Contact tracing indicators for COVID-19: Rapid scoping review and conceptual framework

Abstract

Background Contact tracing is one of the key interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic but its implementation varies widely across countries. There is little guidance on how to monitor contact tracing performance, and no systematic overview of indicators to assess contact tracing systems or conceptual framework for such indicators exists to date. Methods We conducted a rapid scoping review using a systematic literature search strategy in the peer-reviewed and grey literature as well as open source online documents. We developed a conceptual framework to map indicators by type (input, process, output, outcome, impact) and thematic area (human resources, financial resources, case investigation, contact identification, contact testing, contact follow up, case isolation, contact quarantine, transmission chain interruption, incidence reduction). Results We identified a total of 153 contact tracing indicators from 1,555 peer-reviewed studies, 894 studies from grey literature sources, and 15 sources from internet searches. Two-thirds of indicators were process indicators (102; 67%), while 48 (31%) indicators were output indicators. Only three (2%) indicators were input indicators. Indicators covered seven out of ten conceptualized thematic areas, with more than half being related to either case investigation (37; 24%) or contact identification (44; 29%). There were no indicators for the input area “financial resources”, the outcome area “transmission chain interruption”, and the impact area “incidence reduction”. Conclusions Almost all identified indicators were either process or output indicators focusing on case investigation, contact identification, case isolation or contact quarantine. We identified important gaps in input, outcome and impact indicators, which constrains evidence-based assessment of contact tracing systems. A universally agreed set of indicators is needed to allow for cross-system comparisons and to improve the performance of contact tracing systems.

Mathematical modeling of contact tracing and stability analysis to inform its impact on disease outbreaks; an application to COVID-19

“…However, unlike incubation and latency which are estimated based on clinical data, the transmission period isn't easy to measure because it gets affected by control strategies and relies more on observable reports. Based on some works ( Gallo et al., 2020 ; Hu et al., 2020 ; Mee et al., 2022 ; Vogt et al., 2022 ), we assume the average maximum transmission period of most infectious cases to be 12 days, and so we put n = 16 days. Table 1 summarises the information on the periods used.On the other hand, we consider parameters to be distributed according to the mentioned periods above, such that Since the early transmission of latent cases can be neglected ( Liu, Magal, Seydi, & Webb, 2020 ), we assume .…”

COVID-19 isolation and quarantine orders in Berlin-Reinickendorf (Germany): How many, how long and to whom?

“…Contact tracing, which includes some sort of quarantine orders, has been implemented by 183 of 187 countries as measured by the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker [ 36 ]. It is considered to be one of the cornerstones of the response [ 37 ] and is also recommended by the WHO [ 1 ]. Pozo-Martin et al found that there is evidence regarding the incremental effectiveness of both manual and digital contact tracing for COVID-19 epidemic control [ 38 ].…”

Lessons learned from implementing a surge capacity support program for COVID-19 contact management in Ontario

“…In addition, we found that conceptual frameworks seemed more helpful for understanding surge capacity for healthcare systems as opposed to more upstream public health service delivery (Bonnett et al, 2007 ). Recently, Vogt et al ( 2022 ) published a scoping review of indicators to monitor contact tracing performance and assess contact tracing systems, still noting gaps in input, outcome, and impact indicators. It would be valuable to extend work in this area to consider overarching components and related goals to guide development, planning, and evaluation drawing on different jurisdictions’ experiences with the rapid development (e.g.…”