Introduction
Contact tracing, an elaborate and resource-intensive multistep activity, is fundamentally regarded as the linchpin of effective public health interventions aimed at curbing the transmission of infectious diseases like COVID-19. The prompt identification and thorough investigation of infected individuals are essential for ensuring self-isolation and the timely notification and quarantine of their contacts, thereby effectively limiting the disease’s spread. Through contact tracing, health officials can pinpoint exposure to the virus, which is crucial not only for identifying asymptomatic patients capable of transmitting the virus but also for recognizing pre-symptomatic cases early on. In East Asian nations, a robust history of proficiency in dealing with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) proved advantageous, allowing these countries to swiftly adapt their contact tracing frameworks to manage COVID-19 effectively. This rapid adaptation was bolstered by considerable political resolve and substantial financial inputs, leading to significant reductions in the virus’s effective reproductive rate. Comprehensive cross-national studies highlight a strong correlation between the rigor of contact tracing measures implemented and improved management of the COVID-19 outbreak, including a noticeable decrease in mortality rates. While contact tracing has facilitated successful containment of COVID-19 in targeted outbreaks, its efficacy has been less pronounced in other contexts.
Methods
Study Design
This study implemented a retrospective observational approach to analyze comprehensive data derived from all calls initiated during a contact tracing initiative launched to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in Jordan between November 2020 and April 2022.
Study Setting
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan was marked by a stringent nationwide lockdown from March to June 2020. Following this, Jordan embarked on a phased reopening of essential services until complete restoration occurred by September 2020. Concurrently, the Jordanian Ministry of Health (MOH) broadened its traditional public health tactics, not only undertaking case investigations but also ramping up contact tracing efforts while significantly enhancing its molecular COVID-19 testing capabilities. This involved the establishment of PCR testing centers in every governorate and the integration of all laboratories into a national electronic laboratory reporting system referred to as “Sundos.”
Jordan encountered considerable hurdles primarily due to resource constraints, particularly concerning personnel, technology, and surveillance systems. To mitigate these issues, the MOH enlisted the support of the USAID-backed Local Health System Sustainability (LHSS) project, which played a pivotal role in bolstering the MOH’s COVID-19 call center structure. In partnership with the Jordan Nurses and Midwives Council (JNMC), LHSS facilitated the training of around 450 nurses, the majority of whom were subsequently contracted to bolster the call center’s efforts in contact tracing from November 2020 to April 2022.
Data Collection
The surveillance data encompassed testing dates, results, reasons for testing, socio-demographic information such as age, sex, city/governorate, risk factors, comorbidities, associated COVID-19 symptoms, and outcomes including hospitalization and death. Participants were specifically asked to state how they had been identified for COVID-19 testing, selecting from five primary pathways, including hospital visits and self-presentation at laboratories. The collected call center data highlighted whether all family members were tested for COVID-19 and provided details on the total number of family members in each household.
Data Management
Data Analysis
Data management and analyses were carried out using STATA version 16. Population estimates from the Jordan Department of Statistics and the COVID-19 epidemic curve from the World Health Organization were incorporated into the study. The defined COVID-19 waves in Jordan were categorized into four distinct periods spanning from November 2020 through March 2022.
Ethical Considerations
This study conformed to the ethical guidelines as specified in the Declaration of Helsinki. Initial data collection interviews were intended for public health purposes, not research. All participants provided verbal informed consent, permitting secondary use of their data for research. The anonymization process ensured that the MOH prepared the final dataset by scrambling and encrypting identifiers before sharing it with the authors for analytical purposes. The Jordan Ministry of Health’s Scientific Research Ethics Committee approved this manuscript.
Results
The Ministry of Health in Jordan documented a staggering 1,608,497 confirmed COVID-19 PCR-positive cases. The initiative reached out to 64.0% of these cases, representing 1,027,911 individuals. Out of those, 802,525 cases were successfully contacted, achieving an impressive completion rate of 78.1% among those attempted calls. Notably, 225,386 cases proved unreached, often due to issues such as disconnected numbers and lack of response.
|
|
Figure 1 Number of Calls Reached vs Newly Reported COVID-19 Cases. |
During the first COVID-19 wave, the call center efficiently interviewed 55.1% of reported COVID-19 cases, while success peaked at 68.7% during the second wave. However, a downward trend became evident in later waves, illustrating the challenges encountered in maintaining contact tracing effectiveness amidst rising case numbers.
