Characterising social contacts under COVID-19 control measures in Africa.
COVID-19
Modelling
Physical distancing
SARS-CoV-2
Social contacts
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 10 2022
12 10 2022
Historique:
received:
05
03
2022
accepted:
26
08
2022
entrez:
11
10
2022
pubmed:
12
10
2022
medline:
14
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, countries adopted non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as lockdowns to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Social contact studies help measure the effectiveness of NPIs and estimate parameters for modelling SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, few contact studies have been conducted in Africa. We analysed nationally representative cross-sectional survey data from 19 African Union Member States, collected by the Partnership for Evidence-based Responses to COVID-19 (PERC) via telephone interviews at two time points (August 2020 and February 2021). Adult respondents reported contacts made in the previous day by age group, demographic characteristics, and their attitudes towards COVID-19. We described mean and median contacts across these characteristics and related contacts to Google Mobility reports and the Oxford Government Response Stringency Index for each country at the two time points. Mean reported contacts varied across countries with the lowest reported in Ethiopia (9, SD=16, median = 4, IQR = 8) in August 2020 and the highest in Sudan (50, SD=53, median = 33, IQR = 40) in February 2021. Contacts of people aged 18-55 represented 50% of total contacts, with most contacts in household and work or study settings for both surveys. Mean contacts increased for Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sudan, and Uganda and decreased for Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Tunisia between the two time points. Men had more contacts than women and contacts were consistent across urban or rural settings (except in Cameroon and Kenya, where urban respondents had more contacts than rural ones, and in Senegal and Zambia, where the opposite was the case). There were no strong and consistent variations in the number of mean or median contacts by education level, self-reported health, perceived self-reported risk of infection, vaccine acceptance, mask ownership, and perceived risk of COVID-19 to health. Mean contacts were correlated with Google mobility (coefficient 0.57, p=0.051 and coefficient 0.28, p=0.291 in August 2020 and February 2021, respectively) and Stringency Index (coefficient -0.12, p = 0.304 and coefficient -0.33, p=0.005 in August 2020 and February 2021, respectively). These are the first COVID-19 social contact data collected for 16 of the 19 countries surveyed. We find a high reported number of daily contacts in all countries and substantial variations in mean contacts across countries and by gender. Increased stringency and decreased mobility were associated with a reduction in the number of contacts. These data may be useful to understand transmission patterns, model infection transmission, and for pandemic planning.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, countries adopted non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as lockdowns to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Social contact studies help measure the effectiveness of NPIs and estimate parameters for modelling SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, few contact studies have been conducted in Africa.
METHODS
We analysed nationally representative cross-sectional survey data from 19 African Union Member States, collected by the Partnership for Evidence-based Responses to COVID-19 (PERC) via telephone interviews at two time points (August 2020 and February 2021). Adult respondents reported contacts made in the previous day by age group, demographic characteristics, and their attitudes towards COVID-19. We described mean and median contacts across these characteristics and related contacts to Google Mobility reports and the Oxford Government Response Stringency Index for each country at the two time points.
RESULTS
Mean reported contacts varied across countries with the lowest reported in Ethiopia (9, SD=16, median = 4, IQR = 8) in August 2020 and the highest in Sudan (50, SD=53, median = 33, IQR = 40) in February 2021. Contacts of people aged 18-55 represented 50% of total contacts, with most contacts in household and work or study settings for both surveys. Mean contacts increased for Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sudan, and Uganda and decreased for Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Tunisia between the two time points. Men had more contacts than women and contacts were consistent across urban or rural settings (except in Cameroon and Kenya, where urban respondents had more contacts than rural ones, and in Senegal and Zambia, where the opposite was the case). There were no strong and consistent variations in the number of mean or median contacts by education level, self-reported health, perceived self-reported risk of infection, vaccine acceptance, mask ownership, and perceived risk of COVID-19 to health. Mean contacts were correlated with Google mobility (coefficient 0.57, p=0.051 and coefficient 0.28, p=0.291 in August 2020 and February 2021, respectively) and Stringency Index (coefficient -0.12, p = 0.304 and coefficient -0.33, p=0.005 in August 2020 and February 2021, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
These are the first COVID-19 social contact data collected for 16 of the 19 countries surveyed. We find a high reported number of daily contacts in all countries and substantial variations in mean contacts across countries and by gender. Increased stringency and decreased mobility were associated with a reduction in the number of contacts. These data may be useful to understand transmission patterns, model infection transmission, and for pandemic planning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36221094
doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02543-6
pii: 10.1186/s12916-022-02543-6
pmc: PMC9553295
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
344Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Epidemiology. 2019 Sep;30(5):723-736
pubmed: 31274572
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 30;17(19):
pubmed: 33007992
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Apr;5(4):529-538
pubmed: 33686204
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 6;14(8):e0220443
pubmed: 31386686
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Sep 12;13(9):e1005697
pubmed: 28898249
BMC Med. 2021 Apr 9;19(1):89
pubmed: 33832497
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):533-534
pubmed: 32087114
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;102:483-488
pubmed: 33010461
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Dec 1;174(11):1246-55
pubmed: 22071585
PLoS Med. 2022 Mar 1;19(3):e1003907
pubmed: 35231023
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 May;5(5):
pubmed: 32451367
Epidemics. 2011 Sep;3(3-4):143-51
pubmed: 22094337
BMC Public Health. 2021 Jun 3;21(1):1055
pubmed: 34078327
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 15;9(8):e104786
pubmed: 25127257
Lancet Planet Health. 2020 May;4(5):e172
pubmed: 32389182
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Sep 8;21(1):928
pubmed: 34496771
BMC Med. 2020 Oct 5;18(1):316
pubmed: 33012285
BMC Med. 2020 May 7;18(1):124
pubmed: 32375776
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Apr 11;18(1):172
pubmed: 29642869
EPJ Data Sci. 2016;5:21
pubmed: 27471661
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 18;12(1):e0170459
pubmed: 28099479