Dataset Information

Use of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the transmission of influenza in adults: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: During seasonal influenza epidemics and pandemics, virus transmission causes significant public health concern. Reduction of viral transmission by non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) has a significant appeal and is often recommended. However, the efficacy of such interventions is unclear. A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify and evaluate the published literature on NPI efficacy to prevent human transmission of influenza virus in adults. Reviewers assessed the quality of eligible studies utilizing the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for bias and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network for methodological quality. Studies were assessed for risk of bias domains of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, attribution bias, selective reporting and blinding. Relevant citations of 2247 were reduced to 100 for full-text evaluation. Only seven met all selection criteria and pooled analysis was not feasible. Of the seven studies, two were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and five were cluster RCT. The main NPI studied were disinfection and hygiene; barriers; and combined NPI. However, these seven RCT had significant design flaws. Only two studies used laboratory confirmed influenza and poor statistical power was a major problem. Positive significant interventions included professional oral hygiene intervention in the elderly and hand washing. Despite the potential for NPI in preventing influenza transmission, there is very limited data available. Hand washing and dental hygiene may be useful, but other interventions have not been fully assessed. Properly designed studies evaluating large populations including 'at risk' patients and in a variety of communities are needed.

SUBMITTER: Smith SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4699551 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the transmission of influenza in adults: A systematic review.

Smith Sheree M S SM Sonego Sandra S Wallen Gwenyth R GR Waterer Grant G Cheng Allen C AC Thompson Philip P

Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) 20150414 6

During seasonal influenza epidemics and pandemics, virus transmission causes significant public health concern. Reduction of viral transmission by non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) has a significant appeal and is often recommended. However, the efficacy of such interventions is unclear. A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify and evaluate the published literature on NPI efficacy to prevent human transmission of influenza virus in adults. Reviewers assessed the quality of e ...[more]

PMID: 25873071

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionImplementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) protect the public from COVID-19. However, the impact of NPIs has been inconsistent and remains unclear. This study, therefore, aims to measure the impact of major NPIs (social distancing, social isolation and quarantine) on reducing COVID-19 transmission.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis research of both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. We will undertake a systematic search of: MEDLINE, Embase, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research, WHO database on COVID-19, ClinicalTrails.Gov for clinical trials on COVID-19, Cochrane Resources on Coronavirus (COVID-19), Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service and Google Scholar for published and unpublished literatures on COVID-19 including preprint engines such as medRxiv, bioRxiv, Litcovid and SSRN for unpublished studies on COVID-19 and will be reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Outcomes of interest for impact analysis will include the reduction of COVID-19 transmission, avoiding crowds and restricting movement, isolating ill and psychological impacts. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. For quality of included studies, we will use the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will grade the certainty of the evidence for all outcome measures across studies. Random-effects model for meta-analysis will measure the effect size of NPIs or the strengths of relationships. For quantitative data, risk ratio or OR, absolute risk difference (for dichotomous outcome data), or mean difference or standardised mean difference (for continuous data) and their 95% CIs will be calculated. Where statistical pooling is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted for the included studies. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects will be evaluated to provide the true effects in the analysis.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval from an institutional review board or research ethics committee is not required as primary data will not be collected. The final results of this study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences or workshops. We will also share important information with public health authorities as well as with the WHO. In addition, we may post the submitted manuscript under review to medRxiv, or other relevant preprint servers.Trial registration numberCRD42020207338.

Project description:BackgroundNon-pharmaceutical public health interventions may provide simple, low-cost, effective ways of minimising the transmission and impact of acute respiratory infections in pandemic and non-pandemic contexts. Understanding what influences the uptake of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as hand and respiratory hygiene, mask wearing and social distancing could help to inform the development of effective public health advice messages. The aim of this synthesis was to explore public perceptions of non-pharmaceutical interventions that aim to reduce the transmission of acute respiratory infections.MethodsFive online databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science) were systematically searched. Reference lists of articles were also examined. We selected papers that used a qualitative research design to explore perceptions and beliefs about non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce transmission of acute respiratory infections. We excluded papers that only explored how health professionals or children viewed non-pharmaceutical respiratory infection control. Three authors performed data extraction and assessment of study quality. Thematic analysis and components of meta-ethnography were adopted to synthesise findings.ResultsSeventeen articles from 16 studies in 9 countries were identified and reviewed. Seven key themes were identified: perceived benefits of non-pharmaceutical interventions, perceived disadvantages of non-pharmaceutical interventions, personal and cultural beliefs about infection transmission, diagnostic uncertainty in emerging respiratory infections, perceived vulnerability to infection, anxiety about emerging respiratory infections and communications about emerging respiratory infections. The synthesis showed that some aspects of non-pharmaceutical respiratory infection control (particularly hand and respiratory hygiene) were viewed as familiar and socially responsible actions to take. There was ambivalence about adopting isolation and personal distancing behaviours in some contexts due to their perceived adverse impact and potential to attract social stigma. Common perceived barriers included beliefs about infection transmission, personal vulnerability to respiratory infection and concerns about self-diagnosis in emerging respiratory infections.ConclusionsPeople actively evaluate non-pharmaceutical interventions in terms of their perceived necessity, efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility. To enhance uptake, it will be necessary to address key barriers, such as beliefs about infection transmission, rejection of personal risk of infection and concern about the potential costs and stigma associated with some interventions.

Project description:BackgroundThere are sparse data on whether non-pharmaceutical interventions can reduce the spread of influenza. We implemented a study of the feasibility and efficacy of face masks and hand hygiene to reduce influenza transmission among Hong Kong household members.Methodology/principal findingsWe conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of households (composed of at least 3 members) where an index subject presented with influenza-like-illness of <48 hours duration. After influenza was confirmed in an index case by the QuickVue Influenza A+B rapid test, the household of the index subject was randomized to 1) control or 2) surgical face masks or 3) hand hygiene. Households were visited within 36 hours, and 3, 6 and 9 days later. Nose and throat swabs were collected from index subjects and all household contacts at each home visit and tested by viral culture. The primary outcome measure was laboratory culture confirmed influenza in a household contact; the secondary outcome was clinically diagnosed influenza (by self-reported symptoms). We randomized 198 households and completed follow up home visits in 128; the index cases in 122 of those households had laboratory-confirmed influenza. There were 21 household contacts with laboratory confirmed influenza corresponding to a secondary attack ratio of 6%. Clinical secondary attack ratios varied from 5% to 18% depending on case definitions. The laboratory-based or clinical secondary attack ratios did not significantly differ across the intervention arms. Adherence to interventions was variable.Conclusions/significanceThe secondary attack ratios were lower than anticipated, and lower than reported in other countries, perhaps due to differing patterns of susceptibility, lack of significant antigenic drift in circulating influenza virus strains recently, and/or issues related to the symptomatic recruitment design. Lessons learnt from this pilot have informed changes for the main study in 2008.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00425893 HKClinicalTrials.com HKCTR-365.

Project description:PurposeSedentary behavior has been identified as a major health risk. While interventions to reduce time spent sedentary have become increasingly prevalent, the vast majority of this work in adults has been focused on workplace sedentary behavior, and often pairs sedentary reduction interventions with increasing physical activity. As research designed to specifically decrease sedentary time that is not limited to the workplace becomes available, identifying strategies and approaches, along with feasibility and efficacy of these interventions, is warranted.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for sedentary interventions with eligibility criteria including: (a) interventions designed to explicitly reduce sedentary behavior that were not limited to the workplace, (b) outcomes specific to sedentary behavior, (c) adults aged at least 18 years, and (d) written in English.ResultsA total of 767 full-text manuscripts were identified, with thirteen studies meeting all eligibility criteria. While intervention characteristics and methodological quality varied greatly among studies, ten of the thirteen studies observed a significant reduction in objectively measured sitting time post-intervention. In those studies that collected participant feasibility/acceptability data, all reported that the intervention was viewed as "favorable to very favorable," would use again, and that participant burden was quite low, suggesting that these interventions were feasible.ConclusionSedentary behavior interventions not limited to the workplace appear to be largely efficacious. While results varied with respect to the magnitude of the decrease in time spent sedentary, they are encouraging. However, due to the small body of evidence and the variability of study designs, our ability to make overarching statements regarding "best practices" at this time is limited. Well-controlled trials of longer duration with larger samples, using theoretically-based interventions with consistent prescriptions for limiting sedentary time are needed.

Project description:Recent health policy changes have focused efforts on reducing emergency department (ED) visits as a way to reduce costs and improve quality of care. This was a systematic review of interventions based outside the ED aimed at reducing ED use.This study was designed as a systematic review. We reviewed the literature on interventions in five categories: patient education, creation of additional non-ED capacity, managed care, prehospital diversion, and patient financial incentives. Studies written in English, with interventions administered outside of the ED, and a comparison group where ED use was an outcome, were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results using MEDLINE, Cochrane, OAIster, or Scopus. The following data were abstracted from included studies: type of intervention, study design, population, details of intervention, effect on ED use, effect on non-ED health care use, and other health and financial outcomes. Quality of individual articles was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.Of 39 included studies, 34 were observational and five were randomized controlled trials. Two of five studies on patient education found reductions in ED use ranging from 21% to 80%. Out of 10 studies of additional non-ED capacity, four showed decreases of 9% to 54%, and one a 21% increase. Both studies on prehospital diversion found reductions of 3% to 7%. Of 12 studies on managed care, 10 had decreases ranging from 1% to 46%. Nine out of 10 studies on patient financial incentives found decreases of 3% to 50%, and one a 34% increase. Nineteen studies reported effect on non-ED use with mixed results. Seventeen studies included data on health outcomes, but 13 of these only included data on hospitalizations rather than morbidity and mortality. Seven studies included data on cost outcomes. According to the GRADE guidelines, all studies had at least some risk of bias, with four moderate quality, one low quality, and 34 very low quality studies.Many studies have explored interventions based outside the ED to reduce ED use in various populations, with mixed evidence. Approximately two-thirds identified here showed reductions in ED use. The interventions with the greatest number of studies showing reductions in ED use include patient financial incentives and managed care, while the greatest magnitude of reductions were found in patient education. These findings have implications for insurers and policymakers seeking to reduce ED use.

Dataset Information

Use of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the transmission of influenza in adults: A systematic review.

Publications

Use of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the transmission of influenza in adults: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets