Impact of isolating COVID-19 patients in a supervised community facility on transmission reduction among household members

Abstract

Background Isolation of COVID-19 patients has been universally implemented to control transmission of the outbreak. Hotels and other facilities have been adapted to help appropriate isolation be achieved. Our study tested the efficacy of isolating patients in a reconditioned hotel versus isolation in their domiciles to reduce infection transmission. Methods Observational cohort study based on a survey to COVID-19 patients between April and June 2020. One cohort had been isolated in a hotel and the other in their domiciles. Multivariate regression models analyzed the factors related to the occurrence of COVID-19 infection among the household members. Results A total of 229 household members of COVID-19 patients were analyzed, 139 of them belonging to the group of hotel-isolated patients and 90 in the group of domicile-isolated ones. More than half of the household members became infected (53.7%). Higher risk of infection was found in the household members of domicile-isolated patients isolated and in those reporting overcrowding at home, (odds ratio [OR] 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89–3.12) and (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.81; 2.56), respectively. Conclusions The isolation of COVID-19 patients in community-supervised facilities may protect their household members from transmission of the disease. Overcrowded homes may contribute to the transmission of the infection.

Identification of risk factors that increase household transmission of COVID-19 in Afyonkarahisar, Turkey

“…In our study, households who had adopted isolation or quarantine methods were more effective in preventing spread of the disease than households who did not implement complete isolation/quarantine measures from one another. When the case and his/her contacts are completely isolated or quarantined from the rest of the household [11,35], the household transmission was reduced. However, in our study, we found that reduced transmission could not be achieved due to the ineffective use of isolation and quarantine measures, inconsistent application of masks, or because of the spread of infection before any of these measures were taken.…”

Culture, Religion and the State: Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach to Ensuring Public Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic (and Beyond)

“…In addition, state-managed isolation facilities must also be established, instead of turning private homes into quarantine facilities, since management is more effective in these facilities. 42 Finally, the state must also consider the “cautious and gradual” reopening of schools 43 , 44 in order to give its citizens, at least, a semblance of normalcy.…”

Effects of covid-induced lockdown on inhabitants’ perception of indoor air quality in naturally ventilated homes

“…Therefore, the greater the number of people and time of permanence in the same space, the greater the statistical possibility of contagion. Therefore, the probability of infection increases by up to 30% among close household members, (López et al 2021 ). Although close contact between cohabitants is the main cause of contagion, this may also occur between different dwellings, especially through vertical building drainage stacks.…”

“…Contagion events have been documented by both the chimney effectinduced airflow in building drainage systems, especially in high-rise housing (Wang et al 2022), and through faecal aerosol transmission from toilets and washbasins (Kang et al 2020). This is why some studies have analysed the impact of the isolation of COVID-19 patients in community-supervised facilities, which may protect their household members from transmission of the disease (López et al 2021). Despite these, contagion of susceptible occupants from hotel-isolated patients can still occur through shared air from corridors, HVAC systems, and drainage stacks (Gu et al 2022;Hoefer et al 2020;Leong et al 2021).…”