Infectious diseases, particularly those caused by airborne pathogens like SARS-CoV-2, spread by social contact, and understanding how people mix is critical in controlling outbreaks. To explore these patterns, researchers typically carry out large contact surveys. Participants are asked for personal information (such as gender, age and occupation), as well as details of recent social contacts, usually those that happened in the last 24 hours. This information includes, the age and gender of the contact, where the interaction happened, how long it lasted, and whether it involved physical touch.

These kinds of surveys help scientists to predict how infectious diseases might spread. But there is a problem: most of the data come from high-income countries, and there is evidence to suggest that social contact patterns differ between places. Therefore, data from these countries might not be useful for predicting how infections spread in lower-income regions.

Here, Mousa et al. have collected and combined data from 27 contact surveys carried out before the COVID-19 pandemic to see how baseline social interactions vary between high- and lower-income settings. The comparison revealed that, in higher-income countries, the number of daily contacts people made decreased with age. But, in lower-income countries, younger and older individuals made similar numbers of contacts and mixed with all age groups.

In higher-income countries, more contacts happened at work or school, while in low-income settings, more interactions happened at home and people were also more likely to live in larger, intergenerational households. Mousa et al. also found that gender affected how long contacts lasted and whether they involved physical contact, both of which are key risk factors for transmitting airborne pathogens.

These findings can help researchers to predict how infectious diseases might spread in different settings. They can also be used to assess how effective non-medical restrictions, like shielding of the elderly and workplace closures, will be at reducing transmissions in different parts of the world.

Previous outbreaks of Ebola (Mbala-Kingebeni et al., 2019), influenza (Khan et al., 2009), and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the importance of understanding the transmission dynamics and spread of infectious diseases, which depend fundamentally on the underlying patterns of social contact between individuals. Together, these patterns give rise to complex social networks that influence disease dynamics (Eubank et al., 2004; Ferrari et al., 2006; Firth et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020), including the capacity for emergent pathogens to become endemic (Ghani and Aral, 2005; Jacquez et al., 1988), the overdispersion of the offspring distribution underlying the reproduction number (Delamater et al., 2019 ) and the threshold at which herd immunity is reached (Fontanet and Cauchemez, 2020; Mistry et al., 2021). They can similarly modulate the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as school closures and workplace restrictions, that are typically deployed to control and contain the spread of infectious diseases (Prem et al., 2020).

Social contact surveys provide insight into the features of these networks, which is typically achieved through incorporating survey results into mathematical models of infectious disease transmission frequently used to guide decision making in response to outbreaks (Chang et al., 2021; Davies et al., 2020). Such inputs are necessary for models to have sufficient realism to evaluate relevant policy questions. However, despite the known importance of contact patterns as determinants of the infectious disease dynamics, our understanding of how they vary globally remains far from complete. Reviews of contact patterns to date have focused on high-income countries (HICs) (Hoang et al., 2019). This is despite evidence that social contact patterns differ systematically across settings in ways that have material consequences for the dynamics of infectious disease transmission and the evolution of epidemic trajectories (Prem et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2020). Previous reviews have also primarily explored the total number of contacts made by individuals (Hoang et al., 2019) and/or how these contacts are distributed across different age/sex groups (Horton et al., 2020). Whilst these factors are a vital component underpinning disease spread, recent work has also underscored the importance of the characteristics of contacts (such as the location, duration, and extent of physical contact) in determining transmission risk (Thompson et al., 2021).

Here, we carry out a systematic review of contact surveys (conducted prior to the emergence of COVID-19) in lower-income, lower-middle and upper-middle-income countries (LICs, LMICs and UMICs, respectively). Alongside previously published data from HICs (Kwok et al., 2018; Kwok et al., 2014; Leung et al., 2017; Mossong et al., 2008), we collate individual participant data (IPD) on social contacts from published work spanning 27 surveys from 22 countries and over 28,000 individuals. We use a Bayesian framework to explore drivers and determinants of contact patterns across a wider range of settings and at a more granular scale than has previously been possible. Specifically, we assess the influence of key factors such as age, gender, and household structure on both the total number and characteristics (such as duration, location, and type) of contact made by an individual, and explore how the comparative importance of different factors varies across different settings. We additionally evaluate the extent and degree of assortativity in contact patterns between different groups, and how this varies across settings.

Understanding patterns of contact across populations is vital to predicting the dynamics and spread of infectious diseases, as well understanding the control interventions likely to have the greatest impact. Here, using a systematic review and individual-participant data meta-analysis of contact surveys, we summarise research exploring these patterns across a range of populations spanning 28,503 individuals and 22 countries. Our findings highlight substantial differences in contact patterns between income settings. These differences are driven by setting-specific sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, household structure, and patterns of employment, which all have material consequences for transmission and spread of respiratory pathogens.

Across the collated studies, the total number of contacts was highest for school-aged children. This is consistent with previous results from HICs (Béraud et al., 2015; Fu et al., 2012; Hoang et al., 2019; Ibuka et al., 2016; Lapidus et al., 2013) and shown here to be generally true for LICs/LMICs and UMICs also. Interestingly however, we observed differences in patterns of contact in adults across income strata. Whilst contact rates in HICs declined in older adults, this was not observed in LICs/LMICs, where contact rates did not differ in the oldest age group compared to younger ages. This is consistent with variation in household structure and size across settings, with nearly two-thirds of participants aged 65+ in included LIC/LMIC surveys living in large, likely intergenerational, households (6+ members), compared to only 2% in HICs. HICs were also characterised by more assortative mixing between age groups, with older adults in LICs/LMICs more likely to mix with individuals of younger ages, again consistent with the observed differences between household structures across the two settings. These results have important consequences for the viability and efficacy of protective policies centred around shielding of elderly individuals (i.e. those most at risk from COVID-19 or influenza). In these settings other strategies may be required to effectively shield vulnerable populations, as has been previously suggested (Dahab et al., 2020). Our results support the idea of households as a key site for transmission of respiratory pathogens (Thompson et al., 2021), with the majority of contacts made at home. Our analysis highlights that the number of contacts made at home is mainly driven by household size. However, the relative importance of households compared to other locations is likely to vary across settings. We observed significant differences across income settings in the distribution of contacts made at home, work, and school. The proportion of contacts made at home was highest for LIC/LMICs, where larger average household sizes were associated with more contacts, more physical contacts, and longer lasting contacts. By contrast, participants in HICs tended to report more contacts occurring at work and school. The lower number of contacts at work in LIC/LMIC may be explained by the types of employment (e.g. agriculture in rural surveys) and a selection bias (women at home/homemakers more likely to be surveyed in questionnaire-based surveys). Our analyses similarly highlighted significant variation in the duration and nature of contacts across settings. Contacts made by female participants in LICs/LMICs were more likely to be physical compared to men, whilst the opposite effect was observed for HICs and UMICs, potentially reflecting context-specific gender roles. In all settings, we observed a general decline of physical contacts with age, except in the very old (Mossong et al., 2008), potentially reflecting higher levels of dependency and the need for physical care.

Altogether, these results suggest differences between settings in the comparative importance of different locations (such as the household or the workplace) to transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a finding which would likely modulate the impact of different NPIs (such as workplace or school closures, stay at home orders, etc.). Moreover, it suggests that previous estimates of NPI effectiveness primarily derived from European data and settings (Brauner et al., 2021) may be of limited generalisability to non-European settings characterised by different structures and patterns of social contact. However, beyond highlighting heterogeneity in where and how transmission is likely to occur, it remains challenging to disentangle exactly how these differences in contact patterns would shape patterns of transmission. Whilst the collated data provide a cross-sectional snapshot into the networks of social contact underpinning transmission, they remain insufficient to completely resolve this network or its temporal dynamics. Our results therefore do not consider key features relevant to population-level spread and transmission (such as overall network structure or the extent of repeated contacts, which would be most likely to occur with household members) which previous work has demonstrated can have a significant impact on infectious disease dynamics, both in general terms (Bansal et al., 2010; Keeling and Eames, 2005) and with COVID-19 (Rader et al., 2020). It is in this context that recent results generating complete social networks (including both the frequency and identity of an individual’s contacts) from high-resolution GPS data represent promising developments in understanding social contact networks and how they shape transmission (Firth et al., 2020).

There are important caveats to these findings. Data constraints limited the numbers of factors we were able to explore – for example, despite evidence (Kiti et al., 2014) suggesting that contact patterns differ across rural and urban settings, only three studies (Kiti et al., 2014; le Polain de Waroux et al., 2018b; Neal et al., 2020) contained information from both rural and urban sites, allowing classification. Similarly, we were unable to examine the impact of socioeconomic factors such as household wealth, despite experiences with COVID-19 having highlighted strong socioeconomic disparities in both transmission and burden of disease (De Negri et al., 2021; Routledge et al., 2021; Ward et al., 2021; Winskill et al., 2020) and previous work suggesting that poorer individuals are less likely to be employed in occupations amenable to remote working (Loayza, 2020). A lack of suitably detailed information in the studies conducted precludes analysis of these factors but highlights the importance of incorporating economic questions into future contact surveys, such as household wealth and house square footage. Other factors also not controlled for here, but that may similarly shape contact patterns include school holidays or seasonal variations in population movement and composition that we are unable to capture given the cross-sectional nature of these studies.

Another important limitation to these results is that we are only able to consider a limited set of contact characteristics (the location and duration of the contact and whether it was physical). Previous work has highlighted the importance of these factors in determining the risk of respiratory pathogen transmission (Chang et al., 2021; Dunne et al., 2018; le Polain de Waroux et al., 2018a; Neal et al., 2020; Thompson et al., 2021), but only a limited number of studies reported whether a contact was ‘close’ or ‘casual’ (Kwok et al., 2018; Kwok et al., 2014; le Polain de Waroux et al., 2018b) and whether the contact was made indoors or outdoors (Wood et al., 2012); both factors likely to influence transmission risk (Bulfone et al., 2021; Chu et al., 2020). More generally, the relevance and comparative importance of different contacts to transmission likely varies according to the specific pathogen and its predominant transmission modality (e.g. aerosol, droplet, fomite, etc.). It is therefore important to note that these results do not provide a direct indication of explicit transmission risk, but rather an indicator of factors likely to be relevant to transmission.

Relatedly, it is also important to note that the studies collated here were conducted over a wide time-period (2005–2018). In conjunction with the cross-sectional nature of the included studies, this precludes us from being able to examine for potential time-related trends in contact patterns. Additionally, the collated surveys were all carried out prior to the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Previous work has documented significant alterations to patterns of social contact in response to individual-level behaviour changes or government implemented NPIs aimed at controlling SARS-CoV-2 spread, and that these changes are dynamic and time-varying (Gimma et al., 2021; McCreesh et al., 2021). A detailed understanding of the impact of changing contact patterns on disease spread necessarily requires both an understanding of baseline contact patterns (as detailed in the studies collated here) and what changes have occurred as a result of control measures – however this latter data remains sparse and is available for only a limited number of settings (Jarvis et al., 2021; Jarvis et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). Description of contact location was also coarse and precluded more granular analyses of specific settings, such as markets, which have previously been shown to be important locations for transmission in rural areas (Grijalva et al., 2015).

