Contact patterns of older adults with and without frailties in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic =========================================================================================================== * Jantien A Backer * Jan van de Kassteele * Fatima El Fakiri * Niel Hens * Jacco Wallinga ## Abstract **Background** During the COVID-19 pandemic social distancing measures were imposed to protect the population from exposure, especially older adults and persons with frailties who have the highest risk for severe outcomes. These restrictions greatly reduced contacts in the general population, but little is known about behaviour changes among older adults and persons with frailties themselves. Our aim was to quantify how COVID-19 measures affected contact behaviour of older adults and how this differed between older adults with and without frailties. **Methods** In 2021 a contact survey was carried out among persons aged 70 years and older in the Netherlands. A random sample of persons per age group (70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85-89, 90+) and gender was invited to participate, either during a period with stringent (April 2021) or moderate (October 2021) measures. Participants provided general information on themselves including their frailty, and they reported characteristics of all persons with whom they had face-to-face contact on a given day over the course of a full week. **Results** In total 720 community-dwelling older adults were included (overall response rate of 15%), who reported 16,505 contacts. During the survey period with moderate measures, participants without frailties had significantly more contacts outside their household than participants with frailties. Especially for females, frailty was a more informative predictor for number of contacts than age. During the survey period with stringent measures, participants with and without frailties had significantly lower numbers of contacts compared to the survey period with moderate measures. The reduction of number of contacts was largest for the eldest participants without frailties. As they interact mostly with adults of a similar high age who likely have frailties, this reduction of number of contacts indirectly protects older adults with frailties from SARS-CoV-2 exposure. **Conclusions** The results of this study reveal that social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic differentially affected the contact patterns of older adults with and without frailties. The reduction of contacts may have led to direct protection of older adults in general but also to indirect protection of older adults with frailties. ## Background When the SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged at the end of 2019, it spread rapidly around the globe because of its ability to transmit pre- and asymptomatically and because the population was completely susceptible to this new virus. The only control option that could immediately mitigate the growing epidemic was the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions, including social distancing measures (e.g., closing schools, suspending leisure activities and working from home). These social distancing measures aim to reduce exposure by reducing contact rates of for instance face-to-face and physical contacts, as each of these contacts could be an at-risk event for transmission. Contact surveys show that in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, contact rates decreased by more than half in China [1], the UK [2], the Netherlands [3] and other countries worldwide [4–7]. The reduction of contact rates effectively decreased the daily number of cases [8–10]. Social distancing was especially important to reduce exposure of older adults and persons with frailties, as they have the highest probability of hospitalisation and death after SARS-CoV-2 infection [11–13]. Frailty as a health status is a generic concept that can be defined and measured in many ways [14]. In hospital or care settings the focus is usually on physical frailty, expressed for instance by the frailty index [15] or the Clinical Frailty Scale [16]. In community settings, frailty is often used in a broader sense that also comprises cognitive and psychosocial dimensions, expressed for instance by the Tilburg Frailty Indicator [17] or Groningen Frailty Indicator [18]. All frailty instruments indicate that frailty increases with age and is generally higher for females than males of the same age [19]. The variation in frailty among persons of the same age and gender is substantial, especially in community-dwelling older adults [20]. Two studies conducted in the Netherlands in 2006-2007 [21] and 2016-2017 [22] show that participants aged 70 years and older contact on average 7.2 (6.2 - 8.5) and 7.0 (6.0 - 8.4) different individuals per day (mean and 95% bootstrap CI), respectively. Surveys among older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic show a decrease in in-person contacts [23], associated with a decrease in general well-being [24] and an increase in frailty [25]. Contact surveys in the general population also showed a significant reduction of contact rates in older age groups [1–5]. However, none of these contact surveys distinguish participants by frailty. Contact behaviour of older adults may well differ by frailty. On the one hand, older adults with frailties might have fewer contacts due to physical inabilities or social isolation. On the other hand, they could have more contacts when they require more medical or home care. In general, the number of contacts per person decreases by age [26,27] and can differ by gender [26], but it is unknown how this is affected by frailty. As contacts can be used as a proxy for at-risk events for transmission [28], quantifying these contacts by frailty may lead to a better understanding of exposure and hence disease burden of older adults with and without frailties. We conducted a contact survey among persons aged 70 years and older in the Netherlands, to quantify the number of contacts per person by frailty status. By conducting the survey during two distinct survey periods with stringent and moderate COVID-19 measures, we aim to gain insight in how older adults with and without frailties change their contact behaviour when faced with lockdown measures. ## Methods ### Study design Persons aged 70 years and older were invited to participate in the