MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320806913 · doi:10.2196/42678

COVID-19 Contact Tracing Strategies During the First Wave of the Pandemic: Systematic Review of Published Studies

2023· review· en· W4320806913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Maria Vincenza Amicosante, Annalisa Rosso, Fabio Bernardini, Elisa Guglielmi, Erica Eugeni, Filippo Da Re, Giovanni Baglìo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCOVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRegione del VenetoMinistero della Salute
KeywordsContact tracingPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public healthPsychological interventionMedicineComputer scienceMedical emergencyData sciencePathologyNursingInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Contact tracing (CT) represented one of the core activities for the prevention and control of COVID-19 in the early phase of the pandemic. Several guidance documents were developed by international public health agencies and national authorities on the organization of COVID-19 CT activities. While most research on CT focused on the use digital tools or relied on modelling techniques to estimate the efficacy of interventions, poor evidence is available on the real-world implementation of CT strategies and on the organizational models adopted during the initial phase of the emergency to set up CT activities. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to provide a comprehensive picture of the organizational aspects of CT activities during the first wave of the pandemic through the systematic identification and description of CT strategies used in different settings during the period from March to June 2020. METHODS: A systematic review of published studies describing organizational models of COVID-19 CT strategies developed in real-world settings was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. Studies not providing a description of the organizational aspects of CT strategies and studies reporting or modelling theoretical strategies or focusing on the description of digital technologies' properties were excluded. Quality of reporting was assessed by using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist for Population Health and Policy. We developed a narrative synthesis, using a conceptual framework to map the extracted studies broken down by target population. RESULTS: We retrieved a total of 1638 studies, of which 17 were included in the narrative synthesis; 7 studies targeted the general population and 10 studies described CT activities carried out in specific population subgroups. Our review identified some common elements across studies used to develop CT activities, including decentralization of CT activities, involvement of trained nonpublic health resources (eg, university students or civil servants), use of informatics tools for CT management, interagency collaboration, and community engagement. CT strategies implemented in the workplace envisaged a strong collaboration with occupational health services. Outreach activities were shown to increase CT efficiency in susceptible groups, such as people experiencing homelessness. Data on the effectiveness of CT strategies are scarce, with only few studies reporting on key performance indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of systematically collected data on CT effectiveness, our findings can provide some indication for the future planning and development of CT strategies for infectious disease control, mainly in terms of coordination mechanisms and the use of human and technical resources needed for the rapid development of CT activities. Further research on the organizational models of CT strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic would be required to contribute to a more robust evidence-making process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicCOVID-19 Digital Contact TracingFrench-language works237,207