Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020
Research

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Social Contact Patterns and Implications for Tuberculosis Transmission and Control

Katherine C. HortonComments to Author , Anne L. Hoey, Guillaume Béraud, Elizabeth L. Corbett, and Richard G. White
Author affiliations: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK (K.C. Horton, E.L. Corbett, R.G. White); St. George Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (A.L. Hoey); University of New South Wales, Sydney (A.L. Hoey); Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers, Poitiers, France (G. Béraud); Université de Lille, Lille, France (G. Béraud); Universiteit de Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium (G. Béraud); Malawi–Liverpool–Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi (E.L. Corbett)

Main Article

Table

Characteristics of 21 surveys of sex differences in social contact patterns and tuberculosis transmission and control

Survey region and country
 Year(s)
 Setting
 Reporting period, h
 Contact definition
 Age of adults, y
 No. participants
 Reference
Participants
 Contacts
 Men
 Women
 Boys
 Girls
 Total
Africa
South Africa 2010 Township 24 “physical touch” or “a 2-way conversation with 3 or more words in the physical presence of another person without physical touch” >15 >15 186 191 92 102 571 (25)
South Africa 2011 8 communities in Western Cape 24 “face-to-face conversation that was longer than a greeting and within an arm’s reach” >18 >13 634 636 0 0 1,270 (10)
Zambia 2011 16 communities 24 “face-to-face conversation that was longer than a greeting and within an arm’s reach” >18 >13 1,018 1,124 0 0 2,142 (10)
Zimbabwe
 2013
 Manicaland
 48
 “interaction between two individuals, either physical (when involving skin-to-skin contact), or non-physical (when involving a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person, but no skin-to-skin contact)”
 >13
 >13
 345
 226
 290
 241
 1,102
 (26)
Americas
Peru
 2011
 San Marcos
 24
 “a conversation with another person that is physically present and no farther than 3 meters, or a physical contact involving skin-to-skin touching, e.g., a kiss or handshake (either with or without conversation)”
 >15
 >15
 132
 156
 135
 135
 558
 (23)
Europe
Belgium 2005–2006 National 24 “either skin-to-skin contact such as a kiss or handshake (a physical contact), or a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person but no skin-to-skin contact (a nonphysical contact)” >15 >15 238 290 111 106 745 (14)
Belgium 2010–2011 Flanders 24 “a two-way conversation with a dialog of at least 3 words and skin-to-skin touching either with or without conversation.” >15 >15 620 783 192 152 1,747 (27)
Finland 2005–2006 National 24 “either skin-to-skin contact such as a kiss or handshake (a physical contact), or a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person but no skin-to-skin contact (a nonphysical contact)” >15 >15 327 362 155 131 975 (14)
France 2012 National 48 “talking to someone within a distance of less than 2 meters, or skin-to skin touching” >15 >15 450 668 316 310 1,744 (15)
Germany 2005–2006 National 24 “either skin-to-skin contact such as a kiss or handshake (a physical contact), or a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person but no skin-to-skin contact (a nonphysical contact)” >15 >15 426 553 137 144 1,260 (14)
Italy 2005–2006 National 24 “either skin-to-skin contact such as a kiss or handshake (a physical contact), or a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person but no skin-to-skin contact (a nonphysical contact)” >15 >15 260 325 143 109 837 (14)
Luxembourg 2005–2006 National 24 “either skin-to-skin contact such as a kiss or handshake (a physical contact), or a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person but no skin-to-skin contact (a nonphysical contact)” >15 >15 330 414 158 147 1,049 (14)
The Netherlands 2005–2006 National 24 “either skin-to-skin contact such as a kiss or handshake (a physical contact), or a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person but no skin-to-skin contact (a nonphysical contact)” >15 >15 245 285 115 128 773 (16)
Poland 2005–2006 National 24 “either skin-to-skin contact such as a kiss or handshake (a physical contact), or a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person but no skin-to-skin contact (a nonphysical contact)” >15 >15 341 370 156 143 1,010 (14)
United Kingdom 2005–2006 National 24 “either skin-to-skin contact such as a kiss or handshake (a physical contact), or a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person but no skin-to-skin contact (a nonphysical contact)” >15 >15 339 368 144 154 1,005 (14)
United Kingdom
 2012
 National
 24
 “an interaction in close proximity with three or more words directed to the infant or a physical skin-to-skin contact between infant and another person”
 Not available
 >15
 0
 0
 62
 53
 115
 (28)
Western Pacific
Australia 2008 Greater Melbourne 72 “two-way or small group conversational exchange of at least 3 words, or any skin-to-skin contact” >20 >15 11 54 0 0 65 (29)
Australia 2013 Greater Melbourne 24 “two-way face-to-face conversation of more than three words or any physical contact” >18 >15 490 750 0 0 1,240 (30)
China 2010 Taiwan 24 “physical contacts and those nonphysical contacts with verbal communication made within 2 meters” >15 >15 807 801 183 152 1,943 (22)
China 2015–2016 Hong Kong 24 “skin-to-skin touch such as a handshake (a physical contact) or a face-to-face conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of both the participant and the contact within two meters” >15 >15 435 461 116 123 1,135 (13)
Vietnam 2007 Semirural community in Red River Delta 24 “either skin-to-skin contact (a physical contact), or a two-way conversation with three or more words in the physical presence of another person but no skin-to-skin contact” >16 >16 264 346 125 125 860 (24)

Main Article

References
  1. World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 19]. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/274453/9789241565646-eng.pdf
  2. Houben  RM, Dodd  PJ. The global burden of latent tuberculosis infection: a re-estimation using mathematical modelling. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002152. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Pai  M, Behr  MA, Dowdy  D, Dheda  K, Divangahi  M, Boehme  CC, et al. Tuberculosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16076. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 8]. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/259366/9789241565516-eng.pdf
  5. Horton  KC, MacPherson  P, Houben  RM, White  RG, Corbett  EL. Sex differences in tuberculosis burden and notifications in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002119. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgdorff  MW, Nagelkerke  NJ, Dye  C, Nunn  P. Gender and tuberculosis: a comparison of prevalence surveys with notification data to explore sex differences in case detection. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2000;4:123–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Horton  KC, Sumner  T, Houben  RMGJ, Corbett  EL, White  RG. A Bayesian approach to understanding sex differences in tuberculosis disease burden. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187:2431–8. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hudelson  P. Gender differentials in tuberculosis: the role of socio-economic and cultural factors. Tuber Lung Dis. 1996;77:391–400. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes  CB, Hausler  H, Nunn  P. A review of sex differences in the epidemiology of tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1998;2:96–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dodd  PJ, Looker  C, Plumb  ID, Bond  V, Schaap  A, Shanaube  K, et al. Age- and sex-specific social contact patterns and incidence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183:156–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Read  JM, Edmunds  WJ, Riley  S, Lessler  J, Cummings  DA. Close encounters of the infectious kind: methods to measure social mixing behaviour. Epidemiol Infect. 2012;140:2117–30. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Wallinga  J, Edmunds  WJ, Kretzschmar  M. Perspective: human contact patterns and the spread of airborne infectious diseases. Trends Microbiol. 1999;7:372–7. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Leung  K, Jit  M, Lau  EHY, Wu  JT. Social contact patterns relevant to the spread of respiratory infectious diseases in Hong Kong. Sci Rep. 2017;7:7974. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Mossong  J, Hens  N, Jit  M, Beutels  P, Auranen  K, Mikolajczyk  R, et al. Social contacts and mixing patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e74. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Béraud  G, Kazmercziak  S, Beutels  P, Levy-Bruhl  D, Lenne  X, Mielcarek  N, et al. The French connection: the first large population-based contact survey in France relevant for the spread of infectious diseases. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0133203. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. van de Kassteele  J, van Eijkeren  J, Wallinga  J. Efficient estimation of age-specific social contact rates between men and women. Ann Appl Stat. 2017;11:320–39. DOIGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoey  A, Horton  KC, White  RG. Sex differences in social mixing patterns: a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017067216), 2017 [2019 Mar 20]. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017067216
  18. Hoang  T, Coletti  P, Melegaro  A, Wallinga  J, Grijalva  CG, Edmunds  JW, et al. A systematic review of social contact surveys to inform transmission models of close contact infections. Epidemiology. 2019;30:723–36. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Downes  MJ, Brennan  ML, Williams  HC, Dean  RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011458. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Higgins  JP, Thompson  SG, Deeks  JJ, Altman  DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015.
