Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

The impact of physical distancing measures against COVID-19 transmission on contacts and mixing patterns in the Netherlands: repeated cross-sectional surveys

View ORCID ProfileJantien A. Backer, View ORCID ProfileLiesbeth Mollema, View ORCID ProfileDon Klinkenberg, View ORCID ProfileFiona van der Klis, View ORCID ProfileHester de Melker, View ORCID ProfileSusan van den Hof, View ORCID ProfileJacco Wallinga
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.18.20101501
Jantien A. Backer
1Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jantien A. Backer
  • For correspondence: jantien.backer@rivm.nl
Liesbeth Mollema
1Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Liesbeth Mollema
Don Klinkenberg
1Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Don Klinkenberg
Fiona van der Klis
1Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Fiona van der Klis
Hester de Melker
1Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Hester de Melker
Susan van den Hof
1Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Susan van den Hof
Jacco Wallinga
1Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
2Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jacco Wallinga
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background During the current pandemic of coronavirus (COVID-19) many countries have taken drastic measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV2. The measures often include physical distancing that aims to reduce the number of contacts in the population. Little is known about the actual reduction in number of contacts as a consequence of physical distancing measures.

Methods In the Netherlands, a cross-sectional survey was carried out in 2016/2017 in which 8179 participants retrospectively reported the number, age and gender of different persons they had contacted (spoken to in person or touched) during the previous day. The survey was repeated among 2830 of the original participants, using the same questionnaire, in March and April 2020 after physical distancing measures had been implemented.

Results The average number of contacts in the community was reduced from on average 12.5 (interquartile range: 2–17) to 3.7 (interquartile range: 0–4) different persons per participant, a reduction of 71% (95% confidence interval: 71–71). The reduction in the number of community contacts was highest for children and adolescents (between 5 and 20 years) and smallest for elderly persons of 80 years and older. The reduction in the effective number of total contacts, measured as the largest eigenvalue of the matrix with community and household contacts, was 62% (95% confidence interval: 48 – 72).

Conclusion The substantial reduction in contacts has contributed greatly in halting the COVID-19 epidemic. This reduction was unevenly distributed over age groups, household sizes and occupations. These findings offer guidance for the lifting of age-group targeted measures.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The study was financed by the Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - project EpiPose (grant agreement number 101003688).

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Data of contact matrices shown in Fig. 3 are available as tab separated file (S1_contact_matrices.tsv).

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted May 20, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The impact of physical distancing measures against COVID-19 transmission on contacts and mixing patterns in the Netherlands: repeated cross-sectional surveys
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The impact of physical distancing measures against COVID-19 transmission on contacts and mixing patterns in the Netherlands: repeated cross-sectional surveys
Jantien A. Backer, Liesbeth Mollema, Don Klinkenberg, Fiona van der Klis, Hester de Melker, Susan van den Hof, Jacco Wallinga
medRxiv 2020.05.18.20101501; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.18.20101501
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
The impact of physical distancing measures against COVID-19 transmission on contacts and mixing patterns in the Netherlands: repeated cross-sectional surveys
Jantien A. Backer, Liesbeth Mollema, Don Klinkenberg, Fiona van der Klis, Hester de Melker, Susan van den Hof, Jacco Wallinga
medRxiv 2020.05.18.20101501; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.18.20101501

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (228)
  • Allergy and Immunology (504)
  • Anesthesia (110)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1240)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (206)
  • Dermatology (147)
  • Emergency Medicine (282)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (531)
  • Epidemiology (10023)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (499)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2456)
  • Geriatric Medicine (238)
  • Health Economics (479)
  • Health Informatics (1644)
  • Health Policy (753)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (636)
  • Hematology (248)
  • HIV/AIDS (533)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11865)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (626)
  • Medical Education (252)
  • Medical Ethics (75)
  • Nephrology (268)
  • Neurology (2281)
  • Nursing (139)
  • Nutrition (352)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (454)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (537)
  • Oncology (1245)
  • Ophthalmology (377)
  • Orthopedics (134)
  • Otolaryngology (226)
  • Pain Medicine (158)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (324)
  • Pediatrics (730)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (313)
  • Primary Care Research (282)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2281)
  • Public and Global Health (4834)
  • Radiology and Imaging (837)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (492)
  • Respiratory Medicine (651)
  • Rheumatology (286)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (238)
  • Sports Medicine (227)
  • Surgery (267)
  • Toxicology (44)
  • Transplantation (125)
  • Urology (99)