contact survey. For each survey period, invitees were randomly sampled from the Dutch Personal Records Database [29], yielding two independent cross-sectional study populations. The invitees were randomly sampled per age group (70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85-89, 90+) and gender. The numbers of invitees were chosen to obtain similar numbers of respondents in each stratum, assuming lower response rates in older age groups. The questionnaires were unmarked to minimize the collection of personal data. As a consequence, it was not possible to send reminders to non-responders to increase response. Each participant was requested to provide some general information and to fill out a contact diary each day during a full week. The general information consisted of participant age, gender, country of birth, education level, household size and vaccination status for COVID-19, influenza and invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). To determine the frailty status of a participant, the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) [18] was used. This indicator consists of 15 questions on physical, cognitive, social and psychological conditions. When an answer contributes to frailty it would score 1, or 0 otherwise. A GFI score of 4 or higher (out of 15) indicates a frail status. The GFI was preferred over other frailty indicators because it contains few questions and is easy to fill out. The contact diary consisted of a contact page for each day of the week, where a participant could report all persons with whom they had face-to-face contact that day. A contact was defined as a conversation of at least a few sentences and/or a physical contact; contacts via telephone or internet were explicitly excluded. For each contacted person the participant reported the gender, age (range), whether this person was a household member, whether the contact was physical such as shaking hands, whether the contact was protected for example by a face mask, whether the contact lasted longer than 15 minutes, whether a minimal distance of 1.5 m was kept, and the location(s). The location options included the home of the participant, the home of the contact person, the work place (also for volunteer work), transit, leisure, shop, outside, other (to be specified). Also, a name or description of the person could be reported, not only for ease of filling out but also to identify repeated contacts with the same person on different days of the week. Participants could indicate when they did not have any contacts on a given day, which was helpful to distinguish between participants without any contacts and participants that did not fill out the contact diary on that day. Returned questionnaires that lacked the general information and/or any filled out contact day were not included in further data processing. Questionnaires that were suitable for analysis were entered in a database with internal consistency checks, e.g., whether the participant is at least 70 years old and whether no duplicate participant id’s are entered. After data cleaning, the data was reformatted to the standard format for contact surveys on [socialcontactdata.org](https://socialcontactdata.org) and published online [30]. A full description of all steps in the study design is provided in the supplement (Suppl S1). All code for data cleaning and analysis is publicly available [31]. ### Survey periods The study encompasses two survey periods. The first survey period in April 2021 featured stringent COVID-19 control measures: education was online for most students of secondary schools and universities; working from home was required when possible; face masks were mandatory in indoor public spaces; bars and restaurants were closed, as well as all other cultural and leisure activities; and an evening curfew was in place. Most older adults had already had the opportunity to be vaccinated, but mass vaccination of the remaining adult population had only just started. In the second survey period in October 2021, most control measures had been lifted. Schools and work places were fully open; face masks were only required in public transport; and social, cultural and leisure venues were accessible with a proof of vaccination or negative test result. All persons aged 18 years and older were eligible for vaccination and many had been fully vaccinated. ### Analysis Response rates are calculated by age group and gender for both survey periods. The study population is described by summarising the number of responses by survey period, age group, gender, country of birth, GFI score, household size, and education level. To assess the representativeness of the study population, we investigate the non-response biases of participants not born in the Netherlands and participants in long-term care facilities, as we expect these groups to have low response rates. To this end, we compare the number of participants not born in the Netherlands and the number of participants in long-term care facilities to their expected values, based on the size of these groups living in the Netherlands in 2021 [32,33]. The observed vaccination coverages are compared to the actual vaccination coverages [34–36]. We evaluate which characteristics of the study population determine frailty (Suppl S2) and check whether this agrees with literature. To focus the further analyses on community-dwelling older adults, participants that live in a long-term care facility are excluded. The contact behaviour is described by how many persons a participant contacted and in which age classes. For the analysis, only community contacts are included, i.e., contacts with non-household members, as these are the contacts that are mostly affected by control measures. The community contacts are summed over the full week to eliminate any day of the week effect. Participants with less than 5 completed days are excluded from the contact analysis. The missing data of participants with 5 or 6 days completed, are imputed while taking the effects of the day of the week and fatigue into account (Suppl S3). The weekly total of community contacts is assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution, where the log of the mean is modelled with full interactions between frailty (0 or 1), participant age (numeric), participant gender (Male or Female) and survey period (1 or 2). The COVID-19 vaccination status could also affect the number of community