Social distancing is an important public health intervention to reduce or interrupt the sustained community transmission of emerging infectious pathogens, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Contact matrices are typically used when evaluating such public health interventions to account for the heterogeneity in social mixing of individuals, but the surveys used to obtain the number of contacts often lack detailed information on the time individuals spend on daily activities. The present work addresses this problem by combining the large-scale empirical data of a social contact survey and a time-use survey to estimate contact matrices by age group (0--15, 16--24, 25–44, 45–64, 65+ years) and daily activity (work, schooling, transportation, and four leisure activities: social visits, bar/cafe/restaurant visits, park visits, and non-essential shopping). This augmentation allows exploring the impact of fewer contacts when individuals reduce the time they spend on selected daily activities as well as when lifting such restrictions again. For illustration, the derived matrices were then applied to an age-structured dynamic-transmission model of coronavirus disease 2019. Findings show how contact matrices can be successfully augmented with time-use data to inform the relative reductions in contacts by activity, which allows for more fine-grained mixing patterns and infectious disease modelling.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WallingaJTeunisPKretzschmarM. Using data on social contacts to estimate age-specific transmission parameters for respiratory-spread infectious agents. Am J Epidemiol2006; 164: 936–944.
2.
ReadJMEdmundsWJRileyS, et al. Close encounters of the infectious kind: Methods to measure social mixing behaviour. Epidemiol Infect2012; 140: 2117–2130.
3.
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Considerations relating to social distancing measures in response to COVID-19—Second update; 23 March 2020. Stockholm: ECDC, 2020.
4.
AndersonRMMayRM. Age-related changes in the rate of disease transmission: Implications for the design of vaccination programmes. J Hyg1985; 94: 365–436.
5.
HoangTColettiPMelegaroA, et al. A systematic review of social contact surveys to inform transmission models of close-contact infections. Epidemiology2019; 30: 723–736.
6.
PremKLiuYRussellTW, et al. The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: A modelling study. Lancet Public Health2020; 5: e261–e270.
7.
BaumanABittmanMGershunyJ. A short history of time use research; implications for public health. BMC Public Health2019; 19: 607.
8.
ZagheniEBillariFCManfrediP, et al. Using time-use data to parameterize models for the spread of close-contact infectious diseases. Am J Epidemiol2008; 168: 1082–1090.
9.
AjelliMPolettiPMelegaroA, et al. The role of different social contexts in shaping influenza transmission during the 2009 pandemic. Sci Rep2014; 4: 7218.
10.
De CaoEZagheniEManfrediP, et al. The relative importance of frequency of contacts and duration of exposure for the spread of directly transmitted infections. Biostatistics2014; 15: 470–483.
11.
Public Health England (PHE). Guidance on social distancing for everyone in the UK—Updated 30 March 2020, 2020.
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Social Distancing, Quarantine, and Isolation—Keep Your Distance to Slow the Spread, 2020.
13.
MossongJHensNJitM, et al. Social contacts and mixing patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases. PLoS Med2008; 5: e74.
14.
GershunyJSullivanO. United Kingdom Time Use Survey, 2014–2015, UK Data Service, 2017.
15.
BaguelinMFlascheSCamachoA, et al. Assessing optimal target populations for influenza vaccination programmes: An evidence synthesis and modelling study. PLoS Med2013; 10: e1001527.
16.
Van LeeuwenEKlepacPThorringtonD, et al. fluEvidenceSynthesis: An R package for evidence synthesis based analysis of epidemiological outbreaks. PLOS Comput Biol2017; 13: e1005838.
17.
KisslerSMTedijantoCGoldsteinE, et al. Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science2020; 368: 860–868. https://doi.org/drz3.
18.
BellDM. Public health interventions and SARS spread 2003. Emerg Infect Dis2004; 10: 1900–1906.
19.
World Health Organization Writing GroupBellDNicollA, et al. Non-pharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza, national and community measures. Emerg Infect Dis2006; 12: 88–94.
20.
BirrellPJBlakeJVan LeeuwenE, et al. Real-time nowcasting and forecasting of COVID-19 dynamics in England: The first wave?. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2021; 376: 20200279.
21.
KooJRCookARParkM, et al. Interventions to mitigate early spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore: A modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis2020; 20: 678–688. https://doi.org/dqfh.
22.