Heterogeneity between studies was larger for LICs/LMICs and UMICs, which we partly accounted for, through fitting random study effects. These study differences may be attributed to the way individual contact surveys were conducted, making comparisons of contact patterns among surveys more difficult (e.g. prospective/retrospective diary surveys, online/paper questionnaires, face-to-face/phone interviews, and different contact definitions). For instance, there is evidence suggesting that prospective reporting, which is less affected by recall bias, can often lead to a higher number of contacts being reported (Mikolajczyk and Kretzschmar, 2008) and a lower probability of casual or short-lasting contacts being missed. The relatively high contact rates observed in HICs may be explained by the fact that all but two HIC surveys used diary methods. Our study highlights that a unified definition of ‘contact’ and standard practice in data collection could help increase the quality of collected data, leading to more robust and reliable conclusions about contact patterns. Whilst we aggregate results by income strata due to the limited availability of data (particularly in LICs and middle-income countries), it is important to note that the outcomes considered here are likely to be shaped by several different factors other than country-level income. Whilst some of these factors will be correlated with a country’s income status (e.g. household size Walker et al., 2020), many others will be unique to a particular setting or geographical area or correlate only weakly with country-level data. Examples include patterns of employment, the role of women, and other contextual factors. These analyses are therefore intended primarily to provide indications of prevailing patterns, rather than a definitive description of contact patterns in a specific context and highlight the significant need for further studies to be carried out in a diversity of different locations.

Despite these limitations however, our results highlight significant differences in the structure and nature of contact patterns across settings. These differences suggest that the comparative importance of different locations and age groups to transmission will likely vary across settings and have critical consequences for the efficacy and suitability of strategies aimed at controlling the spread of respiratory pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2. Most importantly, our study highlights the limited amount of work that has been undertaken to date to better understand and quantify patterns of contact across a range of settings, particularly in LICs and middle-income countries, which is vital in informing control strategies reducing the spread of such pathogens.

All individual-level data across all studies and analysis code are available at https://github.com/mrc-ide/contact_patterns (copy archived at swh:1:rev:0b732099d66b2788ae6da5cf0e8185b25de70868) (see Supplementary file 5 for data dictionary).

1. 1. Zhang J
   2. Klepac P
   3. Read J
   4. Rosello A
   5. Wang X
   6. Lai S
   7. Li M
   8. Song Y
   9. Wei Q
   10. Jiang H
   11. Yang J
   12. Lynn H
   13. Flasche S
   14. Jit M
   15. Yu H

   (2019) Zenodo

   Social contact data for China mainland.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3516113
2. 1. Mossong J
   2. Hens N
   3. Jit M
   4. Beutels P
   5. Auranen K
   6. Mikolajczyk R
   7. Massari M
   8. Salmaso S
   9. Tomba GS
   10. Wallinga J
   11. Heijne J
   12. Sadkowska-Todys M
   13. Rosinska M
   14. Edmunds JW

   (2017) Zenodo

   POLYMOD social contact data.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1059920
3. 1. Leung K
   2. Jit M
   3. Wu JT

   (2018) Zenodo

   Social contact data for Hong Kong.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1165562
4. 1. Kumar S

   (2018) Open Science Framework

   India contact mixing.

   https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/C2JTV
5. 1. Grijalva CG
   2. Goeyvaerts N
   3. Verastegui H
   4. Edwards KM
   5. Gil AI
   6. Lanata CF
   7. Hens N

   (2020) Zenodo

   Social contact data for Peru.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3874805
6. 1. Litvinova M
   2. Liu QH
   3. Kulikov E
   4. Ajelli M

   (2020) Zenodo

   Social contact data for Russia.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3874653
7. 1. Potter G

   (2019) Open Science Framework

   ID https://osf.io/ksbhz/. Niakhar Senegal Social Network Data.

   https://osf.io/ksbhz/
8. 1. Wiriya M
   2. Somkid K
   3. Piya H
   4. Aronrag M
   5. Sopon I
   6. Prasert A
   7. Wirichada P

   (2020) Zenodo

   Social contact data for Thailand.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4086739
9. 1. Horby P
   2. Pham QT
   3. Hens N
   4. Nguyen TTY
   5. Le Quynh M
   6. Dang DT
   7. Nguyen ML
   8. Nguyen TH
   9. Alexander N
   10. Edmunds WJ
   11. Tran ND
   12. Fox A
   13. Nguyen TH

   (2018) Zenodo

   Social contact data for Vietnam.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1289474
10. 1. Dodd PJ
    2. Looker C
    3. Plumb ID
    4. Bond V
    5. Schaap A
    6. Shanaube K
    7. Muyoyeta M
    8. Vynnycky E
    9. Godfrey-Faussett P
    10. Corbett EL
    11. Beyers N
    12. Ayles H
    13. White RG

    (2020) Zenodo

    Social contact data for Zambia and South Africa (CODA dataset).

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3874675
11. 1. Melegaro A
    2. Del Fava E
    3. Poletti P
    4. Merler S
    5. Nyamukapa C
    6. Williams J
    7. Gregson S
    8. Manfredi P

    (2020) Zenodo

    Social contact data for Zimbabwe.

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3886638

1. 1. Ajelli M
   2. Litvinova M

   (2017) Estimating contact patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases in Russia

   Journal of Theoretical Biology 419:1–7.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.01.041

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Bansal S
   2. Read J
   3. Pourbohloul B
   4. Meyers LA

   (2010) The dynamic nature of contact networks in infectious disease epidemiology

   Journal of Biological Dynamics 4:478–489.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2010.503376

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Béraud G
   2. Kazmercziak S
   3. Beutels P
   4. Levy-Bruhl D
   5. Lenne X
   6. Mielcarek N
   7. Yazdanpanah Y
   8. Boëlle PY
   9. Hens N
   10. Dervaux B

   (2015) The French Connection: The First Large Population-Based Contact Survey in France Relevant for the Spread of Infectious Diseases