contacts, but this covariate has been omitted because the data contains few unvaccinated participants. We assess whether household size (1 or 2+) should be included as an explanatory variable by comparing the likelihoods of the models with and without household size using a likelihood ratio chi-square test. In a similar way, the effect of frailty in a specific period and the effect of the period on a specific frailty status are determined using subsets of the data. For example, the effect of frailty in the first survey period is assessed by comparing the likelihood of the model without frailty as an explanatory variable to the likelihood of the model with frailty, using only the data collected in the first survey period. If the likelihoods are similar (according to the chi-square test) the number of contacts does not significantly differ between persons with and without frailties in the first survey period. The expected weekly total of community contacts is compared for an average person with and without frailties in the Dutch 70+ population, by survey period. To study age-specific mixing patterns, contact matrices are constructed by dividing the total number of contacts per week between two age groups by the number of participants in the participant age group. The resulting matrix of average numbers of contacts per week per participant is asymmetrical due to the skewed population distribution. We assume persons with and without frailties mix proportionally and divide the matrix by the Dutch population distribution in 2021 [37]. Assuming reciprocal contacts, diagonally opposed matrix elements are averaged, yielding a symmetric contact matrix. The resulting contact rates can be interpreted as the average number of contacts per week per participant, if the population were uniformly distributed over the age groups. We compare contact characteristics between participants with and without frailties and between survey periods 1 and 2. For each contact it was reported whether it was unprotected (e.g., without a face mask), whether it lasted longer than 15 minutes, whether it was closer than 1.5 meters, and whether the contact was physical. For each of these four high-risk types, the fraction of community contacts per participant is calculated. Differences between the four comparison groups are tested with a Mann Whitney U test. In a similar way, the fraction of repeated community contacts per participant is analysed. Finally, the distribution over contact locations is compared visually between frailty status and survey period. ## Results ### Study population In total 4914 invitations were sent out and 820 questionnaires were returned, of which 730 were suitable for analysis. The 90 questionnaires not suitable for analysis were either empty with sometimes an explanation why the invitee is not able or willing to participate (64), without general information (7), without any contact data (7), or incomprehensible (12). Response rates (Suppl S4) decreased by increasing age group and were higher for males than for females The overall response rate of survey period 1 in April 2021 (17%) was higher than for survey period 2 in October 2021 (13%). The two survey periods consisted of similar numbers of participants (Tab. 1). The age group distribution of the study population ranges from 17% for the 90+ age group to 23% for the 85-89 age group, close to the aim of 20% for each of the five age groups. More males (56%) than females participated. A large majority (95%) of the participants were born in the Netherlands. Based on the number of Dutch citizens with a first-generation migration background by age group [32], we would expect 53 participants with another country of birth in the study population. Instead, only 34 participants were not born in the Netherlands, which cannot be explained by stochastic effects, indicating a lower response rate in this group. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/T1) Table 1: Number of participants, stratified by survey round, age group, gender, country of birth, frailty, household size and education level, for all 730 participants. GFI: Groningen Frailty Indicator. Around one third of the participants had a frail status according to the GFI. Frailty is higher for females than for males in the same age group, and it increases with age but faster for males than for females (Fig. 1A). These findings agree with literature (Suppl S2) and results reported for the Tilburg Frailty Indicator of community-dwelling older adults [38], which is a frailty indicator similar to the GFI. Most participants (60%) lived with one or more household members. According to the number of Dutch older adults in long-term care facilities [33], we would expect 60 participants in care. Instead, only 10 participants indicated that they live in a nursing home or similar long-term care facility, emphasizing that the study population is more representative of community-dwelling older adults. One-person households were more common for higher age groups and for females (Fig. 1B). The education level is, in general, higher for younger age groups and for males (Fig. 1C). ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F1) Figure 1: Participant characteristics of the study population consisting of 720 community- dwelling participants. (A) Fraction of participants with frailties by age group and gender. (B) Fraction of participants living alone by age group and gender. (C) Distribution of education level of participants by age group and gender. (D) Vaccination coverage against COVID-19, influenza and invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) by age group and survey round. Participants reported whether they had been vaccinated in the last 12 months against COVID-19, influenza or IPD (Fig. 1D). The highest coverages were observed for COVID-19 in all age groups. Only the age group 70-74 fell slightly below other age groups in the first survey period in April 2021 as they had only just been invited for vaccination. The overall vaccination coverage in the study population in the second survey period in October 2021 (98%) was higher than the actual coverage reported for the 70+ population (93%) [34]. The overall vaccination coverage against influenza in the study population (75%) was higher than in the general 65+ population (73%) [35]. Nothing can be concluded from the IPD vaccination coverage, because the IPD vaccination programme for older adults has only been implemented recently for specific age groups [36]. ### Contact behaviour For the contact behaviour analysis, 4 participants without frailty status, 10 participants in long-term care facilities and 12 participants who participated less than 5 days were excluded. Of the 704 included participants, 46 provided contact information for less than 7 days. The number of contacts on their missing days was imputed, while taking reductions in average number of contacts per day into account of 4% on each additional participation day and 20% on Sundays (Suppl S3). The household size did not affect the number of community contacts per week and is not included in the full model. By comparing full and subset formulations, we found some evidence that the weekly number of community contacts of participants with and without frailties differed in survey period 1, though not statistically significant (p-value = 0.085, chi-square test) and differed significantly in survey period 2 (p-value = 0.023). The number of community contacts per week between the two survey periods differed significantly for persons with (p-value = 0.0050) and without (p-value < 0.0001) frailties. According to the full model, the expected weekly number of community contacts in survey period 1 was 14 (12 - 17) (mean and 95% confidence interval) for an average person with frailties and 19 (16 - 21) for an average person without frailties. In survey period 2, they were 21 (17 - 25) for an average person with frailties and 26 (23 - 30) for an average person without frailties. When plotting the full model results with all covariates (Fig. 2), we notice some remarkable patterns. The weekly number of community contacts in survey period 2 - with few COVID-19 measures - only slightly decreases with age in any stratum. Females without frailties have more contacts than females with frailties of any age, and males with frailties have the same number of contacts as 12-year older male with frailties. In survey period 1, persons with frailties of all ages decreased their contacts to a similar extent compared to survey period 2, demonstrated by the almost parallel lines in Fig. 2. For persons without frailties, however, the lines diverge, showing that the number of contacts in survey period 2 clearly decreased by age. This trend is obvious in both males and females. ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F2) Figure 2: Weekly number of community contacts (i.e., persons contacted outside the household) per participant by age in survey periods 1 and 2. Plots show the data (one point for each participant) and model results (mean as solid line and 95% confidence interval as shaded area) by frailty (columns) and gender (rows). The same effect is apparent in the contact matrices by frailty and survey period (Fig. 3). In all contact matrices the highest contact rates are on the diagonal, meaning that participants interact mainly with persons in the same age group. Participants with frailties have lower contact rates than participants without frailties, and in survey period 1 lower contact rates are observed than in survey period 2. The largest differences between survey period 1 and 2 are seen for older participants without frailties. In survey period 2 they interacted mainly with other persons of similar age, from which they refrained in survey period 1. ![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F3) Figure 3: Contact matrices showing age mixing patterns for participants with and without frailties in survey periods 1 and 2. The contact rate can be interpreted as the average number of community contacts (i.e., persons contacted outside the household) per participant per week, if the population were uniformly distributed over the age groups. ### Contact characteristics Contact behaviour change is not only reflected in the number of community contacts, but also in the type of community contacts. For all types of contacts, participants shifted to more risky behaviour in survey period 2 compared to survey period 1: the fraction of community contacts per participant that were without protection, closer than 1.5 m, lasting over 15 min and involved physical contacts increased significantly (Fig. 4). For the most part, differences between participants with and without frailties were not significant. One exception is that participants with frailties used protection such as face masks more often than participants without frailties in survey period 1. Another exception is that participants with frailties reported a significantly higher fraction of physical contacts than participants without frailties in both survey periods. ![Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F4) Figure 4: Fraction of community contacts (i.e., persons contacted outside the household) per participant for four risk behaviour factors: protection, distance, duration and physicality of the contact. Distinction is made between frailty of participants (transparency) and survey period (color). The whiskers of the boxplots extend to the minimum and maximum values. Significance levels are denoted by \***| (p-value < 0.001), ** (p-value < 0.01), * (p-value < 0.05) and ns (not significant), according to the Mann Whitney U test. The location where contacts take place also differed by frailty status and survey period. Participants with frailties had a similar fraction of community contacts at home in both survey periods and always more than participants without frailties (Fig. 5). In survey period 2, participants without frailties had especially more contacts at leisure activities. The fraction of repeated community contacts, i.e., persons who are not a member of the household that are contacted more than once a week, did not differ between persons with or without frailties. Persons who lived alone however, did have relatively more repeated community contacts than persons who lived in a multi-person household (Suppl. S5). ![Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F5.medium.gif) [Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/10/2023.05.09.23289550/F5) Figure 5: Fraction of community contacts (i.e., persons contacted outside the household) per participant by location for participants with and without frailties in survey periods 1 and 2. ## Discussion In this survey, we studied how the contact behaviour of persons of 70 years and older in the Netherlands changed during periods with stringent and moderate