Cargando…
COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better
BACKGROUND: When conducting COVID-19 contact tracing, pre-defined criteria allow differentiating high-risk contacts (HRC) from low-risk contacts (LRC). Our study aimed to evaluate whether contact tracers in Belgium followed these criteria in practice and whether their deviations improved the infecti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10623756/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37924055 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16911-1 |
_version_ | 1785130802490638336 |
---|---|
author | Kieltyka, Jerome Ghattas, Jinane Ruppol, Sandrine Nicaise, Pablo Raymenants, Joren Speybroeck, Niko |
author_facet | Kieltyka, Jerome Ghattas, Jinane Ruppol, Sandrine Nicaise, Pablo Raymenants, Joren Speybroeck, Niko |
author_sort | Kieltyka, Jerome |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: When conducting COVID-19 contact tracing, pre-defined criteria allow differentiating high-risk contacts (HRC) from low-risk contacts (LRC). Our study aimed to evaluate whether contact tracers in Belgium followed these criteria in practice and whether their deviations improved the infection risk assessment. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Belgium, through an anonymous online survey, sent to 111,763 workers by email. First, we evaluated the concordance between the guideline-based classification of HRC or LRC and the tracer’s classification. We computed positive and negative agreements between both. Second, we used a multivariate Poisson regression to calculate the risk ratio (RR) of testing positive depending on the risk classification by the contact tracer and by the guideline-based risk classification. RESULTS: For our first research question, we included 1105 participants. The positive agreement between the guideline-based classification in HRC or LRC and the tracer’s classification was 0.53 (95% CI 0.49–0.57) and the negative agreement 0.70 (95% CI: 0.67–0.72). The type of contact tracer (occupational doctors, internal tracer, general practitioner, other) did not significantly influence the results. For the second research question, we included 589 participants. The RR of testing positive after an HRC compared to an LRC was 3.10 (95% CI: 2.71–3.56) when classified by the contact tracer and 2.24 (95% CI: 1.94–2.60) when classified by the guideline-based criteria. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that contact tracers did not apply pre-defined criteria for classifying high and low risk contacts. Risk stratification by contact tracers predicts who is at risk of infection better than guidelines only. This result indicates that a knowledgeable tracer can target testing better than a general guideline, asking for a debate on how to adapt the guidelines. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-023-16911-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10623756 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106237562023-11-04 COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better Kieltyka, Jerome Ghattas, Jinane Ruppol, Sandrine Nicaise, Pablo Raymenants, Joren Speybroeck, Niko BMC Public Health Research BACKGROUND: When conducting COVID-19 contact tracing, pre-defined criteria allow differentiating high-risk contacts (HRC) from low-risk contacts (LRC). Our study aimed to evaluate whether contact tracers in Belgium followed these criteria in practice and whether their deviations improved the infection risk assessment. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Belgium, through an anonymous online survey, sent to 111,763 workers by email. First, we evaluated the concordance between the guideline-based classification of HRC or LRC and the tracer’s classification. We computed positive and negative agreements between both. Second, we used a multivariate Poisson regression to calculate the risk ratio (RR) of testing positive depending on the risk classification by the contact tracer and by the guideline-based risk classification. RESULTS: For our first research question, we included 1105 participants. The positive agreement between the guideline-based classification in HRC or LRC and the tracer’s classification was 0.53 (95% CI 0.49–0.57) and the negative agreement 0.70 (95% CI: 0.67–0.72). The type of contact tracer (occupational doctors, internal tracer, general practitioner, other) did not significantly influence the results. For the second research question, we included 589 participants. The RR of testing positive after an HRC compared to an LRC was 3.10 (95% CI: 2.71–3.56) when classified by the contact tracer and 2.24 (95% CI: 1.94–2.60) when classified by the guideline-based criteria. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that contact tracers did not apply pre-defined criteria for classifying high and low risk contacts. Risk stratification by contact tracers predicts who is at risk of infection better than guidelines only. This result indicates that a knowledgeable tracer can target testing better than a general guideline, asking for a debate on how to adapt the guidelines. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-023-16911-1. BioMed Central 2023-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10623756/ /pubmed/37924055 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16911-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Kieltyka, Jerome Ghattas, Jinane Ruppol, Sandrine Nicaise, Pablo Raymenants, Joren Speybroeck, Niko COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better |
title | COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better |
title_full | COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better |
title_fullStr | COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better |
title_full_unstemmed | COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better |
title_short | COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better |
title_sort | covid-19 contact tracing at work in belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10623756/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37924055 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16911-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kieltykajerome covid19contacttracingatworkinbelgiumhowtracerstweakguidelinesforthebetter AT ghattasjinane covid19contacttracingatworkinbelgiumhowtracerstweakguidelinesforthebetter AT ruppolsandrine covid19contacttracingatworkinbelgiumhowtracerstweakguidelinesforthebetter AT nicaisepablo covid19contacttracingatworkinbelgiumhowtracerstweakguidelinesforthebetter AT raymenantsjoren covid19contacttracingatworkinbelgiumhowtracerstweakguidelinesforthebetter AT speybroeckniko covid19contacttracingatworkinbelgiumhowtracerstweakguidelinesforthebetter |