   PLOS ONE 10:e0133203.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133203

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Brauner JM
   2. Mindermann S
   3. Sharma M
   4. Johnston D
   5. Salvatier J
   6. Gavenčiak T
   7. Stephenson AB
   8. Leech G
   9. Altman G
   10. Mikulik V
   11. Norman AJ
   12. Monrad JT
   13. Besiroglu T
   14. Ge H
   15. Hartwick MA
   16. Teh YW
   17. Chindelevitch L
   18. Gal Y
   19. Kulveit J

   (2021) Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19

   Science 371:eabd9338.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9338

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bulfone TC
   2. Malekinejad M
   3. Rutherford GW
   4. Razani N

   (2021) Outdoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review

   The Journal of Infectious Diseases 223:550–561.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa742

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bürkner PC

   (2017) brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan

   Journal of Statistical Software 80:1–28.

   https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bürkner PC

   (2018) Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package brms

   The R Journal 10:395.

   https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-017

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chang S
   2. Pierson E
   3. Koh PW
   4. Gerardin J
   5. Redbird B
   6. Grusky D
   7. Leskovec J

   (2021) Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening

   Nature 589:82–87.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2923-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chu DK
   2. Akl EA
   3. Duda S
   4. Solo K
   5. Yaacoub S
   6. Schünemann HJ
   7. COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors

   (2020) Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

   Lancet 395:1973–1987.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Dahab M
    2. van Zandvoort K
    3. Flasche S
    4. Warsame A
    5. Ratnayake R
    6. Favas C
    7. Spiegel PB
    8. Waldman RJ
    9. Checchi F

    (2020) COVID-19 control in low-income settings and displaced populations: what can realistically be done?

    Conflict and Health 14:1–6.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-020-00296-8

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Davies NG
    2. Kucharski AJ
    3. Eggo RM
    4. Gimma A
    5. Edmunds WJ
    6. Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 working group

    (2020) Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and demand for hospital services in the UK: a modelling study

    The Lancet. Public Health 5:e375–e385.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30133-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. De Negri F
    2. Galiezz R
    3. Miranda P
    4. Koeller P
    5. Zucoloto G
    6. Costa J
    7. Farias CM
    8. Travassos GH
    9. Medronho RA

    (2021) Socioeconomic factors and the probability of death by Covid-19 in Brazil

    Journal of Public Health 43:493–498.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa279

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Delamater PL
    2. Street EJ
    3. Leslie TF
    4. Yang YT
    5. Jacobsen KH

    (2019) Complexity of the Basic Reproduction Number (R0)

    Emerging Infectious Diseases 25:1–4.

    https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2501.171901

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Dodd PJ
    2. Looker C
    3. Plumb ID
    4. Bond V
    5. Schaap A
    6. Shanaube K
    7. Muyoyeta M
    8. Vynnycky E
    9. Godfrey-Faussett P
    10. Corbett EL
    11. Beyers N
    12. Ayles H
    13. White RG

    (2016) Age- and Sex-Specific Social Contact Patterns and Incidence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection

    American Journal of Epidemiology 183:156–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwv160

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Downes MJ
    2. Brennan ML
    3. Williams HC
    4. Dean RS

    (2016) Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

    BMJ Open 6:e011458.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Dunne EM
    2. Satzke C
    3. Ratu FT
    4. Neal EFG
    5. Boelsen LK
    6. Matanitobua S
    7. Pell CL
    8. Nation ML
    9. Ortika BD
    10. Reyburn R
    11. Jenkins K
    12. Nguyen C
    13. Gould K
    14. Hinds J
    15. Tikoduadua L
    16. Kado J
    17. Rafai E
    18. Kama M
    19. Mulholland EK
    20. Russell FM

    (2018) Effect of ten-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction on pneumococcal carriage in Fiji: results from four annual cross-sectional carriage surveys

    The Lancet. Global Health 6:e1375–e1385.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30383-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Eubank S
    2. Guclu H
    3. Kumar VSA
    4. Marathe MV
    5. Srinivasan A
    6. Toroczkai Z
    7. Wang N

    (2004) Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks

    Nature 429:180–184.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02541

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Ferrari MJ
    2. Bansal S
    3. Meyers LA
    4. Bjørnstad ON

    (2006) Network frailty and the geometry of herd immunity

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 273:2743–2748.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3636

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Firth JA
    2. Hellewell J
    3. Klepac P
    4. Kissler S
    5. Kucharski AJ
    6. Spurgin LG

    (2020) Using a real-world network to model localized COVID-19 control strategies

    Nature Medicine 26:1616–1622.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1036-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Fontanet A
    2. Cauchemez S

    (2020) COVID-19 herd immunity: where are we?

    Nature Reviews. Immunology 20:583–584.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00451-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Fu Y
    2. Wang DW
    3. Chuang JH

    (2012) Representative contact diaries for modeling the spread of infectious diseases in Taiwan

    PLOS ONE 7:e45113.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Ghani AC
    2. Aral SO

    (2005) Patterns of Sex Worker–Client Contacts and Their Implications for the Persistence of Sexually Transmitted Infections

    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 191:S34–S41.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/425276

    • Google Scholar
23. Preprint

    1. Gimma A
    2. Munday JD
    3. Wong KLM
    4. Coletti P

    (2021) CoMix: Changes in Social Contacts as Measured by the Contact Survey during the COVID-19 Pandemic in England between March 2020 and March 2021

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.28.21257973

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Grijalva CG
    2. Goeyvaerts N
    3. Verastegui H
    4. Edwards KM
    5. Gil AI
    6. Lanata CF
    7. Hens N
    8. RESPIRA PERU project

    (2015) A household-based study of contact networks relevant for the spread of infectious diseases in the highlands of Peru

    PLOS ONE 10:e0118457.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118457

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Hoang T
    2. Coletti P
    3. Melegaro A
    4. Wallinga J
    5. Grijalva CG
    6. Edmunds JW
    7. Beutels P
    8. Hens N

    (2019) A Systematic Review of Social Contact Surveys to Inform Transmission Models of Close-contact Infections

