Enhancing the effectiveness of contact tracing interviews: A randomized controlled experiment of an enhanced cognitive interview protocol

Efficacy of memory protocols in 9- to 89-year-olds' memory for prior contacts

Memory for prior contacts has several important applied implications, including contact tracing (for communicable diseases). Incomplete episodic memory reports, which occur across the developmental lifespan but are particularly relevant for children and older adults, may hamper such efforts. Prior research has shown that cognitively informed memory techniques may bolster recall of contacts in adults, but that work has not addressed the developmental efficacy of these techniques. Here we evaluated the effectiveness of such techniques for familiar and unfamiliar contacts within a sample of 9- to 89-year-olds in the context of an ongoing pandemic. The tested memory techniques bolstered recall across the lifespan, irrespective of whether the interview was conducted live with an interviewer or via a self-led interview. Children, emerging adults, and adults did not reveal any differences in memory productivity, however, older adults recalled fewer contacts. Implications for theory and application are discussed.

Hits and Misses: Digital Contact Tracing in a Pandemic

Traditional contact tracing is one of the most powerful weapons people have in the battle against a pandemic, especially when vaccines do not yet exist or do not afford complete protection from infection. But the effectiveness of contact tracing hinges on its ability to find infected people quickly and obtain accurate information from them. Therefore, contact tracing inherits the challenges associated with the fallibilities of memory. Against this backdrop, digital contact tracing is the "dream scenario"-an unobtrusive, vigilant, and accurate recorder of danger that should outperform manual contact tracing on every dimension. There is reason to celebrate the success of digital contact tracing. Indeed, epidemiologists report that digital contact tracing probably reduced the incidence of COVID-19 cases by at least 25% in many countries, a feat that would have been hard to match with its manual counterpart. Yet there is also reason to speculate that digital contact tracing delivered on only a fraction of its potential because it almost completely ignored the relevant psychological science. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of digital contact tracing, its hits and misses in the COVID-19 pandemic, and its need to be integrated with the science of human behavior.

Dutch public health professionals’ perspectives and needs regarding citizen involvement in COVID-19 contact tracing through digital support tools: an exploratory qualitative study

Background

Contact tracing (CT) is an important, but resource-intensive tool to control outbreaks of communicable diseases. Under pandemic circumstances, public health services may not have sufficient resources at their disposal to effectively facilitate CT. This may be addressed by giving cases and their contact persons more autonomy and responsibility in the execution of CT by public health professionals, through digital contact tracing support tools (DCTS-tools). However, the application of this approach has not yet been systematically investigated from the perspective of public health practice. Therefore, we investigated public health professionals’ perspectives and needs regarding involving cases and contact persons in CT for COVID-19 through DCTS-tools.

Methods

Between October 2020 and February 2021, we conducted online semi-structured interviews (N = 17) with Dutch public health professionals to explore their perspectives and needs regarding the involvement of cases and contact persons in CT for COVID-19 through DCTS-tools, in the contact identification, notification, and monitoring stages of the CT-process. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was performed.

Results

Four main themes related to Dutch public health professionals’ perspectives and needs regarding involving cases and contact persons in CT for COVID-19 through DCTS-tools emerged from the data: ‘Distinct characteristics of CT with DCTS-tools’; ‘Anticipated benefits and challenges of CT for COVID-19 with DCTS- tools’; ‘Circumstances in CT for COVID-19 that permit or constrain the application of DCTS-tools’; and ‘Public health professionals’ needs regarding the development and application of DCTS-tools for CT’. Public health professionals seem to have a positive attitude towards involving cases and contact persons through DCTS-tools. Public health professionals’ (positive) attitudes seem conditional on the circumstances under which CT is performed, and the fulfilment of their needs in the development and application of DCTS-tools.

Conclusions

Dutch public health professionals seem positive towards involving cases and contact persons in CT for COVID-19 through DCTS-tools. Through adequate implementation of DCTS-tools in the CT-process, anticipated challenges can be overcome. Future research should investigate the perspectives and needs of cases and contact persons regarding DCTS-tools, and the application of DCTS-tools in practice.