only mild variation by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. In August, 992 individuals with COVID-19 reported a total of 2,584 contacts (mean, 2.6), and in October, 739 individuals reported 2,218 contacts (mean, 3.0). Among contacts, 86% and 78% participated in interviews for August and October. The median time elapsed from specimen collection to contact interview was 4 days in August and 3 days in October, and from symptom onset to contact interview was 7 days in August and 6 days in October. Conclusions: While contact tracing improved with time, the proportion of individuals disclosing contacts remained below 50% and differed minimally by demographic characteristics. The longest time interval occurred between symptom onset and test result notification. Improving elicitation of contacts and timeliness of contact tracing may further decrease SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Contact Tracing , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Washington/epidemiology
4.
J Public Health Manag Pract ; 28(1): 16-24, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526222

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: The implementation of case investigation and contact tracing (CICT) for controlling COVID-19 (caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus) has proven challenging due to varying levels of public acceptance and initially constrained resources, especially enough trained staff. Evaluating the impacts of CICT will aid efforts to improve such programs. OBJECTIVES: Estimate the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations averted by CICT and identify CICT processes that could improve overall effectiveness. DESIGN: We used data on the proportion of cases interviewed, contacts notified or monitored, and days from testing to case and contact notification from 14 jurisdictions to model the impact of CICT on cumulative case counts and hospitalizations over a 60-day period. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVIDTracer Advanced tool, we estimated a range of impacts by assuming either contacts would quarantine only if monitored or would do so upon notification of potential exposure. We also varied the observed program metrics to assess their relative influence. RESULTS: Performance by jurisdictions varied widely. Jurisdictions isolated between 12% and 86% of cases (including contacts that became cases) within 6 to 10 days after infection. We estimated that CICT-related reductions in transmission ranged from 0.4% to 32%. For every 100 remaining cases after other nonpharmaceutical interventions were implemented, CICT averted between 4 and 97 additional cases. Reducing time to case isolation by 1 day increased averted case estimates by up to 15 percentage points. Increasing the proportion of cases interviewed or contacts notified by 20 percentage points each resulted in at most 3 or 6 percentage point improvements in averted cases. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated that CICT reduced the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations among all jurisdictions studied. Reducing time to isolation produced the greatest improvements in impact of CICT.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Contact Tracing , Hospitalization , Humans , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
5.
Public Health Pract (Oxf) ; 2: 100170, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331169

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantify the proportion of contacts reported by persons with COVID-19 through a short message service (SMS)-linked survey in comparison to the proportion of contacts reported during a follow-up phone-interview. We also sought to assess improvement in contact tracing timeliness associated with sending SMS-linked surveys. STUDY DESIGN: During December 4-15, 2020, persons identified as COVID-19 cases whose data was entered into Marin County's contact tracing database on even days received a SMS-linked survey and persons whose data was entered on odd days did not; all were called for case investigation and contact tracing. Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare demographic data. Chi-square test was used to contrast categorical outcomes, and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: Among 350 SMS-linked survey recipients, 85 (24%) responded and 4 (1%) reported contacts using the survey; an additional 303 contacts were reported during phone interviews. Without phone interviews, 99% of reported contacts would have been missed. There was no meaningful difference between study arms in the proportion of contacts notified within 48 h. CONCLUSIONS: This SMS-linked survey had low participation and was not useful for identifying contacts. Phone interviews remained crucial for COVID-19 contact tracing.

6.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(6): e2115850, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1251884

ABSTRACT

Importance: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. Objective: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. Results: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Contact Tracing , Public Health , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Contact Tracing/statistics & numerical data , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disclosure/statistics & numerical data , Health Services, Indigenous , Humans , Incidence , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Telephone , United States/epidemiology
7.
J Community Health ; 46(5): 918-921, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1125316

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate participation in COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing in central Washington State between June 15 and July 12, 2020. METHODS: In this retrospective observational evaluation we combined SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen test reports from the Washington Disease Reporting System with community case investigation and contact tracing data for 3 health districts (comprising 5 counties) in central Washington State. All 3 health districts have large Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19. RESULTS: Investigators attempted to call all referred individuals with COVID-19 (n = 4,987); 71% were interviewed. Of those asked about close contacts (n = 3,572), 68% reported having no close contacts, with similar proportions across ethnicity, sex, and age group. The 968 individuals with COVID-19 who named specific contacts (27% of those asked) reported a total of 2,293 contacts (mean of 2.4 contacts per individual with COVID-19); 85% of listed contacts participated in an interview. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with COVID-19 reported having no close contacts. Increasing community engagement and public messaging, as well as understanding and addressing barriers to participation, are crucial for CICT to contribute meaningfully to controlling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Community Participation , Contact Tracing/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Program Evaluation , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Washington/epidemiology
8.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(38): 1360-1363, 2020 Sep 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-792612

ABSTRACT

Contact tracing is a strategy implemented to minimize the spread of communicable diseases (1,2). Prompt contact tracing, testing, and self-quarantine can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (3,4). Community engagement is important to encourage participation in and cooperation with SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing (5). Substantial investments have been made to scale up contact tracing for COVID-19 in the United States. During June 1-July 12, 2020, the incidence of COVID-19 cases in North Carolina increased 183%, from seven to 19 per 100,000 persons per day* (6). To assess local COVID-19 contact tracing implementation, data from two counties in North Carolina were analyzed during a period of high incidence. Health department staff members investigated 5,514 (77%) persons with COVID-19 in Mecklenburg County and 584 (99%) in Randolph Counties. No contacts were reported for 48% of cases in Mecklenburg and for 35% in Randolph. Among contacts provided, 25% in Mecklenburg and 48% in Randolph could not be reached by telephone and were classified as nonresponsive after at least one attempt on 3 consecutive days of failed attempts. The median interval from specimen collection from the index patient to notification of identified contacts was 6 days in both counties. Despite aggressive efforts by health department staff members to perform case investigations and contact tracing, many persons with COVID-19 did not report contacts, and many contacts were not reached. These findings indicate that improved timeliness of contact tracing, community engagement, and increased use of community-wide mitigation are needed to interrupt SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
Contact Tracing/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , COVID-19 , Humans , Incidence , North Carolina/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL