Dataset Information

Consequences of visiting restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic: An integrative review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, visiting restrictions of different extents have been implemented. However, despite the long history of visiting restrictions in health care systems, little is known about their effects.

Objectives

This review sought to explore the consequences of visitor restrictions in health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A systematic, integrative review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, based on a systematic search in PubMed, CHINAL full plus, Web of Science, PsychInfo, Scopus and the Cochrane Library.

Results

A total of 17 scientific papers covering intensive care, pediatric care, general medical care, hospital care, palliative care and nursing home settings were included. Although appreciation for the technical solutions enabling remote meetings was reported, visiting restrictions had several consequences, mainly negative, for the patient's health, the health and wellbeing of family members and the provision of care. Among physical health consequences, reduced nutrition intake, decreased activities of daily living and increased physical pain and symptoms were reported. Among mental health consequences for the patient, loneliness, depressive symptoms, agitation, aggression, reduced cognitive ability and overall dissatisfaction were observed. For family members, worry, anxiety and uncertainty occurred, and they reported an increased need for information from care providers. Family members of neonatal intensive care unit patients reported less bonding with their child and family relation disturbances due to the restrictions. For care providers, visiting restrictions added the burdens of ethical dilemmas, learning new technical means to enable social interaction and an increased demand for communication with families and providing social support to both family members and patients.

Conclusions

When implementing visiting restrictions in health care services, decision makers and nurses need to be aware of their potential negative effects and adapt the provision of care to compensate for such effects. Nurses in all sectors should be aware that visiting restrictions may affect patients, families, and health care services for longer than the actual pandemic. Since the level of evidence regarding effect from visiting restrictions is low, further studies is strongly needed.

SUBMITTER: Hugelius K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8196532 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectiveInternational travel measures to contain the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represent a relatively intrusive form of non-pharmaceutical intervention. To inform decision-making on the (re)implementation, adaptation, relaxation or suspension of such measures, it is essential to not only assess their effectiveness but also their unintended effects.MethodsThis scoping review maps existing empirical studies on the unintended consequences, both predicted and unforeseen, and beneficial or harmful, of international travel measures. We searched multiple health, non-health and COVID-19-specific databases. The evidence was charted in a map in relation to the study design, intervention and outcome categories identified and discussed narratively.ResultsTwenty-three studies met our inclusion criteria-nine quasi-experimental, two observational, two mathematical modelling, six qualitative and four mixed-methods studies. Studies addressed different population groups across various countries worldwide. Seven studies provided information on unintended consequences of the closure of national borders, six looked at international travel restrictions and three investigated mandatory quarantine of international travellers. No studies looked at entry and/or exit screening at national borders exclusively, however six studies considered this intervention in combination with other international travel measures. In total, 11 studies assessed various combinations of the aforementioned interventions. The outcomes were mostly referred to by the authors as harmful. Fifteen studies identified a variety of economic consequences, six reported on aspects related to quality of life, well-being, and mental health and five on social consequences. One study each provided information on equity, equality, and the fair distribution of benefits and burdens, environmental consequences and health system consequences.ConclusionThis scoping review represents the first step towards a systematic assessment of the unintended benefits and harms of international travel measures during COVID-19. The key research gaps identified might be filled with targeted primary research, as well as the additional consideration of gray literature and non-empirical studies.

Project description:Objectives Green space positively influences health and well-being; however, inequalities in use of green space are prevalent. Movement restrictions enforced due to the COVID-19 pandemic could have exacerbated existing inequalities regarding who visits green space. Therefore, this study aimed to explore how movement restrictions have changed the time spent visiting green space and experience of green space in the United Kingdom (UK) and how these differed by individual-level demographic characteristics. Design and outcome measures A nationally representative cross-sectional survey administered through YouGov between 30 April and 1 May 2020. Data were collected on the time spent visiting green space and change in the experience of green space, including missing social interaction, increased physical activity and feeling greater mental health benefits in green space. Demographic information was collected on sex, age, ethnicity, social grade and dog ownership. Associations between specific outcome variables and predictors were assessed using logistic regression. Setting UK, with population weights applied. Participants 2252 adults aged 18 years and over. Results Overall, 63% of respondents reported a decrease in time spent visiting green space following movement restrictions. Lower social grade respondents were less likely to visit green space before and after restrictions were enforced (OR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.51); OR: 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.95)). Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to agree that green space benefited their mental health more following restrictions (PP: 0.70 vs 0.59). Older (65+ years) respondents were less likely than middle-aged (25–64 years) respondents to have visited green space following the restrictions (OR: 0.79 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.98)). Conclusions Inequalities in green space use were sustained, and possibly exacerbated, during movement restrictions. Our findings emphasise the importance of green spaces remaining open globally in any future ‘lockdowns’/pandemics. Further investigation is required to determine how visit patterns and experiences change through the different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.