COVID-19 measures in 2021 and how these changes differed for persons with and without frailties. We found that persons with and without frailties had more community contacts in October 2021 with moderate measures than in April 2021 with stringent measures. During both survey periods, persons without frailties had more community contacts than persons with frailties. When we consider persons with and without frailties separately, the number of community contacts only slightly decreased with age in the survey period with moderate measures. In this survey period the observed frailty status of a participant is a more informative predictor of number of contacts than age. The two survey periods differed in both timing (spring vs autumn) and in intensity of COVID-19 measures (stringent vs moderate). Of these two differences, we believe the latter is most essential in interpreting the observed results. Results of an earlier contact survey in 2016-2017 [22] showed little effect of timing within the year on number of contacts [3]. Therefore it is unlikely that the differences found between the two survey periods are due to a seasonal effect, and the differences between survey periods are most probably caused by the difference in intensity of COVID-19 measures (stringent in April 2021 vs moderate in October 2021) and the risk perception at the respective times of the surveys. The results might have been affected by a poor representativeness of the study population. The study’s overall response rate of 15% is low. One reason for a low response rate is that the returned questionnaires were unmarked by design which meant that it was not possible to send reminders to non-responders. Another reason was that participation required considerable effort to keep a contact diary for a full week, which makes it difficult for invitees with cognitive issues or difficulties with reading and writing to participate. This may have led to a selection bias for participants without frailties. However, the frailty distribution by age and gender of the study population (Fig. 1A) agrees with results reported for the Tilburg Frailty Indicator of community-dwelling older adults [38], which leads us to believe that the study population is representative with respect to frailty of the community-dwelling older population. While participants with a migration background are underrepresented in the study population as compared to the Dutch 70+ population, the distribution of frailty status and number of contacts for participants with a migration background did not differ from the other participants. The participants in long-term care facilities, who were excluded from the analysis, were more frail (8 out of 10 as compared 34% in the other participants) and had more contacts than the community-dwelling study population. We believe it unlikely that the observed differences in contacts between survey periods and between participant group have been affected by unintended deviations from representativeness of the 70+ community-dwelling study population. The number of reported contacts per day by 70+ participants are within the order of magnitude that what would have been expected based on other surveys that address the general population. A possible exception is that in the second survey period, the 3.9 (3.7 - 4.0) contacts per day (mean and 95% bootstrap CI) is much lower than the 7.2 (6.2 - 8.5) and 7.0 (6.0 - 8.4) contacts per day found for 70+ participants in two previous studies in 2006-2007 [21] and 2016-2017 [22], respectively. Aside from the fact that the study populations and questionnaires are different, several other factors could explain this discrepancy. Most likely, this is because participants had not reverted back to pre-pandemic behaviour in October 2021. However, we cannot rule out other possible explanations: having to fill out the diary every day causes a fatigue effect (Suppl S3), and correcting for this effect would increase the average number of contacts by 13%; due to COVID-19 information campaigns, participants better understand what constitutes a contact that could possibly lead to transmission, and they may have filled out the diary more conservatively compared to pre-pandemic contact surveys. During both study periods, two other contact surveys were conducted in the general Dutch population. The PiCo survey was held three times per year in a representative sample of the population in the Netherlands [3,39]. The CoMix survey was held every two weeks in a selected internet panel [40,41]. The 70+ participants in the PiCo and CoMix surveys reported 2.3 (2.1 - 2.5) (mean and 95% bootstrap CI) and 2.5 (2.0 - 3.1) contacts per day around survey period 1 and 5.1 (4.7 - 5.5) and 4.8 (2.1 - 10.2) contacts per day around survey period 2. While these studies agree, they find a larger difference between the survey periods than this study: 2.8 (2.6 - 3.0) and 3.9 (3.7 - 4.0) contacts per day in survey period 1 and 2, respectively. This could be an effect of differences in study setup, questionnaire, study population and fatigue effect. For instance, the 70+ participants in both the PiCo and CoMix surveys are on average younger than in this study where older age groups are oversampled. Summarizing, where we find larger differences between the number of contacts as reported in the current study and the number reported in earlier studies, these can be explained by the different age composition of the surveys and by different contact behaviour in October 2021 as compared to pre-pandemic levels. None of these differences affect the interpretation of our findings. In previous studies [26,27], it was observed that the number of contacts of older adults decreases with age. The results of this study show that in survey period 2 - that not fully but most resembles a normal situation - the number of community contacts only slightly decreased with age (Fig. 2). Because persons with frailties have on average less contacts than persons without frailties, the decrease by age as observed in previous studies without frailty distinction, could also be explained by persons transitioning from non-frail to frail status as they grow older. Especially for females, frailty is a better predictor for number of contacts than age. In survey period 1 with more stringent COVID-19 measures, the number of contacts of persons without frailties did decrease with age. These older persons without frailties interact mainly with persons of similar age (Fig. 3) who are increasingly frail (Fig. 1A). As a consequence, their behaviour change indirectly protected their peers with frailties. Younger persons without frailties did not decrease their contacts as much, possibly because they did not interact with persons with frailties as much, and persons with frailties themselves all decreased their contacts probably to protect themselves. The results of this study reveal how social distancing measures affected the contact behaviour of persons with and without frailties of 70 years and older during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, with the largest decrease in number of contacts for the oldest participants without frailties. These results can be useful in different ways. Frailty questions could be included in contact surveys for the general population, as frailty is an additional indicator for the number of contacts. Stratifying infectious disease models by frailty could increase knowledge on how persons with and without frailties are affected under different control scenarios, although it would first be required to know how persons with and without frailties mix. These results can also be instrumental in public health policy, for instance in shaping information campaigns on social distancing measures. As the population in many countries ages rapidly, it is becoming ever more important to take frailty differences of older adults into account to be prepared for future pandemics. ## Declarations ### Ethics approval and consent to participate The Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) NedMec confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to the SCONE (Studying Contacts of Elderly) study (research protocol number 23-051/DB). Therefore an official approval of this study by the MREC NedMec is not required under the WMO. The contact survey was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Participants were informed that by returning the original questionnaire to RIVM, they were consenting to participate in the study. The initial processing of personal data by RIVM is lawful since it is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest (article 6, paragraph 1, under e, of the GDPR). ### Consent for publication The participants were informed that the data and results would be made publicly available in an anonymous way, so that individual participants could not be (re)identified. In the context of making the data and results publicly available for scientific or statistical purposes, the principle of data minimisation is being respected. Whenever possible, the data is minimised by aggregating open, easily identifiable and unnecessary records (article 5, paragraph 1, under b and article 89, paragraph 1, of the GDPR). ### Availability of data and materials The cleaned data is published online at [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7649375](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7649375) [30]. All code for data cleaning and analysis is publicly available at [https://github.com/rivm-syso/SCONE](https://github.com/rivm-syso/SCONE) [31]. ### Competing interests The authors have no competing interests, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. ### Funding The SCONE study has been financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; grant number 10150511910020). ### Authors’ contributions J.B, F.E.F., N.H. and J.W. designed the study, J.B. collected the data, J.B. and J.v.d.K. did the statistical analyses, J.B. wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript. ## Supporting information Supplementary material [[supplements/289550_file02.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All data produced are available online at [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7649375](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7649375) ## Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all participants of the SCONE (Studying Contacts of Elderly) study for their invaluable input, Inge Besemer for processing the data, and Kylie Ainslie and Brechje de Gier for critically reading the manuscript. ## Footnotes * Background and discussion amended and restructured; wording improved throughout manuscript and supplementary material. * Received May 9, 2023. * Revision received August 10, 2023. * Accepted August 10, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Zhang J, Litvinova M, Liang Y, Wang Y, Wang W, Zhao S, et al. Changes in contact patterns shape the dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Science. 2020;368: 1481– 1486. doi:10.1126/science.abb8001 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNjgvNjQ5OC8xNDgxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDgvMTAvMjAyMy4wNS4wOS4yMzI4OTU1MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 2. 2.Jarvis CI, Van Zandvoort K, Gimma A, Prem K, Klepac P, Rubin GJ, et al. Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK. BMC Med. 2020;18: 124. doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01597-8 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12916-020-01597-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 3. 3.Backer JA, Mollema L, Vos ER, Klinkenberg D, Klis FR van der, Melker HE de, et al. Impact of physical distancing measures against COVID-19 on contacts and mixing patterns: repeated cross-sectional surveys, the Netherlands, 2016-17, April 2020 and June 2020. Euro Surveill. 2021;26. doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.8.2000994 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.8.2000994&link_type=DOI) 4. 4.Coletti P, Wambua J, Gimma A, Willem L, Vercruysse S, Vanhoutte B, et al. CoMix: comparing mixing patterns in the Belgian population during and after lockdown. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 21885. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78540-7 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-020-78540-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 5. 5.Bosetti P, Huynh BT, Abdou AY, Sanchez M, Eisenhauer C, Courtejoie N, et al. Lockdown impact on age-specific contact patterns and behaviours, France, April 2020. Euro Surveill. 2021;26. doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.48.2001636 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.48.2001636&link_type=DOI) 6. 6.Feehan DM, Mahmud AS. Quantifying population contact patterns in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Commun. 