Abstract
To complement labour-intensive conventional contact tracing, digital proximity tracing was implemented widely during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the privacy-centred design of the dominant Google-Apple exposure notification framework has hindered assessment of its effectiveness. Between October 2021 and January 2022, we systematically collected app use and notification receipt data within a test and trace programme for university students in Leuven, Belgium. Due to low success rates in each studied step of the digital notification cascade, only 4.3% of exposed contacts (CI: 2.8-6.1%) received such notifications, resulting in 10 times more cases detected through conventional contact tracing. Moreover, the infection risk of digitally traced contacts (5.0%; CI: 3.0-7.7%) was lower than that of conventionally traced non-app users (9.8%; CI: 8.8-10.7%; p=0.002). Contrary to common perception as near instantaneous, there was a 1.2-day delay (CI: 0.6-2.2) between case PCR result and digital contact notifications. These results highlight major limitations of the dominant digital proximity tracing framework.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The test centre was funded by both the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (RIZIV/INAMI) and the regional Flemish government's Agentschap voor Zorg & Gezondheid. J.R. and J.T. acknowledge support of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO, grant numbers: 1S88721N to J.R; 1130423N to J.T.). This study was financed through internal KU Leuven funds and the DURABLE project. The DURABLE project has been co-funded by the European Union, under the EU4Health programme (EU4H), project number 101102733. Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Health and Digital Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven of University Hospitals Leuven and KU Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) gave ethical approval for this work (reference number: S64919).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
