Dataset Information

Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: an evaluation of the evidence base.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In an influenza pandemic, the benefit of vaccines and antiviral medications will be constrained by limitations on supplies and effectiveness. Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions will therefore be vital in curtailing disease spread. However, the most comprehensive assessments of the literature to date recognize the generally poor quality of evidence on which to base non-pharmaceutical pandemic planning decisions. In light of the need to prepare for a possible pandemic despite concerns about the poor quality of the literature, combining available evidence with expert opinion about the relative merits of non-pharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza may lead to a more informed and widely accepted set of recommendations. We evaluated the evidence base for non-pharmaceutical public health interventions. Then, based on the collective evidence, we identified a set of recommendations for and against interventions that are specific to both the setting in which an intervention may be used and the pandemic phase, and which can be used by policymakers to prepare for a pandemic until scientific evidence can definitively respond to planners' needs. METHODS: Building on reviews of past pandemics and recent historical inquiries, we evaluated the relative merits of non-pharmaceutical interventions by combining available evidence from the literature with qualitative and quantitative expert opinion. Specifically, we reviewed the recent scientific literature regarding the prevention of human-to-human transmission of pandemic influenza, convened a meeting of experts from multiple disciplines, and elicited expert recommendation about the use of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions in a variety of settings (healthcare facilities; community-based institutions; private households) and pandemic phases (no pandemic; no US pandemic; early localized US pandemic; advanced US pandemic). RESULTS: The literature contained a dearth of evidence on the efficacy or effectiveness of most non-pharmaceutical interventions for influenza. In an effort to inform decision-making in the absence of strong scientific evidence, the experts ultimately endorsed hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette, surveillance and case reporting, and rapid viral diagnosis in all settings and during all pandemic phases. They also encouraged patient and provider use of masks and other personal protective equipment as well as voluntary self-isolation of patients during all pandemic phases. Other non-pharmaceutical interventions including mask-use and other personal protective equipment for the general public, school and workplace closures early in an epidemic, and mandatory travel restrictions were rejected as likely to be ineffective, infeasible, or unacceptable to the public. CONCLUSION: The demand for scientific evidence on non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for influenza is pervasive, and present policy recommendations must rely heavily on expert judgment. In the absence of a definitive science base, our assessment of the evidence identified areas for further investigation as well as non-pharmaceutical public health interventions that experts believe are likely to be beneficial, feasible and widely acceptable in an influenza pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Aledort JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2040158 | biostudies-literature | 2007

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: an evaluation of the evidence base.

Aledort Julia E JE Lurie Nicole N Wasserman Jeffrey J Bozzette Samuel A SA

BMC public health 20070815

<h4>Background</h4>In an influenza pandemic, the benefit of vaccines and antiviral medications will be constrained by limitations on supplies and effectiveness. Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions will therefore be vital in curtailing disease spread. However, the most comprehensive assessments of the literature to date recognize the generally poor quality of evidence on which to base non-pharmaceutical pandemic planning decisions. In light of the need to prepare for a possible pandemi ...[more]

PMID: 17697389

Similar Datasets

Project description:ProblemPolicymakers must decide on interventions to control the pandemic. These decisions are driven by weighing the risks and benefits of various non-pharmaceutical intervention alternatives. Due to the nature of the pandemic, these decisions are not based on sufficient evidence regarding the effects, nor are decision-makers informed about the willingness of populations to accept the economic and health risks associated with different policy options. This empirical study seeks to reduce uncertainty by measuring population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions.MethodsAn online-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit population preferences. Respondents were asked to choose between three pandemic scenarios with different interventions and impacts of the Corona pandemic. In addition, Best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to analyze the impact of the duration of individual interventions on people's acceptance. The marginal rate of substitution was applied to estimate willingness-to-accept (WTA) for each intervention and effect by risk of infection.ResultsData from 3006 respondents were included in the analysis. The DCE showed, economic effect of non-pharmaceutical measures had a large impact on choice decisions for or against specific lockdown scenarios. Individual income decreases had the most impact. Excess mortality and individual risk of infection were also important factors influencing choice decisions. Curfews, contact restrictions, facility closures, personal data transmissions, and mandatory masking in public had a lesser impact. However, significant standard deviations in the random parameter logit model (RPL) indicated heterogeneities in the study population. The BWS results showed that short-term restrictions were more likely to be accepted than long-term restrictions. According to WTA estimates, people would be willing to accept a greater risk of infection to avoid loss of income.DiscussionThe results can be used to determine which consequences of pandemic measures would be more severe for the population. For example, the results show that citizens want to limit the decline in individual income during pandemic measures. Participation in preference studies can also inform citizens about potential tradeoffs that decision-makers face in current and future decisions during a pandemic. Knowledge of the population's preferences will help inform decisions that consider people's perspectives and expectations for the future. Survey results can inform decision-makers about the extent to which the population is willing to accept certain lockdown measures, such as curfews, contact restrictions, lockdowns, or mandatory masks.

Project description:Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Interventions (NPHIs) have been used by different countries to control the spread of the COVID-19. Despite available evidence regarding the effectiveness of NPHSs, there is still no consensus about how policymakers can trust these results. Studies on the effectiveness of NPHSs are single studies conducted in specific communities. Therefore, they cannot individually prove if these interventions have been effective in reducing the spread of the infection and its adverse health outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to examine the effects of NPHIs on the COVID-19 case growth rate, death growth rate, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and reproduction number in countries, where NPHIs have been implemented. We searched relevant electronic databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, etc. from late December 2019 to February 1, 2021. The key terms were primarily drawn from Medical Subject Heading (MeSh and Emtree), literature review, and opinions of experts. Peer-reviewed quasi-experimental studies were included in the review. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020186855. Interventions were NPHIs categorized as lockdown, stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and other interventions (mask-wearing, contact tracing, and school closure). We used PRISMA 2020 guidance for abstracting the data and used Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Practice (EPOC) Risk of Bias Tool for quality appraisal of the studies. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model was performed. Main outcomes included COVID-19 case growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 mortality growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 ICU admission (percentage daily changes), and COVID-19 reproduction number changes. Our search strategies in major databases yielded 12,523 results, which decreased to 7,540 articles after eliminating duplicates. Finally, 35 articles qualified to be included in the systematic review among which 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Although studies were from both low-income and high-income countries, the majority of them were from the United States (13 studies) and China (five studies). Results of the meta-analysis showed that adoption of NPHIs has resulted in a 4.68% (95% CI, -6.94 to -2.78) decrease in daily case growth rates, 4.8% (95 CI, -8.34 to -1.40) decrease in daily death growth rates, 1.90 (95% CI, -2.23 to -1.58) decrease in the COVID-19 reproduction number, and 16.5% (95% CI, -19.68 to -13.32) decrease in COVID-19 daily ICU admission. A few studies showed that, early enforcement of lockdown, when the incidence rate is not high, contributed to a shorter duration of lockdown and a lower increase of the case growth rate in the post-lockdown era. The majority of NPHIs had positive effects on restraining the COVID-19 spread. With the problems that remain regarding universal access to vaccines and their effectiveness and considering the drastic impact of the nationwide lockdown and other harsh restrictions on the economy and people's life, such interventions should be mitigated by adopting other NPHIs such as mass mask-wearing, patient/suspected case isolation strategies, and contact tracing. Studies need to address the impact of NPHIs on the population's other health problems than COVID-19.

Dataset Information

Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: an evaluation of the evidence base.

Publications

Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: an evaluation of the evidence base.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets