Estimated COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Averted by Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in the US

Rainisch, Gabriel; Jeon, Seonghye; Pappas, Danielle; Spencer, Kimberly D.; Fischer, Leah S.; Adhikari, Bishwa B.; Taylor, Melanie; Greening, Bradford; Moonan, Patrick K.; Oeltmann, John E.; Kahn, Emily B.; Washington, Michael L.; Meltzer, Martin I.

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4042

Cited by 28 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Literature is sparse on predictors of willingness to provide key information during a case interview. Lash et al 15 reported that 56% of interviewed persons named contacts, while Rainisch et al 14 reported a median of only 27% (range = 15%-74%) , In contrast to an early report from Washington State, we found racial differences in whether information was provided for contacts. 27 As expected, concerns about privacy and misuse of information were important reasons for declining to share contact information.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 94%

Factors Influencing the Results of COVID-19 Case Outreach—Results From a California Case Investigation/Contact Tracing Program

Barnes–Josiah

Kundeti

Cramer

2022

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Considerable research has examined impacts of case investigation and contact tracing (CI/CT) programs on the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19, but there are few reports on factors affecting the ability of these programs to obtain interviews and acquire key information. Objective: To investigate programmatic and case-specific factors associated with CI outcomes using data from the Public Health Institute's Tracing Health CI/CT program. Analyses were designed to detect variability in predictors of whether interviews and key information were obtained rather than quantify specific relationships. Design: Logistic regression models examined variability in the predictive value of interview timeliness and respondent characteristics on outreach outcomes and interview results. Setting and Participants: Participants were members of a large California health care network with a positive laboratory test for COVID-19 and outreach from January 1 to July 31, 2021. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the result of outreach attempts: completed interview, refused interview, or failure to reach the infected person. Secondary outcomes considered whether respondents provided information on symptom onset, employment, and contact information or a reason for declining to provide information, and whether resource support was requested or accepted. Results: Of 9391 eligible records, 65.6% were for completed interviews, 6.0% were refusals, and 28.3% were failed outreach. One-third of respondents (36.7%) provided information on contacts (mean = 0.97 contacts per respondent, 2.6 for those naming at least 1). Privacy concerns were the most common reasons for not providing contact information. Among respondent characteristics and interview timeliness, only race and number of symptoms showed statistically significant effects in all adjusted analyses. Conclusions: Significant variation existed in outreach outcomes by subject characteristics and interview timeliness. CI/CT programs carefully focused to characteristics and needs of specific communities will likely have the greatest impact on the spread of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 94%

Factors Influencing the Results of COVID-19 Case Outreach—Results From a California Case Investigation/Contact Tracing Program

Barnes–Josiah

Kundeti

Cramer

2022

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impact of case investigation and contact tracing on COVID-19 incidence and hospitalizations is, thus, generally estimated through modeling studies. 11 , 42 …”

Section: Effectiveness and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing had to be implemented rapidly, public health jurisdictions generally devised their own approaches, [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] limiting later assessments of their effectiveness in curtailing SARS-CoV-2 spread to metrics such as the proportion of people with positive test results who completed a case interview within a certain time frame or the number of close contacts elicited per interview. 9,12,[19][20][21][22][23]35,38,41 Many case interviews appear to have resulted in no or few named close contacts 9,35,41 ; whether a bifurcated or joint staffing model was more productive remains unclear.…”

Section: Effectiveness and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Innovative Approaches to COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until COVID-19, the greatest national public health crisis was the 1918 influenza pandemic, which was covered extensively by Public Health Reports. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Extrapolating from their knowledge of tuberculosis, public health authorities at that time exhorted ill people to remain home to break the chain of respiratory transmission. 7 Other contemporaneous appeals that reverberate a century later include "avoid needless crowding," "stay in the open air," "wear a gauze mask over the nose and mouth," and "keep away from houses where there are influenza cases." 2 In 2020, COVID-19 spurred case investigation and contact tracing at levels never seen in the United States. [8][9][10][11][12] Until vaccines, therapeutics, and SARS-CoV-2 tests became available, mitigation measures were strictly nonpharmaceutical. These included physical distancing, wearing face masks, and enhancing ventilation. In this context, state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments relied on asking people with COVID-19 to isolate and share information about close contacts (ie, case investigation) so that exposed people could be notified and asked to quarantine, ideally before they themselves became infectious (ie, contact tracing). [13][14][15][16][17] This supplemental issue of Public Health Reports provides firsthand examples of how public health departments across the United States reprioritized workflow and redirected staff to accommodate fluctuating COVID-19 incidence during 2020-2021, incorporated new partners to augment case investigation and contact tracing, evolved processes to improve outreach to disproportionately affected community groups, used digital tools for case and contact management and for proximity technology or exposure notification, and evaluated the effectiveness of these innovative strategies.

show abstract

“…Modeling studies support the hypothesis that case finding and contact tracing, when combined with effective isolation and quarantine, can interrupt transmission chains and avert hospitalizations. 19 …”

Section: Lessons Learnedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Geocoding to Identify COVID-19 Outbreaks in Congregate Residential Settings: San Francisco’s Outbreak Response in Single-Room Occupancy Hotels

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than 500 single-room occupancy hotels (SROs), a type of low-cost congregate housing with shared bathrooms and kitchens, are available in San Francisco. SRO residents include essential workers, people with disabilities, and multigenerational immigrant families. In March 2020, with increasing concerns about the potential for rapid transmission of COVID-19 among a population with disproportionate rates of comorbidity, poor access to care, and inability to self-isolate, the San Francisco Department of Public Health formed an SRO outbreak response team to identify and contain COVID-19 clusters in this congregate residential setting. Using address-matching geocoding, the team conducted active surveillance to identify new cases and outbreaks of COVID-19 at SROs. An outbreak was defined as 3 separate households in the SRO with a positive test result for COVID-19. From March 2020 through February 2021, the SRO outbreak response team conducted on-site mass testing of all residents at 52 SROs with outbreaks identified through geocoding. The rate of positive COVID-19 tests was significantly higher at SROs with outbreaks than at SROs without outbreaks (12.7% vs 6.4%; P < .001). From March through May 2020, the rate of COVID-19 cases among SRO residents was higher than among residents of other settings (ie, non–SRO residents), before decreasing and remaining at an equal level to non–SRO residents during later periods of 2020. The annual case fatality rate for SRO residents and non–SRO residents was similar (1.8% vs 1.5%). This approach identified outbreaks in a setting at high risk of COVID-19 and facilitated rapid deployment of resources. The geocoding surveillance approach could be used for other diseases and in any setting for which a list of addresses is available.

show abstract

Estimated COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Averted by Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in the US

Cited by 28 publications

References 9 publications

Factors Influencing the Results of COVID-19 Case Outreach—Results From a California Case Investigation/Contact Tracing Program

Factors Influencing the Results of COVID-19 Case Outreach—Results From a California Case Investigation/Contact Tracing Program

Innovative Approaches to COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing

Using Geocoding to Identify COVID-19 Outbreaks in Congregate Residential Settings: San Francisco’s Outbreak Response in Single-Room Occupancy Hotels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About