  22. Fu  YC, Wang  DW, Chuang  JH. Representative contact diaries for modeling the spread of infectious diseases in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2012;7:e45113. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Grijalva  CG, Goeyvaerts  N, Verastegui  H, Edwards  KM, Gil  AI, Lanata  CF, et al.; RESPIRA PERU project. A household-based study of contact networks relevant for the spread of infectious diseases in the highlands of Peru. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0118457. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Horby  P, Pham  QT, Hens  N, Nguyen  TT, Le  QM, Dang  DT, et al. Social contact patterns in Vietnam and implications for the control of infectious diseases. PLoS One. 2011;6:e16965. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnstone-Robertson  SP, Mark  D, Morrow  C, Middelkoop  K, Chiswell  M, Aquino  LD, et al. Social mixing patterns within a South African township community: implications for respiratory disease transmission and control. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174:1246–55. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Melegaro  A, Del Fava  E, Poletti  P, Merler  S, Nyamukapa  C, Williams  J, et al. Social contact structures and time use patterns in the Manicaland Province of Zimbabwe. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0170459. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Willem  L, Van Kerckhove  K, Chao  DL, Hens  N, Beutels  P. A nice day for an infection? Weather conditions and social contact patterns relevant to influenza transmission. PLoS One. 2012;7:e48695. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. van Hoek  AJ, Andrews  N, Campbell  H, Amirthalingam  G, Edmunds  WJ, Miller  E. The social life of infants in the context of infectious disease transmission; social contacts and mixing patterns of the very young. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76180. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. McCaw  JM, Forbes  K, Nathan  PM, Pattison  PE, Robins  GL, Nolan  TM, et al. Comparison of three methods for ascertainment of contact information relevant to respiratory pathogen transmission in encounter networks. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:166. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rolls  DA, Geard  NL, Warr  DJ, Nathan  PM, Robins  GL, Pattison  PE, et al. Social encounter profiles of greater Melbourne residents, by location—a telephone survey. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:494. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Praygod  G, Todd  J, McDermid  JM. Early childhood tuberculosis in northwestern Tanzania. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2012;16:1455–60. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Crampin  AC, Glynn  JR, Traore  H, Yates  MD, Mwaungulu  L, Mwenebabu  M, et al. Tuberculosis transmission attributable to close contacts and HIV status, Malawi. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:729–35. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Middelkoop  K, Mathema  B, Myer  L, Shashkina  E, Whitelaw  A, Kaplan  G, et al. Transmission of tuberculosis in a South African community with a high prevalence of HIV infection. J Infect Dis. 2015;211:53–61. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Martinez  L, Shen  Y, Mupere  E, Kizza  A, Hill  PC, Whalen  CC. Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in households and the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;185:1327–39. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Smieszek  T, Barclay  VC, Seeni  I, Rainey  JJ, Gao  H, Uzicanin  A, et al. How should social mixing be measured: comparing web-based survey and sensor-based methods. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:136. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McCreesh  N, White  RG. An explanation for the low proportion of tuberculosis that results from transmission between household and known social contacts. Sci Rep. 2018;8:5382. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, September 18, 2015 [cited 2018 Feb 8]. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
  38. Stop  TB. Partnership. A paradigm shift 2016–2020: the global plan to end TB, 2015 [cited 2018 Sep 19]. http://www.stoptb.org/assets/documents/global/plan/GlobalPlanToEndTB_TheParadigmShift_2016-2020_StopTBPartnership.pdf

Main Article

Page created: April 16, 2020
Page updated: April 16, 2020
Page reviewed: April 16, 2020
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external