2021;12: 893. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-20990-2 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-021-20990-2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33563992&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 7. 7.McCreesh N, Dlamini V, Edwards A, Olivier S, Dayi N, Dikgale K, et al. Impact of the Covid-19 epidemic and related social distancing regulations on social contact and SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential in rural South Africa: analysis of repeated cross-sectional surveys. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21: 928. doi:10.1186/s12879-021-06604-8 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12879-021-06604-8&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.Dehning J, Zierenberg J, Spitzner FP, Wibral M, Neto JP, Wilczek M, et al. Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions. Science. 2020;369. doi:10.1126/science.abb9789 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNjkvNjUwMC9lYWJiOTc4OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA4LzEwLzIwMjMuMDUuMDkuMjMyODk1NTAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 9. 9.Brauner JM, Mindermann S, Sharma M, Johnston D, Salvatier J, iak T, et al. Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19. Science. 2021;371. doi:10.1126/science.abd9338 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNzEvNjUzMS9lYWJkOTMzOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA4LzEwLzIwMjMuMDUuMDkuMjMyODk1NTAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 10. 10.Bo Y, Guo C, Lin C, Zeng Y, Li HB, Zhang Y, et al. Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission in 190 countries from 23 January to 13 April 2020. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;102: 247–253. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.066 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.066&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 11. 11.Levin AT, Hanage WP, Owusu-Boaitey N, Cochran KB, Walsh SP, Meyerowitz-Katz G. Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35: 1123–1138. doi:10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33289900&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 12. 12.Hewitt J, Carter B, Vilches-Moraga A, Quinn TJ, Braude P, Verduri A, et al. The effect of frailty on survival in patients with COVID-19 (COPE): a multicentre, European, observational cohort study. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5: e444–e451. doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(20)30146-8 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s2468-2667(20)30146-8&link_type=DOI) 13. 13.Blomaard LC, Linden CMJ van der, Bol JM van der, Jansen SWM, Polinder-Bos HA, Willems HC, et al. Frailty is associated with in-hospital mortality in older hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands: the COVID-OLD study. Age Ageing. 2021;50: 631– 640. doi:10.1093/ageing/afab018 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ageing/afab018&link_type=DOI) 14. 14.Dent E, Martin FC, Bergman H, Woo J, Romero-Ortuno R, Walston JD. Management of frailty: opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Lancet. 2019;394: 1376–1386. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31785-4 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31785-4&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 15. 15.Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. ScientificWorldJournal. 2001;1: 323–336. doi:10.1100/tsw.2001.58 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1100/tsw.2001.58&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12806071&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 16. 16.Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, Bergman H, Hogan DB, McDowell I, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173: 489–495. doi:10.1503/cmaj.050051 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxNzMvNS80ODkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wOC8xMC8yMDIzLjA1LjA5LjIzMjg5NTUwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 17. 17.Gobbens RJ, Assen MA van, Luijkx KG, Wijnen-Sponselee MT, Schols JM. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator: psychometric properties. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2010;11: 344–355. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2009.11.003 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jamda.2009.11.003&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20511102&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 18. 18.Schuurmans H, Steverink N, Lindenberg S, Frieswijk N, Slaets JP. Old or frail: what tells us more? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59: M962–965. doi:10.1093/gerona/59.9.m962 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/gerona/59.9.M962&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15472162&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 19. 19.Hoogendijk EO, Afilalo J, Ensrud KE, Kowal P, Onder G, Fried LP. Frailty: implications for clinical practice and public health. Lancet. 2019;394: 1365–1375. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31786-6 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31786-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 20. 20.Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, Oude Voshaar RC. Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60: 1487– 1492. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04054.x [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04054.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22881367&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 21. 21.Van der Klis FR, Mollema L, Berbers GA, de Melker HE, Coutinho RA. Second national serum bank for population-based seroprevalence studies in the Netherlands. Neth J Med. 2009;67: 301–308. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19687529&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000270492200013&link_type=ISI) 22. 22.Verberk JDM, Vos RA, Mollema L, van Vliet J, van Weert JWM, de Melker HE, et al. Third national biobank for population-based seroprevalence studies in the Netherlands, including the Caribbean Netherlands. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19: 470. doi:10.1186/s12879-019-4019-y [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12879-019-4019-y&link_type=DOI) 23. 