Systematic review of empirical studies comparing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To evaluate which non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been more and less effective in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods
We performed a systematic review of published and unpublished empirical studies, either observational or interventional, analysing the comparative effectiveness of NPIs against the COVID-19 pandemic. We searched Embase/Medline and medRxiv to identify the relevant literature.Results
We identified 34 studies. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, school closing was the most effective NPI, followed by workplace closing, business and venue closing and public event bans. Public information campaigns and mask wearing requirements were also effective in controlling the pandemic while being less disruptive for the population than other NPIs. There was no evidence on the effectiveness of public transport closure, testing and contact tracing strategies and quarantining or isolation of individuals. Early implementation was associated with a higher effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 cases and deaths, while general stringency of the NPIs was not.Conclusions
In this systematic review, we found that school closing, followed by workplace closing, business and venue closing and public event bans were the most effective NPIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19. An early response and a combination of specific social distancing measures are effective at reducing COVID-19 cases and deaths. Continuous monitoring of NPIs effectiveness is needed in order to adapt decision making.
SUBMITTER: Mendez-Brito A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8214911 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8610259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Against the current COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide have devised a variety of non-pharmaceutical interventions to mitigate it. However, it is generally difficult to estimate the joint impact of different control strategies. In this paper, we tackle this question with an extended epidemic SEIR model, informed by a socio-political classification of different interventions. First, we inquire the conceptual effect of mitigation parameters on the infection curve. Then, we illustrate the potential of our model to reproduce and explain empirical data from a number of countries, to perform cross-country comparisons. This gives information on the best synergies of interventions to control epidemic outbreaks while minimising impact on socio-economic needs. For instance, our results suggest that, while rapid and strong lockdown is an effective pandemic mitigation measure, a combination of social distancing and early contact tracing can achieve similar mitigation synergistically, while keeping lower isolation rates. This quantitative understanding can support the establishment of mid- and long-term interventions, to prepare containment strategies against further outbreaks. This paper also provides an online tool that allows researchers and decision makers to interactively simulate diverse scenarios with our model.
| S-EPMC8139462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWithout any pharmaceutical intervention and vaccination, the only way to combat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is to slow down the spread of the disease by adopting non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (PHIs). Patient isolation, lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, changes in health care provision, and mass screening are the most common non-pharmaceutical PHIs to cope with the epidemic. However, there is neither systematic evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the COVID-19 nor on how these interventions work in different contexts. Therefore, in this study we will address two main objectives: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19 using a systematic review and meta-analyses; 2) to explore why, how, and for whom these interventions work using a realist review.Materials and methodsThis review study has two main phases. In the first phase of this study, we will extract data from two main types of studies including quasi-experimental studies (such as quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs)) and observational studies (such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies), written in the English language. We will explore effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs targeted either suppression or mitigation strategies (or a combination of both) in controlling the COVID-19 epidemics in the community level. Effectiveness will be considered as the changes in mortality rate, incidence rate, basic reproduction number rate, morbidity rate, rates of hospitalization, rates of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and other health outcomes where possible. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses, if possible, using CMA software. In the second phase, we will conduct a realist review to find out how, why, for whom, and in what circumstances the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work. At the realist review, we will identify and explore Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations to provide a robust explanation on the effectiveness of the interventions in different contexts using Pawson's 5-step realist review template including: "clarify scope; search for evidence; appraise primary studies and extract data; synthesize evidence and draw conclusions; and disseminate, implement and evaluate". Although the steps are presented in a linear manner, in practice, we will follow them in iterative stages to fill any potential overlap.DiscussionThe findings of this research will provide a crucial insight into how and in which context the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with a realist review will allow us to draw a robust conclusion on the effects and the way in which the interventions work. Understanding the role of contextual factors in the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs and the mechanism of this process could enable policymakers to implement appropriate policies and manage the COVID-19 epidemics more efficiently.Systematic review registrationCRD42020186855.