    Epidemiology 30:723–736.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Horby P
    2. Pham QT
    3. Hens N
    4. Nguyen TTY
    5. Le QM
    6. Dang DT
    7. Nguyen ML
    8. Nguyen TH
    9. Alexander N
    10. Edmunds WJ
    11. Tran ND
    12. Fox A
    13. Nguyen TH

    (2011) Social contact patterns in Vietnam and implications for the control of infectious diseases

    PLOS ONE 6:e16965.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016965

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Horton KC
    2. Hoey AL
    3. Béraud G
    4. Corbett EL
    5. White RG

    (2020) Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Social Contact Patterns and Implications for Tuberculosis Transmission and Control

    Emerging Infectious Diseases 26:910–919.

    https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2605.190574

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Huang Y
    2. Cai X
    3. Zhang B
    4. Zhu G
    5. Liu T
    6. Guo P
    7. Xiao J
    8. Li X
    9. Zeng W
    10. Hu J
    11. Ma W

    (2020) Spatiotemporal heterogeneity of social contact patterns related to infectious diseases in the Guangdong Province, China

    Scientific Reports 10:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63383-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Ibuka Y
    2. Ohkusa Y
    3. Sugawara T
    4. Chapman GB
    5. Yamin D
    6. Atkins KE
    7. Taniguchi K
    8. Okabe N
    9. Galvani AP

    (2016) Social contacts, vaccination decisions and influenza in Japan

    Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 70:162–167.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-205777

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Jacquez JA
    2. Simon CP
    3. Koopman J
    4. Sattenspiel L
    5. Perry T

    (1988) Modeling and analyzing HIV transmission: the effect of contact patterns

    Mathematical Biosciences 92:119–199.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(88)90031-4

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Jarvis CI
    2. Van Zandvoort K
    3. Gimma A
    4. Prem K
    5. CMMID COVID-19 working group
    6. Klepac P
    7. Rubin GJ
    8. Edmunds WJ

    (2020) Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK

    BMC Medicine 18:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01597-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Jarvis CI
    2. Gimma A
    3. van Zandvoort K
    4. Wong KLM
    5. CMMID COVID-19 working group
    6. Edmunds WJ

    (2021) The impact of local and national restrictions in response to COVID-19 on social contacts in England: a longitudinal natural experiment

    BMC Medicine 19:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-01924-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Keeling MJ
    2. Eames KTD

    (2005) Networks and epidemic models

    Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 2:295–307.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2005.0051

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Khan K
    2. Arino J
    3. Hu W
    4. Raposo P
    5. Sears J
    6. Calderon F
    7. Heidebrecht C
    8. Macdonald M
    9. Liauw J
    10. Chan A
    11. Gardam M

    (2009) Spread of a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus via global airline transportation

    The New England Journal of Medicine 361:212–214.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc0904559

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kiti MC
    2. Kinyanjui TM
    3. Koech DC
    4. Munywoki PK
    5. Medley GF
    6. Nokes DJ

    (2014) Quantifying age-related rates of social contact using diaries in a rural coastal population of Kenya

    PLOS ONE 9:e104786.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104786

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Kumar S
    2. Gosain M
    3. Sharma H
    4. Swetts E
    5. Amarchand R
    6. Kumar R
    7. Lafond KE
    8. Dawood FS
    9. Jain S
    10. Widdowson MA
    11. Read JM
    12. Krishnan A

    (2018) Who interacts with whom? Social mixing insights from a rural population in India

    PLOS ONE 13:e0209039.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209039

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kwok KO
    2. Cowling BJ
    3. Wei V
    4. Wu KM
    5. Read JM
    6. Lessler J
    7. Cummings DA
    8. Peiris JSM
    9. Riley S

    (2014) Social contacts and the locations in which they occur as risk factors for influenza infection

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 281:20140709.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0709

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Kwok KO
    2. Cowling B
    3. Wei V
    4. Riley S
    5. Read JM

    (2018) Temporal variation of human encounters and the number of locations in which they occur: a longitudinal study of Hong Kong residents

    Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 15:20170838.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0838

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Lapidus N
    2. de Lamballerie X
    3. Salez N
    4. Setbon M
    5. Delabre RM
    6. Ferrari P
    7. Moyen N
    8. Gougeon ML
    9. Vely F
    10. Leruez-Ville M
    11. Andreoletti L
    12. Cauchemez S
    13. Boëlle PY
    14. Vivier E
    15. Abel L
    16. Schwarzinger M
    17. Legeas M
    18. Le Cann P
    19. Flahault A
    20. Carrat F

    (2013) Factors associated with post-seasonal serological titer and risk factors for infection with the pandemic A/H1N1 virus in the French general population

    PLOS ONE 8:e60127.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. le Polain de Waroux O
    2. Flasche S
    3. Kucharski AJ
    4. Langendorf C
    5. Ndazima D
    6. Mwanga-Amumpaire J
    7. Grais RF
    8. Cohuet S
    9. Edmunds WJ

    (2018a) Identifying human encounters that shape the transmission of Streptococcus pneumoniae and other acute respiratory infections

    Epidemics 25:72–79.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2018.05.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. le Polain de Waroux O
    2. Cohuet S
    3. Ndazima D
    4. Kucharski AJ
    5. Juan-Giner A
    6. Flasche S
    7. Tumwesigye E
    8. Arinaitwe R
    9. Mwanga-Amumpaire J
    10. Boum Y
    11. Nackers F
    12. Checchi F
    13. Grais RF
    14. Edmunds WJ

    (2018b) Characteristics of human encounters and social mixing patterns relevant to infectious diseases spread by close contact: a survey in Southwest Uganda

    BMC Infectious Diseases 18:172.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3073-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Leung K
    2. Jit M
    3. Lau EHY
    4. Wu JT

