IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0030893.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence of Contact Definitions in Assessment of the Relative Importance of Social Settings in Disease Transmission Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsty J Bolton
  • James M McCaw
  • Kristian Forbes
  • Paula Nathan
  • Garry Robins
  • Philippa Pattison
  • Terry Nolan
  • Jodie McVernon

Abstract

Background: Realistic models of disease transmission incorporating complex population heterogeneities require input from quantitative population mixing studies. We use contact diaries to assess the relative importance of social settings in respiratory pathogen spread using three measures of person contact hours (PCH) as proxies for transmission risk with an aim to inform bipartite network models of respiratory pathogen transmission. Methods and Findings: Our survey examines the contact behaviour for a convenience sample of 65 adults, with each encounter classified as occurring in a work, retail, home, social, travel or “other” setting. The diary design allows for extraction of PCH-interaction (cumulative time in face-face conversational or touch interaction with contacts) – analogous to the contact measure used in several existing surveys – as well as PCH-setting (product of time spent in setting and number of people present) and PCH-reach (product of time spent in setting and number of people in close proximity). Heterogeneities in day-dependent distribution of risk across settings are analysed using partitioning and cluster analyses and compared between days and contact measures. Although home is typically the highest-risk setting when PCH measures isolate two-way interactions, its relative importance compared to social and work settings may reduce when adopting a more inclusive contact measure that considers the number and duration of potential exposure events. Conclusions: Heterogeneities in location-dependent contact behaviour as measured by contact diary studies depend on the adopted contact definition. We find that contact measures isolating face-face conversational or touch interactions suggest that contact in the home dominates, whereas more inclusive contact measures indicate that home and work settings may be of higher importance. In the absence of definitive knowledge of the contact required to facilitate transmission of various respiratory pathogens, it is important for surveys to consider alternative contact measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsty J Bolton & James M McCaw & Kristian Forbes & Paula Nathan & Garry Robins & Philippa Pattison & Terry Nolan & Jodie McVernon, 2012. "Influence of Contact Definitions in Assessment of the Relative Importance of Social Settings in Disease Transmission Risk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-8, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0030893
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030893
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030893&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0030893?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0030893. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.