Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that contact tracing has had limited success in the UK in reducing the R number across the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigate potential pitfalls and areas for improvement by extending an existing branching process contact tracing model, adding diagnostic testing and refining parameter estimates. Our results demonstrate that reporting and adherence are the most important predictors of programme impact but tracing coverage and speed plus diagnostic sensitivity also play an important role. We conclude that well-implemented contact tracing could bring small but potentially important benefits to controlling and preventing outbreaks, providing up to a 15% reduction in R, and reaffirm that contact tracing is not currently appropriate as the sole control measure.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
ELD, TCDL, AB, DA, LP, TMP, GM & TDH gratefully acknowledge funding of the NTD Modelling Consortium by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) (grant number OPP1184344). The following funding sources are acknowledged as providing funding for the named authors. This research was partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (NTD Modelling Consortium OPP1184344: GM). This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - project EpiPose (101003688: PK). Royal Society (RP/EA/180004: PK). Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z: JH, SA). Views, opinions, assumptions or any other information set out in this article should not be attributed to BMGF or any person connected with them. TC is funded by a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (reference 215919/Z/19/Z). TMP's PhD is supported by the Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council, Medical Research Council and University of Warwick (grant number EP/L015374/1). TMP thanks Big Data Institute for hosting him during this work. All funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
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:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵6 Full list of members in supplementary material
Revision following reviewers' comments from first round of review at Nature Communications.
Data Availability
References are provided in the manuscript for all data used.
