Limits...
Social encounter profiles of greater Melbourne residents, by location--a telephone survey.

Rolls DA, Geard NL, Warr DJ, Nathan PM, Robins GL, Pattison PE, McCaw JM, McVernon J - BMC Infect. Dis. (2015)

Bottom Line: Descriptive summary measures were reported and compared using weight adjusted Wald tests of group means.Marked dissimilarities in patterns of prolonged close mixing were demonstrated by gender.In addition, preliminary observations of between-area differences in socialisation warrant further evaluation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. drolls@unimelb.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: Models of infectious disease increasingly seek to incorporate heterogeneity of social interactions to more accurately characterise disease spread. We measured attributes of social encounters in two areas of Greater Melbourne, using a telephone survey.

Methods: A market research company conducted computer assisted telephone interviews (CATIs) of residents of the Boroondara and Hume local government areas (LGAs), which differ markedly in ethnic composition, age distribution and household socioeconomic status. Survey items included household demographic and socio-economic characteristics, locations visited during the preceding day, and social encounters involving two-way conversation or physical contact. Descriptive summary measures were reported and compared using weight adjusted Wald tests of group means.

Results: The overall response rate was 37.6%, higher in Boroondara [n = 650, (46%)] than Hume [n = 657 (32%)]. Survey conduct through the CATI format was challenging, with implications for representativeness and data quality. Marked heterogeneity of encounter profiles was observed across age groups and locations. Household settings afforded greatest opportunity for prolonged close contact, particularly between women and children. Young and middle-aged men reported more age-assortative mixing, often with non-household members. Preliminary comparisons between LGAs suggested that mixing occurred in different settings. In addition, gender differences in mixing with household and non-household members, including strangers, were observed by area.

Conclusions: Survey administration by CATI was challenging, but rich data were obtained, revealing marked heterogeneity of social behaviour. Marked dissimilarities in patterns of prolonged close mixing were demonstrated by gender. In addition, preliminary observations of between-area differences in socialisation warrant further evaluation.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Characteristics of locations and encounters by location type. Summaries of locations and encounters from one study day for each participant, reported separately for each location type. The number of unique addresses visited by participants (top left panel). Boxplot for participants' total (weighted) number of encounters with listed individuals, by location (top right panel). Boxplot for participants' total (weighted) duration of encounters with listed individuals, by location (bottom left panel). Boxplot for participants' total duration of encounters involving physical contact with listed individuals, by location (bottom right panel). For all boxplots, boxes denote the interquartile range, interior lines shown the median and the whiskers show adjacent values. Across the boxplots, marked heterogeneity is apparent in several location types. For total duration of contact, Work (and Home to a lesser degree) is the dominant location type. For total duration of physical contact, home is the dominant location type. Boxplots use raking weights to reduce the effects of sample bias. For each location type, participants with no time spent at that location type do not contribute to those results
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4631075&req=5

Fig2: Characteristics of locations and encounters by location type. Summaries of locations and encounters from one study day for each participant, reported separately for each location type. The number of unique addresses visited by participants (top left panel). Boxplot for participants' total (weighted) number of encounters with listed individuals, by location (top right panel). Boxplot for participants' total (weighted) duration of encounters with listed individuals, by location (bottom left panel). Boxplot for participants' total duration of encounters involving physical contact with listed individuals, by location (bottom right panel). For all boxplots, boxes denote the interquartile range, interior lines shown the median and the whiskers show adjacent values. Across the boxplots, marked heterogeneity is apparent in several location types. For total duration of contact, Work (and Home to a lesser degree) is the dominant location type. For total duration of physical contact, home is the dominant location type. Boxplots use raking weights to reduce the effects of sample bias. For each location type, participants with no time spent at that location type do not contribute to those results

Mentions: Unique addresses visited by participants over the course of the survey day were categorised and distributed as shown in Fig. 2 (top left panel). All but six participants spent some time at their usual home, with retail/hospitality, and private transport being the next most common types of designated settings. Approximately one tenth of locations were assigned as ‘other’, of which about half were non-participant private homes, with the remainder comprising places such as medical centres and facilities, and places of worship. The weighted number of total listed encounters by location is reported in Fig. 2 (top right panel) (and Additional file 4: Figure S1 for physical contact). These data demonstrate the high median number of contacts made in school and daycare settings, but also the marked heterogeneity in encounter profiles within several location types including home, private transport, retail/hospitality and ‘other’. Figure 2 (bottom left panel) highlights the greater length of interactions with workplace colleagues over the course of a working day, relative to those in most other domains. Figure 2 (bottom right panel) similarly reports duration of encounters, but restricted to those involving any physical contact. This last figure strongly reasserts the importance of household settings in providing opportunities for close-contact transmission of infection.Fig. 2


Social encounter profiles of greater Melbourne residents, by location--a telephone survey.

Rolls DA, Geard NL, Warr DJ, Nathan PM, Robins GL, Pattison PE, McCaw JM, McVernon J - BMC Infect. Dis. (2015)

Characteristics of locations and encounters by location type. Summaries of locations and encounters from one study day for each participant, reported separately for each location type. The number of unique addresses visited by participants (top left panel). Boxplot for participants' total (weighted) number of encounters with listed individuals, by location (top right panel). Boxplot for participants' total (weighted) duration of encounters with listed individuals, by location (bottom left panel). Boxplot for participants' total duration of encounters involving physical contact with listed individuals, by location (bottom right panel). For all boxplots, boxes denote the interquartile range, interior lines shown the median and the whiskers show adjacent values. Across the boxplots, marked heterogeneity is apparent in several location types. For total duration of contact, Work (and Home to a lesser degree) is the dominant location type. For total duration of physical contact, home is the dominant location type. Boxplots use raking weights to reduce the effects of sample bias. For each location type, participants with no time spent at that location type do not contribute to those results
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4631075&req=5

Fig2: Characteristics of locations and encounters by location type. Summaries of locations and encounters from one study day for each participant, reported separately for each location type. The number of unique addresses visited by participants (top left panel). Boxplot for participants' total (weighted) number of encounters with listed individuals, by location (top right panel). Boxplot for participants' total (weighted) duration of encounters with listed individuals, by location (bottom left panel). Boxplot for participants' total duration of encounters involving physical contact with listed individuals, by location (bottom right panel). For all boxplots, boxes denote the interquartile range, interior lines shown the median and the whiskers show adjacent values. Across the boxplots, marked heterogeneity is apparent in several location types. For total duration of contact, Work (and Home to a lesser degree) is the dominant location type. For total duration of physical contact, home is the dominant location type. Boxplots use raking weights to reduce the effects of sample bias. For each location type, participants with no time spent at that location type do not contribute to those results
Mentions: Unique addresses visited by participants over the course of the survey day were categorised and distributed as shown in Fig. 2 (top left panel). All but six participants spent some time at their usual home, with retail/hospitality, and private transport being the next most common types of designated settings. Approximately one tenth of locations were assigned as ‘other’, of which about half were non-participant private homes, with the remainder comprising places such as medical centres and facilities, and places of worship. The weighted number of total listed encounters by location is reported in Fig. 2 (top right panel) (and Additional file 4: Figure S1 for physical contact). These data demonstrate the high median number of contacts made in school and daycare settings, but also the marked heterogeneity in encounter profiles within several location types including home, private transport, retail/hospitality and ‘other’. Figure 2 (bottom left panel) highlights the greater length of interactions with workplace colleagues over the course of a working day, relative to those in most other domains. Figure 2 (bottom right panel) similarly reports duration of encounters, but restricted to those involving any physical contact. This last figure strongly reasserts the importance of household settings in providing opportunities for close-contact transmission of infection.Fig. 2

Bottom Line: Descriptive summary measures were reported and compared using weight adjusted Wald tests of group means.Marked dissimilarities in patterns of prolonged close mixing were demonstrated by gender.In addition, preliminary observations of between-area differences in socialisation warrant further evaluation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. drolls@unimelb.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: Models of infectious disease increasingly seek to incorporate heterogeneity of social interactions to more accurately characterise disease spread. We measured attributes of social encounters in two areas of Greater Melbourne, using a telephone survey.

Methods: A market research company conducted computer assisted telephone interviews (CATIs) of residents of the Boroondara and Hume local government areas (LGAs), which differ markedly in ethnic composition, age distribution and household socioeconomic status. Survey items included household demographic and socio-economic characteristics, locations visited during the preceding day, and social encounters involving two-way conversation or physical contact. Descriptive summary measures were reported and compared using weight adjusted Wald tests of group means.

Results: The overall response rate was 37.6%, higher in Boroondara [n = 650, (46%)] than Hume [n = 657 (32%)]. Survey conduct through the CATI format was challenging, with implications for representativeness and data quality. Marked heterogeneity of encounter profiles was observed across age groups and locations. Household settings afforded greatest opportunity for prolonged close contact, particularly between women and children. Young and middle-aged men reported more age-assortative mixing, often with non-household members. Preliminary comparisons between LGAs suggested that mixing occurred in different settings. In addition, gender differences in mixing with household and non-household members, including strangers, were observed by area.

Conclusions: Survey administration by CATI was challenging, but rich data were obtained, revealing marked heterogeneity of social behaviour. Marked dissimilarities in patterns of prolonged close mixing were demonstrated by gender. In addition, preliminary observations of between-area differences in socialisation warrant further evaluation.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus