Measuring odds of various COVID-19 infection prevention & control measures among the contacts traced during trace test and quarantine activities at district Quetta (An un-matched case control study)

  1. Muhammad Arif
  2. Ehsan Larik
  3. Abid Saeed
  4. Muhammad Abdullah

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

The second wave of COVID-19 pandemic has started globally, right now globally 220 countries are infected and a total of 71351695 confirmed cases and 1612372 deaths due to COVID-19 has been reported so far 1 . As of today i.e. (16 th Dec 2020) a total of 11430955 new COVID-19 confirmed cases have been reported across the south-east asia 1 . These cases are showing an increasing trend in all the Asian countries including Pakistan 1 . Across Pakistan till date 440787 new confirmed COVID-19 cases have been reported across the Pakistan showing a doubling time of 10.63 days (95% C.I 9.68-11.8), while a total of 8832 new deaths have been reported across the Pakistan making the double time for death as 11.11 days (95% C.I 4.04-14.86) 1 . Till the development and availability of a vaccine the only tools that can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 are IPC measures violating them can result in a quick spread across the population 3 .

This study was conducted to assess the odds of various COVID-19 IPC measures among the Contacts of an index COVID-19 case traced by Provincial Disease Surveillance & Response unit Quetta.

Methodology

Sample Size & Sampling technique

Using the detailed epidemiological reports of 600 COVID-19 contacts identified during the trace test and quarantine field activities form 1 st October till 30 th October 2020 in district Quetta, from this data a sample of 300 individuals was selected for this study using Simple random sampling technique.

Study Design

Considering different exposure rates and pandemic situation an Un-matched Case control study study was conducted where Cases were defined as “Every PCR positive contact ( Symptomatic or asymptomatic ) for any index case” similarly Controls were defined as “Every PCR negative contact ( Symptomatic or asymptomatic ) for any index case who was home quarantined for 14 days based on suspicion by PDSRU team. A set ratio of 1:2 for cases & controls respectively was used for this study.

Results

The odds for various IPC measures like Knowingly and intentionally Contacted with a COVID-19 positive case, Family member of the index COVID-19 case, Knowingly and intentionally received an object handed over by a COVID-19 Positive case, Touched the same surface/surfaces after it was touched by the index case, Not doing regular Hand washing, Knowingly and intentionally did not follow the government SOPs of Social Distancing During encounter with a positive symptomatic case, Knowingly and intentionallydid not Follow the government SOPs of Social Distancing During sharing of bedroom and toilet with positive symptomatic case, used the same vehicle after it was used by the COVID-19 index case, Spoke with Positive COVID-19 index case for more than 15mins few days before catching the disease, Individual did not use a face mask during all of his contact episodes with the positive index case, Participating in gathering or social events were all found to be poorly followed by the PCR positive contacts.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.25.21261084: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationPDSRU Quetta’s Field epidemiologist team recorded detailed epidemiological reports of 600 COVID-19 contacts from during the trace test and quarantine field activities form 1st October till 30th October 2020 in district Quetta, from this data a sample of 300 individuals was selected for this study using Simple random sampling technique.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.25.21261084 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.4236/ojepi.2021.114030