Estimating the impact of test-trace-isolate-quarantine systems on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Australian states and territories used test-trace-isolate-quarantine (TTIQ) systems extensively in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021. We report on an analysis of Australian case data to estimate the impact of test-trace-isolate-quarantine systems on SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODS: Our analysis uses a novel mathematical modelling framework and detailed surveillance data on COVID-19 cases including dates of infection and dates of isolation. First, we directly translate an empirical distribution of times from infection to isolation into reductions in potential for onward transmission during periods of relatively low caseloads (tens to hundreds of reported cases per day). We then apply a simulation approach, validated against case data, to assess the impact of case-initiated contact tracing on transmission during a period of relatively higher caseloads and system stress (up to thousands of cases per day). RESULTS: We estimate that under relatively low caseloads in the state of New South Wales (tens of cases per day), TTIQ contributed to a 54% reduction in transmission. Under higher caseloads in the state of Victoria (hundreds of cases per day), TTIQ contributed to a 42% reduction in transmission. Our results also suggest that case-initiated contact tracing can support timely quarantine in times of system stress (thousands of cases per day). CONCLUSION: Contact tracing systems for COVID-19 in Australia were highly effective and adaptable in supporting the national suppression strategy from 2020-21, prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant in November 2021. TTIQ systems were critical to the maintenance of the strong suppression strategy and were more effective when caseloads were (relatively) low.

Missing data: current practice in football research and recommendations for improvement.

METHODS: A survey of 136 articles published in 2019 (sampled at random) was conducted to determine whether a statement about missing data was included. RESULTS: The proportion of studies reporting on missing data was low, at 11.0% (95% confidence interval = 6.3% to 17.5%). RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend that researchers describe the number and percentage of missing values, including when there are no missing values. Exploratory analysis should be conducted to explore missing values, and visualisations describing missingness overall should be provided in the paper, or at least in supplementary materials. Missing values should almost always be imputed, and imputation methods should be explored to ensure they are appropriately representative. Researchers should consider these recommendations and pay greater attention to missing data and its influence on research results.

Common-sense approaches to sharing tabular data alongside publication.

Numerous arguments strongly support the practice of open science, which offers several societal and individual benefits. For individual researchers, sharing research artifacts such as data can increase trust and transparency, improve the reproducibility of one's own work, and catalyze new collaborations. Despite a general appreciation of the benefits of data sharing, research data are often only available to the original investigators. For data that are shared, lack of useful metadata and documentation make them challenging to reuse. In this paper, we argue that a lack of incentives and infrastructure for making data useful is the biggest barrier to creating a culture of widespread data sharing. We compare data with code, examine computational environments in the context of their ability to facilitate the reproducibility of research, provide some practical guidance on how one can improve the chances of their data being reusable, and partially bridge the incentive gap. While previous papers have focused on describing ideal best practices for data and code, we focus on common-sense ideas for sharing tabular data for a target audience of academics working in data science adjacent fields who are about to submit for publication.

Evaluating health facility access using Bayesian spatial models and location analysis methods.

BACKGROUND: Floating catchment methods have recently been applied to identify priority regions for Automated External Defibrillator (AED) deployment, to aid in improving Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) survival. This approach models access as a supply-to-demand ratio for each area, targeting areas with high demand and low supply for AED placement. These methods incorporate spatial covariates on OHCA occurrence, but do not provide precise AED locations, which are critical to the initial intent of such location analysis research. Exact AED locations can be determined using optimisation methods, but they do not incorporate known spatial risk factors for OHCA, such as income and demographics. Combining these two approaches would evaluate AED placement impact, describe drivers of OHCA occurrence, and identify areas that may not be appropriately covered by AED placement strategies. There are two aims in this paper. First, to develop geospatial models of OHCA that account for and display uncertainty. Second, to evaluate the AED placement methods using geospatial models of accessibility. We first identify communities with the greatest gap between demand and supply for allocating AEDs. We then use this information to evaluate models for precise AED location deployment. METHODS: Case study data set consisted of 2802 OHCA events and 719 AEDs. Spatial OHCA occurrence was described using a geospatial model, with possible spatial correlation accommodated by introducing a conditional autoregressive (CAR) prior on the municipality-level spatial random effect. This model was fit with Integrated Nested Laplacian Approximation (INLA), using covariates for population density, proportion male, proportion over 65 years, financial strength, and the proportion of land used for transport, commercial, buildings, recreation, and urban areas. Optimisation methods for AED locations were applied to find the top 100 AED placement locations. AED access was calculated for current access and 100 AED placements. Priority rankings were then given for each area based on their access score and predicted number of OHCA events. RESULTS: Of the 2802 OHCA events, 64.28% occurred in rural areas, and 35.72% in urban areas. Additionally, over 70% of individuals were aged over 65. Supply of AEDs was less than demand in most areas. Priority regions for AED placement were identified, and access scores were evaluated for AED placement methodology by ranking the access scores and the predicted OHCA count. AED placement methodology placed AEDs in areas with the highest priority, but placed more AEDs in areas with more predicted OHCA events in each grid cell. CONCLUSION: The methods in this paper incorporate OHCA spatial risk factors and OHCA coverage to identify spatial regions most in need of resources. These methods can be used to help understand how AED allocation methods affect OHCA accessibility, which is of significant practical value for communities when deciding AED placements.

Using decision trees to understand structure in missing data.

OBJECTIVES: Demonstrate the application of decision trees--classification and regression trees (CARTs), and their cousins, boosted regression trees (BRTs)--to understand structure in missing data. SETTING: Data taken from employees at 3 different industrial sites in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 7915 observations were included. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The approach was evaluated using an occupational health data set comprising results of questionnaires, medical tests and environmental monitoring. Statistical methods included standard statistical tests and the 'rpart' and 'gbm' packages for CART and BRT analyses, respectively, from the statistical software 'R'. A simulation study was conducted to explore the capability of decision tree models in describing data with missingness artificially introduced. RESULTS: CART and BRT models were effective in highlighting a missingness structure in the data, related to the type of data (medical or environmental), the site in which it was collected, the number of visits, and the presence of extreme values. The simulation study revealed that CART models were able to identify variables and values responsible for inducing missingness. There was greater variation in variable importance for unstructured as compared to structured missingness. DISCUSSION: Both CART and BRT models were effective in describing structural missingness in data. CART models may be preferred over BRT models for exploratory analysis of missing data, and selecting variables important for predicting missingness. BRT models can show how values of other variables influence missingness, which may prove useful for researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers are encouraged to use CART and BRT models to explore and understand missing data.