    (2017) Social contact patterns relevant to the spread of respiratory infectious diseases in Hong Kong

    Scientific Reports 7:4–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08241-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. Preprint

    1. Liu CY
    2. Berlin J
    3. Kiti MC
    4. Del Fava E
    5. Grow A
    6. Zagheni E

    (2021) Rapid Review of Social Contact Patterns during the COVID-19 Pandemic

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.12.21253410

    • Google Scholar
44. Book

    1. Loayza NV

    (2020) Costs and Trade-Offs in the Fight Against the COVID-19 Pandemic, Costs and Trade-Offs in the Fight Against the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Washington, DC: World Bank.

    https://doi.org/10.1596/33764

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Mahikul W
    2. Kripattanapong S
    3. Hanvoravongchai P
    4. Meeyai A
    5. Iamsirithaworn S
    6. Auewarakul P
    7. Pan-Ngum W

    (2020) Contact Mixing Patterns and Population Movement among Migrant Workers in an Urban Setting in Thailand

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17:E2237.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072237

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Mbala-Kingebeni P
    2. Aziza A
    3. Di Paola N
    4. Wiley MR
    5. Makiala-Mandanda S
    6. Caviness K
    7. Pratt CB
    8. Ladner JT
    9. Kugelman JR
    10. Prieto K
    11. Chitty JA
    12. Larson PA
    13. Beitzel B
    14. Ayouba A
    15. Vidal N
    16. Karhemere S
    17. Diop M
    18. Diagne MM
    19. Faye M
    20. Faye O
    21. Aruna A
    22. Nsio J
    23. Mulangu F
    24. Mukadi D
    25. Mukadi P
    26. Kombe J
    27. Mulumba A
    28. Villabona-Arenas CJ
    29. Pukuta E
    30. Gonzalez J
    31. Bartlett ML
    32. Sozhamannan S
    33. Gross SM
    34. Schroth GP
    35. Tim R
    36. Zhao JJ
    37. Kuhn JH
    38. Diallo B
    39. Yao M
    40. Fall IS
    41. Ndjoloko B
    42. Mossoko M
    43. Lacroix A
    44. Delaporte E
    45. Sanchez-Lockhart M
    46. Sall AA
    47. Muyembe-Tamfum JJ
    48. Peeters M
    49. Palacios G
    50. Ahuka-Mundeke S

    (2019) Medical countermeasures during the 2018 Ebola virus disease outbreak in the North Kivu and Ituri Provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a rapid genomic assessment

    The Lancet. Infectious Diseases 19:648–657.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30118-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. McCreesh N
    2. Dlamini V
    3. Edwards A
    4. Olivier S
    5. Dayi N
    6. Dikgale K
    7. Nxumalo S
    8. Dreyer J
    9. Baisley K
    10. Siedner MJ
    11. White RG
    12. Herbst K
    13. Grant AD
    14. Harling G

    (2021) Impact of the Covid-19 epidemic and related social distancing regulations on social contact and SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential in rural South Africa: analysis of repeated cross-sectional surveys

    BMC Infectious Diseases 21:928.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06604-8

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Meeyai A
    2. Praditsitthikorn N
    3. Kotirum S
    4. Kulpeng W
    5. Putthasri W
    6. Cooper BS
    7. Teerawattananon Y

    (2015) Seasonal influenza vaccination for children in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis

    PLOS Medicine 12:e1001829.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001829

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Melegaro A
    2. Del Fava E
    3. Poletti P
    4. Merler S
    5. Nyamukapa C
    6. Williams J
    7. Gregson S
    8. Manfredi P

    (2017) Social Contact Structures and Time Use Patterns in the Manicaland Province of Zimbabwe

    PLOS ONE 12:e0170459.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170459

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Mikolajczyk RT
    2. Kretzschmar M

    (2008) Collecting social contact data in the context of disease transmission: Prospective and retrospective study designs

    Social Networks 30:127–135.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.09.002

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Mistry D
    2. Litvinova M
    3. Pastore Y Piontti A
    4. Chinazzi M
    5. Fumanelli L
    6. Gomes MFC
    7. Haque SA
    8. Liu QH
    9. Mu K
    10. Xiong X
    11. Halloran ME
    12. Longini IM
    13. Merler S
    14. Ajelli M
    15. Vespignani A

    (2021) Inferring high-resolution human mixing patterns for disease modeling

    Nature Communications 12:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20544-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Mossong J
    2. Hens N
    3. Jit M
    4. Beutels P
    5. Auranen K
    6. Mikolajczyk R
    7. Massari M
    8. Salmaso S
    9. Tomba GS
    10. Wallinga J
    11. Heijne J
    12. Sadkowska-Todys M
    13. Rosinska M
    14. Edmunds WJ

    (2008) Social contacts and mixing patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases

    PLOS Medicine 5:e74.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050074

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Neal EFG
    2. Flasche S
    3. Nguyen CD
    4. Ratu FT
    5. Dunne EM
    6. Koyamaibole L
    7. Reyburn R
    8. Rafai E
    9. Kama M
    10. Ortika BD
    11. Boelsen LK
    12. Kado J
    13. Tikoduadua L
    14. Devi R
    15. Tuivaga E
    16. Satzke C
    17. Mulholland EK
    18. Edmunds WJ
    19. Russell FM

    (2020) Associations between ethnicity, social contact, and pneumococcal carriage three years post-PCV10 in Fiji

    Vaccine 38:202–211.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Oguz MM
    2. Camurdan AD
    3. Aksakal FN
    4. Akcaboy M
    5. Altinel Acoglu E

    (2018) Social contact patterns of infants in deciding vaccination strategy: a prospective, cross-sectional, single-centre study

    Epidemiology and Infection 146:1157–1166.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268818001048

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Potter GE
    2. Wong J
    3. Sugimoto J
    4. Diallo A
    5. Victor JC
    6. Neuzil K
    7. Halloran ME