23.Freedman VA, Hu M, Kasper JD. Changes in Older Adults’ Social Contact During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2022;77: e160–e166. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbab166 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/geronb/gbab166&link_type=DOI) 24. 24.Hu Y, Qian Y. COVID-19, Inter-household Contact and Mental Well-Being Among Older Adults in the US and the UK. Front Sociol. 2021;6: 714626. doi:10.3389/fsoc.2021.714626 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fsoc.2021.714626&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34381838&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 25. 25.Sealy MJ, Lucht F van der, Munster BC van, Krijnen WP, Hobbelen H, Barf HA, et al. Frailty among Older People during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in The Netherlands. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19. doi:10.3390/ijerph19063669 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph19063669&link_type=DOI) 26. 26.Van de Kassteele J, Van Eijkeren J, Wallinga J. Efficient estimation of age-specific contact rates between men and women. Ann Appl Stat. 2017;11: 320–339. doi:10.1214/16-AOAS1006 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1214/16-AOAS1006&link_type=DOI) 27. 27.Mossong J, Hens N, Jit M, Beutels P, Auranen K, Mikolajczyk R, et al. Social contacts and mixing patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases. PLoS Med. 2008;5: e74. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050074 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050074&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18366252&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) 28. 28.Wallinga J, Teunis P, Kretzschmar M. Using data on social contacts to estimate age-specific transmission parameters for respiratory-spread infectious agents. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164: 936–944. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj317 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwj317&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16968863&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2F2023.05.09.23289550.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000241958900002&link_type=ISI) 29. 29.Government of the Netherlands. Personal Records Database (BRP). 2023. Available: [https://www.government.nl/topics/personal-data/personal-records-database-brp](https://www.government.nl/topics/personal-data/personal-records-database-brp) 30. 30.Backer JA, Van de Kassteele J, Hens N, Wallinga J. Contact data of older adults (70+) in the Netherlands in 2021. 2023. doi:10.5281/zenodo.7649375 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5281/zenodo.7649375&link_type=DOI) 31. 31.Backer JA. Studying contacts of elderly (SCONE). [https://github.com/rivm-syso/SCONE](https://github.com/rivm-syso/SCONE); 2023. 32. 32.Statistics Netherlands. Population with migration background; by sex and age on 1 January 2021 (accessed January 2023). 2021. Available: [https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/70787ned/table?fromstatweb](https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/70787ned/table?fromstatweb) 33. 33.Statistics Netherlands. Population in long-term care facilities; by sex and age on 1 January 2021 (accessed January 2023). 2021. Available: [https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82887ned/table?fromstatweb](https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82887ned/table?fromstatweb) 34. 34.Rijksoverheid Netherlands. Coronadashboard: COVID-19 vaccinaties (accessed January 2023). 2023. Available: [https://coronadashboard.rijksoverheid.nl/landelijk/vaccinaties](https://coronadashboard.rijksoverheid.nl/landelijk/vaccinaties) 35. 35.Heins MJ, Korevaar JC, Knottnerus BJ, Hooiveld M. Vaccine Coverage Dutch National Influenza Prevention Program 2021: brief monitor (accessed January 2023). Nivel; 2022. Available: [https://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/1004308.pdf](https://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/1004308.pdf) 36. 36.Heins MJ, Korevaar JC, Knottnerus BJ, Hooiveld M. Vaccine coverage National Program Pneumococcal vaccination Adults 2021: brief monitor (accessed January 2023). Nivel; 2022. Available: [https://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/1004309.pdf](https://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/1004309.pdf) 37. 37.Statistics Netherlands. Population; by sex and age on 1 January 2021 (accessed August 2022). 2021. Available: [https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/7461bev/table](https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/7461bev/table) 38. 38.Assen MA van, Pallast E, Fakiri FE, Gobbens RJ. Measuring frailty in Dutch community-dwelling older people: Reference values of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI). Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;67: 120–129. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2016.07.005 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.archger.2016.07.005&link_type=DOI) 39. 39.Vos ERA, Hartog G den, Schepp RM, Kaaijk P, Vliet J van, Helm K, et al. Nationwide seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and identification of risk factors in the general population of the Netherlands during the first epidemic wave. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020. doi:10.1136/jech-2020-215678 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiamVjaCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI3NS82LzQ4OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA4LzEwLzIwMjMuMDUuMDkuMjMyODk1NTAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 40. 40.Verelst F, Hermans L, Vercruysse S, Gimma A, Coletti P, Backer JA, et al. SOCRATES-CoMix: a platform for timely and open-source contact mixing data during and in between COVID-19 surges and interventions in over 20 European countries. BMC Med. 2021;19:254. doi:10.1186/s12916-021-02133-y [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12916-021-02133-y&link_type=DOI) 41. 41.Backer JA, Bogaardt L, Beutels P, Coletti P, Edmunds WJ, Gimma A, et al. Dynamics of non-household contacts during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 in the Netherlands. Sci Rep. 2023;13: 5166. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32031-7 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-023-32031-7&link_type=DOI)