Diagnositc tests in low endemicity (low prevalence) areas may lack the required sensitivity. Among several screening steps, exploring social networks may be of value. We are currently testing this approach with schistosomiasis.
Social (contact) networks were used to study infection transmission, mostly for directly transmitted diseases (flu, STD) where "contacts" play crucial role. For helminth/schisto (vector mediated) infections, "social connectivity" should have different meaning: (i) a possible source of information(?), or (ii) statistical predictor of infection level/intensity (?). But even the latter is more directly linked to "environment" and "risky behavior", than "social connections".
Hi David ! We met at Belo Horizonte at the Schisto Symp! I told you about the research at Esteio, do you remember? The meaning for us is "source of information" as whoelse have been at transmission sites = identification of risky behavior. I also talked about an idea: by monitoring this "sources of information network" would we have an indicator (among other indicators) of "transmission going below a threshold for transmission" with a potential use as a guide to public health decision to lower the vigilance measures, considering a very probable "elimination of transmission of schistosomiasis". It would be very nice to go on with our discussions, including many other colleagues as possible, while we are planning a study at Esteio community, exploring some of these ideas.
I do remember our discussions on "social connectivity". Social contact data could be useful to predict infection risk (or levels) from a limited test data (e.g. sparse population sampling). Still you need to supplement it with other "real" data.
As for "breakpoint" for transmission, it's an attractive idea that appears in simple transmission models, but I don't know whether it holds (or how to assess it) in real environment.