Panovska-GriffithsJKerrCCStuartRM, et al. Determining the optimal strategy for reopening schools, the impact of test and trace interventions, and the risk of occurrence of a second COVID-19 epidemic wave in the UK: A modelling study. Lancet Child Adolescent Health2020; 4: 817–827. https://doi.org/d5qc.
23.
MarkelHLipmanHBNavarroJA, et al. Nonpharmaceutical interventions implemented by US cities during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic. JAMA2007; 298: 644–654.
24.
NickolMEKindrachukJ. A year of terror and a century of reflection: Perspectives on the great influenza pandemic of 1918–1919. BMC Infect Dis2019; 19: 117–117.
25.
ShortKRKedzierskaKVan De SandtC. Back to the future: Lessons learned from the 1918 influenza pandemic. Front Cell Infect Microbiol2018; 8: 343–343.
26.
WeiWELiZChiewCJ, et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2—Singapore, 16–23 January 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2020; 69: 411–415. https://doi.org/dq3v.
27.
LoutfyMRWallingtonTRutledgeT, et al. Hospital preparedness and SARS. Emerg Infect Dis2004; 10: 771–776.
28.
JeffersonTDel MarCBDooleyL, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2011; 7: Cd006207. https://doi.org/cvxbtb.
29.
SmithSMSSonegoSWallenGR, et al. Use of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the transmission of influenza in adults: A systematic review. Respirology2015; 20: 896–903.
30.
KelsoJKMilneGJKellyH. Simulation suggests that rapid activation of social distancing can arrest epidemic development due to a novel strain of influenza. BMC Public Health2009; 9: 117–117.
31.
IslamNSharpSJChowellG, et al. Physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019: Natural experiment in 149 countries. BMJ2020; 370: m2743.
32.
LiYCampbellHKulkarniD, et al. The temporal association of introducing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time-varying reproduction number () of SARS-CoV-2: A modelling study across 131 countries. Lancet Infect Dis2020; 21: 193–202. https://doi.org/ghgjmv.
33.
FergusonNLaydonDNedjati GilaniG, et al. Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand, Imperial College, London, 2020.
34.
GlassRJGlassLMBeyelerWE, et al. Targeted social distancing design for pandemic influenza. Emerg Infect Dis2006; 12: 1671–1681.
35.
BrooksSKSmithLEWebsterRK, et al. The impact of unplanned school closure on children’s social contact: Rapid evidence review2020; 25: 2000188.
36.
LauJTFYangXPangE, et al. SARS-related perceptions in Hong Kong. Emerg Infect Dis2005; 11: 417–424.
37.
SmithRD. Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: Lessons from SARS on the role of risk perception, communication and management. Soc Sci Med2006; 63: 3113–3123.
38.
FergusonNMCummingsDATFraserC, et al. Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic. Nature2006; 442: 448–452.
39.
SmieszekT. A mechanistic model of infection: Why duration and intensity of contacts should be included in models of disease spread. Theor Biol Med Modell2009; 6: 25.
40.
JarvisCIGimmaAVan ZandvoortK, et al.CMMID COVID-19 working group, The impact of local and national restrictions in response to COVID-19 on social contacts in England: A longitudinal natural experiment. BMC Med2021; 19: 52.
41.
GershunyJSullivanOSevillaA, et al. A new perspective from time use research on the effects of social restrictions on COVID-19 behavioral infection risk. PLOS ONE2021; 16: e0245551.
42.
Del ValleSYHymanJMChitnisN. Mathematical models of contact patterns between age groups for predicting the spread of infectious diseases. Math Biosci Eng2013; 10: 1475–1497.
43.
KlepacPKucharskiAJConlanAJ, et al. Contacts in context: large-scale setting-specific social mixing matrices from the BBC Pandemic project, medRxiv. (2020) 2020.02.16.20023754. https://doi.org/ggqtdv.
44.
JarvisCIVan ZandvoortKGimmaA, et al. CMMID COVID-19 working group, Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK. BMC Med2020; 18: 124.
HellewellJAbbottSGimmaA, et al. Feasibility of controlling COVID-19 outbreaks by isolation of cases and contacts. Lancet Global Health2020; 8: e488–e496.
47.
QuiltyBJCliffordS, CMMID nCoV working group, et al. Effectiveness of airport screening at detecting travellers infected with novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Euro Surveill. 2020; 25: 2000080. https://doi.org/ggpxbs.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
