Dataset Information

Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions related to social distancing on respiratory viral infectious disease outcomes: A rapid evidence-based review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. quarantine and isolation) are used to mitigate and control viral infectious disease, but their effectiveness has not been well studied. For COVID-19, disease control efforts will rely on non-pharmaceutical interventions until pharmaceutical interventions become widely available, while non-pharmaceutical interventions will be of continued importance thereafter.

Methods

This rapid evidence-based review provides both qualitative and quantitative analyses of the effectiveness of social distancing non-pharmaceutical interventions on disease outcomes. Literature was retrieved from MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and pre-print databases (BioRxiv.org, MedRxiv.org, and Wellcome Open Research).

Results

Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria (n = 28). Early, sustained, and combined application of various non-pharmaceutical interventions could mitigate and control primary outbreaks and prevent more severe secondary or tertiary outbreaks. The strategic use of non-pharmaceutical interventions decreased incidence, transmission, and/or mortality across all interventions examined. The pooled attack rates for no non-pharmaceutical intervention, single non-pharmaceutical interventions, and multiple non-pharmaceutical interventions were 42% (95% confidence interval = 30% - 55%), 29% (95% confidence interval = 23% - 36%), and 22% (95% confidence interval = 16% - 29%), respectively.

Conclusion

Implementation of multiple non-pharmaceutical interventions at key decision points for public health could effectively facilitate disease mitigation and suppression until pharmaceutical interventions become available. Dynamics around R ₀ values, the susceptibility of certain high-risk patient groups to infection, and the probability of asymptomatic cases spreading disease should be considered.

SUBMITTER: Rizvi RF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8188982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures.Methods and findingsIn this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of "Fair" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsMany effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.

Project description:BackgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are a crucial suite of measures to prevent and control infectious disease outbreaks. Despite being particularly important for crisis-affected populations and those living in informal settlements, who typically reside in overcrowded and resource limited settings with inadequate access to healthcare, guidance on NPI implementation rarely takes the specific needs of such populations into account. We therefore conducted a systematic scoping review of the published evidence to describe the landscape of research and identify evidence gaps concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs among crisis-affected populations and informal settlements.MethodsWe systematically reviewed peer-reviewed articles published between 1970 and 2020 to collate available evidence on the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of NPIs in crisis-affected populations and informal settlements. We performed quality assessments of each study using a standardised questionnaire. We analysed the data to produce descriptive summaries according to a number of categories: date of publication; geographical region of intervention; typology of crisis, shelter, modes of transmission, NPI, research design; study design; and study quality.ResultsOur review included 158 studies published in 85 peer-reviewed articles. Most research used low quality study designs. The acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs was highly context dependent. In general, simple and cost-effective interventions such as community-level environmental cleaning and provision of water, sanitation and hygiene services, and distribution of items for personal protection such as insecticide-treated nets, were both highly feasible and acceptable. Logistical, financial, and human resource constraints affected both the implementation and sustainability of measures. Community engagement emerged as a strong factor contributing to the effectiveness of NPIs. Conversely, measures that involve potential restriction on personal liberty such as case isolation and patient care and burial restrictions were found to be less acceptable, despite apparent effectiveness.ConclusionsOverall, the evidence base was variable, with substantial knowledge gaps which varied between settings and pathogens. Based on the current landscape, robust evidence-based guidance is not possible, and a research agenda is urgently required that focusses on these specific vulnerable populations. Although implementation of NPIs presents unique practical challenges in these settings, it is critical that such an agenda is put in place, and that the lessons learned from historical and present experiences are documented to build a firm evidence base.

Project description:BackgroundHealth authorities recommend educating diabetic patients and their families and initiating measures aimed at improving self-management, promoting a positive behavior change, and reducing the risk of complications. Social media could provide valid channel to intervene in and deliver diabetes education. However, it is not well known whether the use of these channels in such interventions can help improve the patients' outcomes.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to review and describe the current existing evidence on the use of social media in interventions targeting people affected with diabetes.MethodsA search was conducted across 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library).The quality of the evidence of the included primary studies was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, and the risk of bias of systematic reviews was assessed by drawing on AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) guidelines. The outcomes reported by these studies were extracted and analyzed.ResultsWe included 20 moderate- and high-quality studies in the review: 17 primary studies and 3 systematic reviews. Of the 16 publications evaluating the effect on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of the interventions using social media, 13 reported significant reductions in HbA1c values. The 5 studies that measured satisfaction with the interventions using social media found positive effects. We found mixed evidence regarding the effect of interventions using social media on health-related quality of life (2 publications found positive effects and 3 found no differences) and on diabetes knowledge or empowerment (2 studies reported improvements and 2 reported no significant changes).ConclusionsThere is very little good-quality evidence on the use of social media in interventions aimed at helping people with diabetes. However, the use of these channels is mostly linked to benefits on patients' outcomes. Public health institutions, clinicians, and other stakeholders who aim at improving the knowledge of diabetic patients could consider the use of social media in their interventions.