| S-EPMC7523985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Non-Pharmaceutical and Pharmaceutical treatments were alternative strategies for governments to intervene. Though many of these intervention methods proved to be effective to stop the spread of COVID-19, i.e., lockdown and curfew, they also posed risk to the economy; in such a scenario, an analysis on how to strike a balance becomes urgent. Our research leverages the mobility big data from the University of Maryland COVID-19 Impact Analysis Platform and employs the Generalized Additive Model (GAM), to understand how the social demographic variables, NPTs (Non-Pharmaceutical Treatments) and PTs (Pharmaceutical Treatments) affect the New Death Rate (NDR) at county-level. We also portray the mutual and interactive effects of NPTs and PTs on NDR. Our results show that there exists a specific usage rate of PTs where its marginal effect starts to suppress the NDR growth, and this specific rate can be reduced through implementing the NPTs.
| S-EPMC8504736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as school closures and stay-at-home orders, have been implemented around the world to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Their effectiveness in improving health-related outcomes has been the subject of numerous empirical studies. However, these studies show fairly large variation among methodologies in use, reflecting the absence of an established methodological framework. On the one hand, variation in methodologies may be desirable to assess the robustness of results; on the other hand, a lack of common standards can impede comparability among studies. To establish a comprehensive overview over the methodologies in use, we conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions between January 1, 2020 and January 12, 2021 (n = 248). We identified substantial variation in methodologies with respect to study setting, outcome, intervention, methodological approach, and effectiveness assessment. On this basis, we point to shortcomings of existing studies and make recommendations for the design of future studies.
| S-EPMC9510554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed significant global public health challenges and created a substantial economic burden. Korea has experienced an extensive outbreak, which was linked to a religion-related super-spreading event. However, the implementation of various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including social distancing, spring semester postponing, and extensive testing and contact tracing controlled the epidemic. Herein, we estimated the effectiveness of each NPI using a simulation model.MethodsA compartment model with a susceptible-exposed-infectious-quarantined-hospitalized structure was employed. Using the Monte-Carlo-Markov-Chain algorithm with Gibbs' sampling method, we estimated the time-varying effective contact rate to calibrate the model with the reported daily new confirmed cases from February 12th to March 31st (7 weeks). Moreover, we conducted scenario analyses by adjusting the parameters to estimate the effectiveness of NPI.ResultsRelaxed social distancing among adults would have increased the number of cases 27.4-fold until the end of March. Spring semester non-postponement would have increased the number of cases 1.7-fold among individuals aged 0-19, while lower quarantine and detection rates would have increased the number of cases 1.4-fold.ConclusionAmong the three NPI measures, social distancing in adults showed the highest effectiveness. The substantial effect of social distancing should be considered when preparing for the 2nd wave of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7476801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prolonging non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) used in the control of pandemics can cause a devastating effect on the overall economic and social welfare levels. Therefore, policymakers are facing a difficult duty in terms of implementing economically and socially sustainable and acceptable measures. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of NPIs implemented to control the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, eight NPI measures were analysed, and their effects on the number of cases were investigated for France, Spain, China, and South Korea. In the study, the treatment effect of these mechanisms on the daily increase rate of the total number of cases during a certain period was analysed by using logarithmic linear regression with a dummy variables model. The findings indicate that the measures are effective against the spread of the pandemic at different levels. The findings also suggest that the most effective measure in decreasing the number of cases is workplace closure. An analysis comparing the effectiveness of countrywide measures and regional measures shows that school closing is the most effective measure to decrease the number of cases when implemented countrywide as opposed to regional implementation.