    (2019) Networks of face-to-face social contacts in Niakhar, Senegal

    PLOS ONE 14:e0220443.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220443

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Prem K
    2. Cook AR
    3. Jit M

    (2017) Projecting social contact matrices in 152 countries using contact surveys and demographic data

    PLOS Computational Biology 13:e1005697.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005697

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Prem K
    2. Liu Y
    3. Russell TW
    4. Kucharski AJ
    5. Eggo RM
    6. Davies N
    7. Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 Working Group
    8. Jit M
    9. Klepac P

    (2020) The effect of control strategies to reduce social mixing on outcomes of the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan, China: a modelling study

    The Lancet. Public Health 5:e261–e270.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30073-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Rader B
    2. Scarpino SV
    3. Nande A
    4. Hill AL
    5. Adlam B
    6. Reiner RC
    7. Pigott DM
    8. Gutierrez B
    9. Zarebski AE
    10. Shrestha M
    11. Brownstein JS
    12. Castro MC
    13. Dye C
    14. Tian H
    15. Pybus OG
    16. Kraemer MUG

    (2020) Crowding and the shape of COVID-19 epidemics

    Nature Medicine 26:1829–1834.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1104-0

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Read JM
    2. Lessler J
    3. Riley S
    4. Wang S
    5. Tan LJ
    6. Kwok KO
    7. Guan Y
    8. Jiang CQ
    9. Cummings DAT

    (2014) Social mixing patterns in rural and urban areas of southern China

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 281:20140268.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0268

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Routledge I
    2. Epstein A
    3. Takahashi S
    4. Janson O
    5. Hakim J
    6. Duarte E
    7. Turcios K
    8. Vinden J
    9. Sujishi K
    10. Rangel J
    11. Coh M
    12. Besana L
    13. Ho WK
    14. Oon CY
    15. Ong CM
    16. Yun C
    17. Lynch K
    18. Wu AHB
    19. Wu W
    20. Karlon W
    21. Thornborrow E
    22. Peluso MJ
    23. Henrich TJ
    24. Pak JE
    25. Briggs J
    26. Greenhouse B
    27. Rodriguez-Barraquer I

    (2021) Citywide serosurveillance of the initial SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in San Francisco

    Research Square 2:rs.3.rs-180966.

    https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-180966/v1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Stein ML
    2. van Steenbergen JE
    3. Buskens V
    4. van der Heijden PGM
    5. Chanyasanha C
    6. Tipayamongkholgul M
    7. Thorson AE
    8. Bengtsson L
    9. Lu X
    10. Kretzschmar MEE

    (2014) Comparison of contact patterns relevant for transmission of respiratory pathogens in Thailand and The Netherlands using respondent-driven sampling

    PLOS ONE 9:e113711.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113711

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Thompson HA
    2. Mousa A
    3. Dighe A
    4. Fu H
    5. Arnedo-Pena A
    6. Barrett P
    7. Bellido-Blasco J
    8. Bi Q
    9. Caputi A
    10. Chaw L
    11. De Maria L
    12. Hoffmann M
    13. Mahapure K
    14. Ng K
    15. Raghuram J
    16. Singh G
    17. Soman B
    18. Soriano V
    19. Valent F
    20. Vimercati L
    21. Wee LE
    22. Wong J
    23. Ghani AC
    24. Ferguson NM

    (2021) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Setting-specific Transmission Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Clinical Infectious Diseases 73:e754–e764.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab100

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. Data

    1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division

    (authors) (2019) Household Size and Composition 2019: United Kingdom

    Database on Household Size and Composition 2019.

    https://population.un.org/Household/index.html#/countries/840
64. 1. Walker PGT
    2. Whittaker C
    3. Watson OJ
    4. Baguelin M
    5. Winskill P
    6. Hamlet A
    7. Djafaara BA
    8. Cucunubá Z
    9. Olivera Mesa D
    10. Green W
    11. Thompson H
    12. Nayagam S
    13. Ainslie KEC
    14. Bhatia S
    15. Bhatt S
    16. Boonyasiri A
    17. Boyd O
    18. Brazeau NF
    19. Cattarino L
    20. Cuomo-Dannenburg G
    21. Dighe A
    22. Donnelly CA
    23. Dorigatti I
    24. van Elsland SL
    25. FitzJohn R
    26. Fu H
    27. Gaythorpe KAM
    28. Geidelberg L
    29. Grassly N
    30. Haw D
    31. Hayes S
    32. Hinsley W
    33. Imai N
    34. Jorgensen D
    35. Knock E
    36. Laydon D
    37. Mishra S
    38. Nedjati-Gilani G
    39. Okell LC
    40. Unwin HJ
    41. Verity R
    42. Vollmer M
    43. Walters CE
    44. Wang H
    45. Wang Y
    46. Xi X
    47. Lalloo DG
    48. Ferguson NM
    49. Ghani AC

    (2020) The impact of COVID-19 and strategies for mitigation and suppression in low- and middle-income countries

    Science 369:413–422.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc0035

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. Preprint

    1. Ward H
    2. Cook K
    3. Whitaker P
    4. Redd R

    (2021) REACT-2 Round 5: Increasing Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Demonstrate Impact of the Second Wave and of Vaccine Roll-out in England

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.26.21252512

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Watson CH
    2. Coriakula J
    3. Ngoc DTT
    4. Flasche S
    5. Kucharski AJ
    6. Lau CL
    7. Thieu NTV
    8. le Polain de Waroux O
    9. Rawalai K
    10. Van TT
    11. Taufa M
    12. Baker S
    13. Nilles EJ
    14. Kama M
    15. Edmunds WJ

    (2017) Social mixing in Fiji: Who-eats-with-whom contact patterns and the implications of age and ethnic heterogeneity for disease dynamics in the Pacific Islands

    PLOS ONE 12:e0186911.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186911

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. Software

    1. Whittaker C

    (2021) Patterns of Social Mixing Relevant to Transmission of Respiratory Pathogens: A Systematic Review of Contact Surveys, version swh:1:rev:0b732099d66b2788ae6da5cf0e8185b25de70868

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:471cc6877ef68528068043a6e09e9922fd65cc65;origin=https://github.com/mrc-ide/contact_patterns;visit=swh:1:snp:14a516882af5cb238d3dd79dca526221013ed71b;anchor=swh:1:rev:0b732099d66b2788ae6da5cf0e8185b25de70868
68. Report

    1. Winskill P
    2. Whittaker C
    3. Walker P
    4. Watson O

    (2020) Report 22: Equity in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Assessment of the Direct and Indirect Impacts on Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Populations in Low-and Lower Middle-Income Countries

    Imperial College London.

    https://doi.org/10.25561/78965

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Wood R
    2. Racow K
    3. Bekker LG
    4. Morrow C
    5. Middelkoop K
    6. Mark D
    7. Lawn SD

    (2012) Indoor social networks in a South African township: potential contribution of location to tuberculosis transmission

    PLOS ONE 7:e39246.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039246

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. Website

    1. World Bank Group

    (2020) World Bank Country and Lending Groups – World Bank Data Help Desk

    Accessed February 23, 2021.

    https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
71. Data

    1. World Bank International Comparison Programme

    (authors) (2021) World Development Indicators database Eurostat

    OECD PPP Programme.

    https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
72. 1. Zhang J
    2. Litvinova M
    3. Liang Y
    4. Wang Y
    5. Wang W
    6. Zhao S
    7. Wu Q
    8. Merler S
    9. Viboud C
    10. Vespignani A
    11. Ajelli M
    12. Yu H

    (2020) Changes in contact patterns shape the dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak in China

    Science 368:1481–1486.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb8001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Andria Mousa

   MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   a.mousa17@imperial.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9406-7481

2. Peter Winskill

   MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   received funding from WHO and the Asian Development Bank via their institution to investigate COVID19 Vaccine modelling. The author has no other competing interests to declare

3. Oliver John Watson

   Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2374-0741

4. Oliver Ratmann

   Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8667-4118

5. Mélodie Monod

   Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Marco Ajelli

   1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, United States
   2. Laboratory for the Modeling of Biological and Socio-technical Systems, Northeastern University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   has received research funding from Seqirus outside the submitted work

7. Aldiouma Diallo

   VITROME, Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement, Dakar, Senegal

   Contribution

   Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Peter J Dodd

   School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Carlos G Grijalva

   Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   has received funding from NIH, CDC, AHRQ, FDA, Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health and Sanofi, outside the current work. CGG has also received consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck and Sanofi. The author has no other competing interests to declare

10. Moses Chapa Kiti

    KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Anand Krishnan

    Centre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Rakesh Kumar

    Centre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Supriya Kumar

    Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, United States

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Kin O Kwok

    1. JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
    2. Stanley Ho Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
    3. Shenzhen Research Institute of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Claudio F Lanata

    1. Instituto de Investigación Nutricional, Lima, Peru
    2. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

16. Olivier Le Polain de Waroux

    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

17. Kathy Leung

    1. WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
    2. Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H), Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong, China

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4777-388X

18. Wiriya Mahikul

    Faculty of Medicine and Public Health, HRH Princess Chulabhorn College of Medical Science, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

19. Alessia Melegaro

    Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University, Milano, Italy

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2221-8898

20. Carl D Morrow

    1. Desmond Tutu HIV Centre, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
    2. Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research (CIDER), School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

21. Joël Mossong

    Health Directorate, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

22. Eleanor FG Neal

    1. Infection and Immunity, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victoria, Australia
    2. Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

23. D James Nokes

    1. KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya
    2. School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

24. Wirichada Pan-ngum

    Department of Tropical Hygiene, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

25. Gail E Potter

    1. National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, United States
    2. The Emmes Company, Rockville, United States

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    was employed by the Emmes Company while analyzing the Niakhar Senegal social contact network data included in this study. The Emmes Company was contracted to perform data cleaning and data analysis of the Niakhar, Senegal clinical trial data (but not the social contact network data) for this study before GEP joined the Emmes Company (in October 2015). After GEP joined the Emmes Company, the sole support from Emmes for this manuscript was in the form of salary support for GEP. GEP also received travel support from Thomas Francis Jr. Travel Fellowship. The author has no other competing interests to declare

26. Fiona M Russell

    1. Infection and Immunity, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victoria, Australia
    2. Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

27. Siddhartha Saha

    Influenza Programme, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Delhi, India

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

28. Jonathan D Sugimoto

    1. Seattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Seattle, United States
    2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Washington, United States
    3. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, United States

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    received travel support for this work from Thomas Francis, Jr. Scholarship Fund. JDS has also received consultancy fees from the International Vaccine Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea, for work related to studies of typhoid fever burden and vaccine impact. JDS also participates on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for optimising infant immunisation schedules in Uganda & Nepal, University of Oxford, UK (ongoing)

29. Wan In Wei

    JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

30. Robin R Wood

    Desmond Tutu HIV Centre, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

31. Joseph Wu

    1. WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
    2. Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H), Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong, China

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

32. Juanjuan Zhang

    School of Public Health, Fudan University, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

33. Patrick Walker

    MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    received consultancy fees from Pfizer for a lecture on statistical inference using infectious disease models and payment or honoraria from IS Global, Barcelona (for a lecture on statistical inference using infectious disease models) and Lancet Global Health (for reviewing an article). The author has no other competing interests to declare

34. Charles Whittaker

    MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing – review and editing

    For correspondence

    charles.whittaker16@imperial.ac.uk

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5003-2575

• 2,634

  views

• 391

  downloads

• 48

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.