Improving COVID-19 contact tracing and testing of exposed individuals in Cameroon using digital health technology: a cluster randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Contact tracing was described as a key strategy to contribute to controlling the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome of Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) but implementing it can be a challenge. Digitalisation of contact tracing is among the proposed solutions being explored in sub-Saharan African settings. We assessed the effectiveness of a digital tool to expand SARS-CoV-2 testing in exposed individuals in Cameroon. Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomised (1:1) trial in eight health districts, including 22 facilities and SARS-CoV-2 testing units, randomly assigned to a digital (intervention) or standard (control) contact tracing approach. The intervention consisted of a contact tracing module added to the digital platform "Mamal PRO" used for monitoring and coordination of Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic response in Cameroon. The primary outcome was the proportion of contacts declared by SAR-CoV-2 index patients who were successfully traced and tested for SARS-CoV-2 evaluated with a Poisson regression model with cluster adjustment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05684887). Findings: Between October 18, 2022, and March 31, 2023, we enrolled 164 index patients in the intervention arm and 149 in the control arm, who identified 854 and 849 contacts, respectively. In the intervention arm, 93.8% (801/854) of identified contacts were successfully reached by the tracing unit versus 54.5% (463/849) in the control arm. The intervention significantly increased the likelihood of successfully tracing contacts (adjusted relative risks (RR) 1.72 [95% CI: 1.00-2.95], p = 0.049). The median (interquartile range, IQR) time to successfully tracing contacts was 0 days [IQR: 0, 1] in the intervention and 1 day [IQR: 0, 2] in the control arm. In the intervention arm, 21.3% (182/854) of identified contacts received SARS-CoV-2 testing compared to 14.5% (123/849) in the control arm (adjusted RR 1.47 [95% CI: 0.44-4.90], p = 0.530). Interpretation: Digitalising the contact tracing process improved exposure notification and facilitated the tracing of a greater number of contacts of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 in resource-limited settings. Funding: The study was funded by FIND, United Kingdom (FCDO 40105983), Switzerland (81066910), Netherlands (SDD 4000004160), Canada (DFATD 7429348), The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (FIND-ACT-A DX PARTNERSHIP 20.08.2020), The Rockefeller Foundation (2020 HTH 059), Germany (BMZ Covid-19 Diagnostic and Surveillance Response 27.07.2021), Australia (DFAT 76442), Kuwait (M239/2020), The Government of Portugal and Partners (ANF, BCP, CGF, APIFARMA) and The BlackRock Foundation (Grant Agreement as of April 20, 2022).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".