Assessing the distribution of reached COVID-19 cases by gender at baseline showed a near-even split, with 50.3% identified as males. The data revealed the majority of cases (58.6%) were aged between 20 and 50, indicating the demographic most affected by the disease. A striking 96.0% of reached cases were Jordanian citizens.
 |
Table 1 Call Statistics and Percentages at Baseline and Follow-Up |
More than half of the reached cases (52.5%) reported that all family members had undergone testing for COVID-19. This indicator highlights the extent of contact tracing efforts within households, which can be vital for understanding transmission dynamics.
 |
Table 2 Household COVID-19 Testing Status as Reported by Participants |
Discussion
This study analyzed the operational functions and effectiveness of a national COVID-19 call center initiative within Jordan, emphasizing case outreach and identifying contacts. The significance of leveraging non-state resources in facilitating governmental efforts cannot be overstated. The effective role of the call center in streamlining contact tracing stands out as an innovation driven by information technology and digital resources.
Throughout the pandemic, the success of the call center in reaching out to COVID-19 cases exhibited variability, given the fluctuating context of each wave. Early on, the call center proved highly effective, encountering challenges only as case numbers surged due to the more contagious Omicron variant. This insight indicates the necessity to incorporate real-time quality assurance in future efforts to optimize the reach and impact of contact tracing endeavors.
The refusal rate for contact tracing was notably low at only 2.1%, revealing an unexpected trust in health authorities among Jordanian citizens compared to significantly higher non-compliance rates in other nations, such as the US. This trend underscores the potential for fruitful public health campaigns built on solid public trust.
Challenges remained, however, as approximately 20% of attempted contacts failed due to issues with invalid phone numbers, pointing towards gaps in access and inclusivity among vulnerable subgroups, notably immigrants who may face additional barriers in health access.
Identifying cases through contact tracing is pivotal for measuring program success. In this analysis, 33.3% of cases were traced back to contact tracing efforts, significantly outpacing similar statistics from various global contexts. This highlights the transformative potential of contact tracing when adequately supported by the infrastructure and training of personnel.
As the pandemic evolved, the mechanism of case detection shifted; medical visits supplanted contact tracing as the predominant method in identifying cases, particularly during the latter waves, coinciding with heightened public awareness and systemic adaptability to COVID-19 management.
Conclusion
This study illustrates the centrality of Jordan’s COVID-19 call center in the broader national response to the public health crisis. By efficiently engaging with confirmed cases, the call center considerably supported early detection and isolation efforts crucial in curbing transmission. Despite the operational challenges faced, including fluctuating call volumes and difficulties accessing specific populations, the initiative underscored its essential role in managing the spread of COVID-19. The experiences gleaned from this initiative can significantly inform future public health strategies in Jordan and similar resource-challenged environments, emphasizing the need to reach marginalized populations.
Acknowledgments
This study was made possible with the vital support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Specific gratitude is extended to Ms. Maysa Al-Khateeb, Population and Family Health Management Specialist/USAID, for her technical contributions and comprehensive review.
Disclosure
The authors do not report any conflicts of interest in this venture.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim guidance on developing a COVID-19 case investigation & contact tracing plan; 2024. Available from: https://archive.cdc.gov/#/details?url=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/overview.html. Accessed November 5, 2024.
2. Kretzschmar ME, et al. Impact of delays on effectiveness of contact tracing strategies for COVID-19: a modeling study. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(8):e452-e459. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30157-2
3. Bi Q, et al. Epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in 391 cases and 1286 of their close contacts in Shenzhen, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(8):911-919. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30287-5
4. Al-Sadeq DW, Nasrallah GK. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic patients: a systematic review. Inter J Infect Dis. 2020;98:372-380. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.098
5. Jefferson T, et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from pre and asymptomatic infected individuals: a systematic review. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28(2):178-189. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.10.015
6. Peng L, et al. Use of quarantine in the control of SARS in Singapore. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33(5):252-257. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2004.08.007
7. Lim PL. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Asia: Lessons Gleaned from the South Korean Outbreak. Oxford University Press; 2015.
8. Pan A, et al. Association of public health interventions with the epidemiology of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1915-1923. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6130
9. Jian S-W, et al. Contact tracing with digital assistance in Taiwan’s COVID-19 outbreak response. Inter J Infect Dis. 2020;101:348-352. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1483
10. Cheng H-Y, et al. Contact tracing assessment of COVID-19 transmission dynamics in Taiwan and risk at different exposure periods. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(9):1156-1163. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2020
11. Yalaman A, et al. Cross-country evidence on the association between contact tracing and COVID-19 case fatality rates. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):2145. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78760-x
12. Fetzer T, Graeber T. Measuring the effectiveness of contact tracing: evidence from a natural experiment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118(33):e2100814118.
13. Herrero M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing program evaluation in Catalonia. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1397. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-13695-8
14. Clark E, et al. Contact tracing efforts in the US. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(9):e415-e419. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1155
15. Stargel A, et al. Case investigation and contact tracing efforts from health departments in the US. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75(Supplement_2):S326-S333. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac442
16. Lash RR, et al. COVID-19 case investigation in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(6):e2115850. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15850
17. Malheiro R, et al. COVID-19 transmission reduction through contact tracing. Public Health. 2020;189:54-59. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2020.09.012
18. Ferretti L, et al. Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission effectiveness. Science. 2020;368(6491):eabb6936. doi:10.1126/science.abb6936
19. Davis EL, et al. Contact tracing is an imperfect tool for controlling COVID-19. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):5412. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25531-5
20. Grantz KH, et al. Maximizing test-trace-isolate programs effectiveness. PLoS Med. 2021;18(4):e1003585. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003585
21. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Contact tracing mathematical modeling methods; 2024. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/prioritization/mathematicalmodeling.html. Accessed November 5, 2024.
22. Sachdev DD, et al. Outcomes of contact tracing in San Francisco. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(3):381-383. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5670
23. Lash RR. COVID-19 contact tracing in North Carolina. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69.
24. Koetter P, et al. Implementation of a COVID-19 contact tracing initiative. Am J Infect Control. 2020;48(12):1451-1456. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.012
25. Miller JS, et al. COVID-19 contact tracing in Central Washington State. J Community Health. 2021;1-4.
26. Shelby T, et al. Lessons learned from COVID-19 contact tracing. Front Public Health. 2021;9:721952. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.721952
27. Al Manji A, et al. Contact tracing in the context of COVID-19 in Oman. BMJ Global Health. 2022;7(Suppl 3):e008724. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008724
28. Dahab M, et al. COVID-19 control in low-income settings. Confl Health. 2020;14(1):54. doi:10.1186/s13031-020-00296-8
29. Eslami Jahromi M, et al. COVID-19 hotlines and call centers: lessons learned. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):1191. doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18702-8
30. Kheirallah KA, et al. Pandemic influenza preparedness in Jordan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(12):7200. doi:10.3390/ijerph19127200
31. Alqutob R, et al. COVID-19 in Jordan: response and recommendations. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance. 2020;6(3):e19332. doi:10.2196/19332
32. Statistics DO. Population statistics available from: http://dosweb.dos.gov.jo/population/population-2/. Accessed November 5, 2024.
33. World Health Organization. Current COVID-19 situation. Available from: https://www.who.int/countries/jor. Accessed November 5, 2024.
34. Nachega JB, et al. Contact tracing and the COVID-19 response in Africa. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021;104(4):1179. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.21-0033
35. Experts assess NJ’s struggling contact tracing operation. Available from: https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/12/njs-contact-tracing-operation-is-struggling-experts-say-heres-how-other-states-are-doing-it-better.html. Accessed November 5, 2024.
36. Liccardi I, et al. Public willingness to engage with COVID-19 contact tracing. Public Health Rep. 2022;137(2_suppl):90S-95S. doi:10.1177/00333549221125891
37. United Nations. International migration flows. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/data/international-migration-flows. Accessed September 1, 2024.
38. United Nations Foundation. Syrian refugees build COVID-19 quarantine site. Available from: https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/syrian-refugees-build-covid-19-quarantine-site-in-jordan-camp/. Accessed November 5, 2024.
39. UNHCR Jordan: COVID-19 situation for refugees. Available from: https://reliefweb.int/report/jordan/unhcr-jordan-covid-19-situation-refugees-jordan-february-2022. Accessed September 1, 2024.
40. Vital Strategies. Measures to improve COVID-19 response. Available from: https://preventepidemics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/024_PE_COVID_Measures-to-Improve-Covid-19-Response_Report_1220_Rev-A_v4.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2024.
41. Proesmans K, et al. COVID-19 contact tracing in Belgium: main indicators. Arch Public Health. 2022;80(1):118. doi:10.1186/s13690-022-00875-6
Oh, Contact Tracing: The Ultimate Game of Hide and Seek!
Brace yourself, folks! We’re diving into the utterly riveting world of contact tracing, which is like a virtual game of TAG — but for a virus. So, grab your hand sanitizer and let’s get into it!
A Distant Approach to a Bacterial Battle
So, contact tracing is touted as the cornerstone of effective public health interventions. Yes, we’ve all seen the headlines: “Stay Safe! Stay Home!” But how much of that is just PR fluff? The truth is that identifying infected cases in a timely manner is what helps contain a virus like a well-placed lid on a jar of pickles. And let’s be honest, if you thought COVID was the only infection to take center stage in public health discourse, then have I got some news for you!
A Sneak Peek Into Jordan’s Pandemic Playbook
Jordan’s Ministry of Health seems to have really rolled up those sleeves and tackled the project full throttle. Lockdowns? Check. Testing sites? Check. The call center operating from November 2020 to April 2022? Check. It sounds simple, right? Just throw an army of nurses into a call center, wave a magic wand, and problem solved! But, spoiler alert: it wasn’t that easy. With significant resource challenges, it seems like the Jordanian MOH put out an SOS to the USAID. Talk about a hand-me-down solution!
Data: The Not-So-Personal Touch
Now, if you get your kicks from numbers and statistics, this is where the magic happens. The study boasts about 1.6 million PCR-positive cases in Jordan. The call center — sounding like a modern-day oracle — managed to reach just over half of these cases. That’s right folks, 64% of cases didn’t get the golden ticket to fame and were left snubbed in the virtual dust. Those unreachable cases would probably have produced some classic tales: the phone was out of service, people were in jail, and some just flat-out refused to play along! Talk about a social experiment gone wrong!
The Gender Gap: Who’s Picking Up the Phone?
But wait, there’s more! The breakdown showed nearly equal reach for both genders, but the median age was between 20-50. So, it’s safe to say millennials were getting all the pandemic attention! And in an unexpected twist, the Jordanians apparently trusted their health authorities, with only 2.1% refusing to participate in contact tracing. Unlike the good ol’ US of A, where contact tracing felt more like a bad Tinder date—awkward and full of rejections!
Benefits… But at What Cost?
Despite all the excitement, the study concluded that while contact tracing helped identify cases, it also had its limits. Future public health campaigns may consider using tech-savvy approaches like digital tracing or AI—it’s the health equivalent of super-speed learning! And let’s face it, if we’ve learned anything from this pandemic, it’s that people really dislike talking on the phone. The elders may have loved it, but the younger generations? Not so much!
The Big Questions: What’s Next?
As the article wraps up, one can’t help but ponder the bigger picture. Will Jordan look into improving their strategies to catch the new viral Pokémon? Will outreach efforts finally focus on reaching marginalized populations? Who knows! Perhaps it’s time to call in some local celebrities for public trust exercises—no one says it has to be boring!
In Conclusion…
So there we have it: Jordan’s COVID-19 contact tracing saga, a mix of triumphs and dramatic misses. As we venture into this brave new world, let’s not forget that backwards could always mean forward in some twisted scientific metaphor. But hey, at least we got some deliciously awkward statistics and stories along the way!
the findings of study 1 suggest that the assessment of alcohol use involved which indicator?
Now, let’s talk gender disparities, because why not add a little spice to our contact tracing saga? Studies indicated that women were more likely to respond to contact tracing calls than men. One might wonder: are men just harder to reach, or are they simply less inclined to pick up a phone? It’s a burning question that leaves you scratching your head. You might think it’s a straightforward game of who’s home during those pesky quarantine times, but the social fabric in Jordan adds layers of complexity. Cultural norms possibly come into play, shaping who is typically engaged with health services. The call center’s data set might be a reflection of these dynamics.
The Road Forward: Lessons Learned
All jokes aside, contact tracing is a fraught yet vital part of pandemic response strategies. It provides insight into how we can pivot and adapt our approaches in future health crises. Jordan’s experience in the COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated gaps that could be transformed into opportunities for improvement. For instance, strengthening community trust could foster better communication lines, ensuring crucial information reaches every individual.
So What’s the Takeaway?
Ultimately, contact tracing is more than just a health measurement tool; it’s a test of our societal resilience. As we look to the future, let’s not just rely on numbers. We need to weave communities into our health narratives, ensuring that technology and human interaction are parallel pathways in containing future outbreaks. Remember, folks: effective public health isn’t just about containment — it’s about connection. And who knows, maybe the next round of contact tracing will feel less like hide and seek and more like a community coming together in solidarity!