| S-EPMC8251211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are the cornerstone of infectious disease outbreak response in the absence of effective pharmaceutical interventions. Outbreak strategies often involve combinations of NPIs that may change according to disease prevalence and population response. Little is known with regard to how costly each NPI is to implement. This information is essential to inform policy decisions for outbreak response.ObjectiveTo address this gap in existing literature, we conducted a systematic review on outbreak costings and simulation studies related to a number of NPI strategies, including isolating infected individuals, contact tracing and quarantine, and school closures.MethodsOur search covered the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, studies published between 1990 and 24 March 2020 were included. We included studies containing cost data for our NPIs of interest in pandemic, epidemic, and outbreak response scenarios.ResultsWe identified 61 relevant studies. There was substantial heterogeneity in the cost components recorded for NPIs in outbreak costing studies. The direct costs of NPIs for which costing studies existed also ranged widely: isolating infected individuals per case: US$141.18 to US$1042.68 (2020 values), tracing and quarantine of contacts per contact: US$40.73 to US$93.59, social distancing: US$33.76 to US$167.92, personal protection and hygiene: US$0.15 to US$895.60.ConclusionWhile there are gaps and heterogeneity in available cost data, the findings of this review and the collated cost database serve as an important resource for evidence-based decision-making for estimating costs pertaining to NPI implementation in future outbreak response policies.
| S-EPMC8192223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate the joint impact of childhood vaccination rates and masking policies, in schools and workplaces, on community transmission and severe outcomes due to COVID-19. We utilized a stochastic, agent-based simulation of North Carolina, to evaluate the impact of 24 health policy decisions on overall incidence of disease, COVID-19 related hospitalization, and mortality from July 1, 2021-July 1, 2023. Universal mask removal in schools in January 2022 could lead to a 38.1-47%, 27.6-36.2%, and 15.9-19.7% increase in cumulative infections for ages 5-9, 10-19, and the total population, respectively, depending on the rate of vaccination of children relative to the adult population. Additionally, without increased vaccination uptake in the adult population, a 25% increase in child vaccination uptake from 50% to 75% uptake and from 75% to 100% uptake relative to the adult population, leads to a 22% and 18% or 28% and 33% decrease in peak hospitalizations in 2022 across scenarios when masks are removed either January 1st or March 8th 2022, respectively. Increasing vaccination uptake for the entire eligible population can reduce peak hospitalizations in 2022 by an average of 89% and 92% across all masking scenarios compared to the scenarios where no children are vaccinated. High vaccination uptake among both children and adults is necessary to mitigate the increase in infections from mask removal in schools and workplaces.
| S-EPMC8669851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) is a monogenic but multifactorial disease vulnerable to environmental triggers. Little is known about how LHON onset changed during the COVID-19 pandemic and how non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPHIs) against COVID-19 impact LHON onset. One hundred and forty-seven LHON patients with the m.11778G>A mutation complaining of vision loss were involved between January 2017 and July 2022. The onset time points, age of onset, and possible risk factors were evaluated. Analyses were conducted among 96 LHON patients in the Pre-COVID-19 group and 51 in the COVID-19 group. The median (IQR) age of onset decreased significantly from 16.65 (13.739, 23.02) in pre-COVID-19 to 14.17 (8.87, 20.29) during COVID-19. Compared with the Pre-COVID-19 group, the COVID-19 group exhibited bimodal distribution with an additional peak at six; the first quarter of 2020 also witnessed a relatively denser onset, with no subsequent second spike. NPHIs against COVID-19 significantly changed patients' lifestyles, including higher secondhand smoke exposure (p < 0.001), adherence to masks (p < 0.001), reduction in time spent outdoors for leisure (p = 0.001), and prolonged screen time (p = 0.007). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that secondhand smoke exposure and mask-wearing were independent risk factors of younger LHON onset. Lower age of onset of LHON appeared after the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic, and novel risk factors were detected, including secondhand exposure and long mask-wearing. Carriers of LHON mtDNA mutations, especially teenagers or children, should be advised to avoid secondhand smoke exposure and there are possible adverse outcomes of longer mask-wearing.
| S-EPMC10298648 | biostudies-literature