Dataset Information

Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe in 2020: a quasi-experimental non-equivalent group and time series design study.

ABSTRACT: IntroductionThe current pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is unparalleled in recent history as are the social distancing interventions that have led to a considerable halt on the economic and social life of so many countries.AimWe aimed to generate empirical evidence about which social distancing measures had the most impact in reducing case counts and mortality.MethodsWe report a quasi-experimental (observational) study of the impact of various interventions for control of the outbreak through 24 April 2020. Chronological data on case numbers and deaths were taken from the daily published figures by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and dates of initiation of various control strategies from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation website and published sources. Our complementary analyses were modelled in R using Bayesian generalised additive mixed models and in STATA using multilevel mixed-effects regression models.ResultsFrom both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay-at-home orders and closure of additional non-essential businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact.ConclusionsOur findings are that schools and some non-essential businesses operating 'as normal' as well as allowing mass gatherings were incompatible with suppressing disease spread. Closure of all businesses and stay at home orders are less likely to be required to keep disease incidence low. Our results help identify what were the most effective non-pharmaceutical interventions in this period.

SUBMITTER: Hunter PR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8284045 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic is debated. Understanding the consequences these measures may have on vulnerable populations including children and adolescents is important.MethodsThis is a multicenter, quasi-experimental before-after study involving 12 hospitals of the North Italian Emilia-Romagna Region, with NPI implementation as the intervention event. The 3 years preceding NPI implementation (in March 2020) constituted the pre-pandemic phase. The subsequent 2 years were further subdivided into a school closure phase (SC) and a subsequent mitigation measures phase (MM) with milder restrictions. Interrupted Time Series (ITS) regression analysis was used to calculate PED Standardized Incidence Rate Ratios (SIRR) on the diagnostic categories exhibiting the greatest frequency and/or variation.ResultsIn the 60 months of the study there were 765,215 PED visits. Compared to the pre-pandemic rate, overall PED presentations dropped by 58 and 39% during SC and MM, respectively. "Symptoms, signs and Ill-defined conditions," "Injury and poisoning" and "Diseases of the Respiratory System" accounted for 74% of the reduction. A different pattern was instead seen for "Mental Disorders," which exhibited the smallest decrease during SC, and is the only category which rose already at the end of SC. ITS analysis confirmed the strong decrease during SC (level change, IRR 0.17, 95%CI 0.12-0.27) and a significant increase in MM (slope change, IRR 1.23, 95%CI 1.13-1.33), with the sharpest decline (-94%) and rise (+36%) observed in the "Diseases of the Respiratory System" category. Mental Disorders showed a significant increasing trend of 1% monthly over the whole study period exceeding pre-pandemic levels at the end of MM. Females and adolescents showed higher increasing rates both in SC and MM.ConclusionNPIs appear to have influenced PED attendance in different ways according to diagnostic categories, mirroring different mechanisms of action. These effects are beneficial in some cases and harmful in others, and establishing a clear balance between pros and cons is a difficult task for public health decision makers. The role of NPIs on PED use appropriateness deserves investigation. The rise in pediatric mental disorders independent of the pandemic makes interventions addressing these issues urgent.

Project description:BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) guidance for specific institutional audiences to limit community spread. Audiences include: business, clinical, public health, education, community, and state/local government. The swift, severe, and global nature of COVID-19 offers an opportunity to systematically obtain a national view of how larger institutions of higher education adopted NPI guidance at the onset of the pandemic.MethodAn original database of COVID-19-related university NPI policy changes was compiled. Survey team members manually combed university websites and official statements capturing implementation decisions and dates for five NPI variables from 575 U.S. universities, across 50 states and the District of Columbia, during March of 2020. The universities included in this study were selected from the Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which provides a set of university explanatory variables. Using IPEDS as the basis for the organizational data allows consistent mapping to event-time and institutional characteristic variables including public health announcements, geospatial, census, and political affiliation.ResultsThe dataset enables event-time analysis and offers a variety of variables to support institutional level study and identification of underlying biases like educational attainment. A descriptive analysis of the dataset reveals that there was substantial heterogeneity in the decisions that were made and the timing of these decisions as they temporally related to key state, national, and global emergency announcements. The WHO pandemic declaration coincided with the largest number of university decisions to implement NPIs.ConclusionThis study provides descriptive observations and produced an original dataset that will be useful for future research focused on drivers and trends of COVID-19 NPIs for U.S. Universities. This preliminary analysis suggests COVID-19 university decisions appeared to be made largely at the university level, leading to major variations in the nature and timing of the responses both between and within states, which requires further study.

Project description:IntroductionNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as handwashing, social distancing and face mask wearing, have been widely promoted to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This study aimed to explore the relationship between self-reported use of NPIs and COVID-19 infection.MethodsWe conducted an online questionnaire study recruiting members of the UK public from November 2020 to May 2021. The association between self-reported COVID-19 illness and reported use of NPIs was explored using logistic regression and controlling for participant characteristics, month of questionnaire completion, and vaccine status. Participants who had been exposed to COVID-19 in their household in the previous 2 weeks were excluded.ResultsTwenty-seven thousand seven hundred fifty-eight participants were included and 2,814 (10.1%) reported having a COVID-19 infection. The odds of COVID-19 infection were reduced with use of a face covering in unadjusted (OR 0.17 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.20) and adjusted (aOR 0.19, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.23) analyses. Social distancing (OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.31; aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43) and handwashing when arriving home (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73; aOR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.83) also reduced the odds of COVID-19. Being in crowded places of 10-100 people (OR 1.89, 95% CI: 1.70 to 2.11; aOR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.42 to 1.85) and > 100 people (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.11 to 2.58; aOR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.53 to 1.97) were both associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infection. Handwashing before eating, avoiding touching the face, and cleaning things with virus on were all associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infections.ConclusionsThis large observational study found evidence for strong protective effects for individuals from use of face coverings, social distancing (including avoiding crowded places) and handwashing on arriving home on developing COVID-19 infection. We also found evidence for an increased risk associated with other behaviours, possibly from recall bias.

Project description:BackgroundGeneralized anxiety disorder (GAD) is an extremely prevalent and debilitating mental health disorder. Currently, the gold standard treatment for GAD is cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and/or pharmacotherapy. The most common medications used to treat GAD are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. While CBT is the gold standard treatment for GAD, it is costly, time-consuming, and often inaccessible. Fortunately, the electronic delivery of CBT (e-CBT) has emerged as a promising solution to address these barriers. e-CBT has shown to offer comparable results to in-person CBT while improving accessibility for patients and time efficiency for clinicians.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the treatment efficacy of e-CBT compared to and in conjunction with pharmacotherapy for GAD.MethodsThis study will use a quasi-experimental design to allow patients the freedom to choose which treatment modality they would like to receive. Participants with a diagnosis of GAD will be enrolled in 1 of 3 possible treatment arms: (1) e-CBT, (2) medication, or (3) a combination of e-CBT and medication. The e-CBT program will include a 12-week psychotherapy program delivered through the Online Psychotherapy Tool-a secure, cloud-based, digital mental health platform. The treatment efficacy of e-CBT will be compared with that of medication alone and medication in combination with e-CBT.ResultsThe study received ethics approval in April 2019 and participant recruitment began in June 2019. Participant recruitment has been conducted through social media advertisements, physical advertisements, and physician referrals. To date, 146 participants (e-CBT: n=53; medication: n=49; combination: n=44) have been recruited. Data collection is expected to conclude by June 2021, and data analysis is expected to be completed by October 2021. Linear regression (for continuous outcomes) and binomial regression (for categorical outcomes) analysis will be conducted using interpretive qualitative methods.ConclusionsIf either the efficacy of e-CBT is shown to be comparable to that of medication or the effects of both treatments are augmented when used in tandem, these findings could have major implications on the mental health care system. e-CBT is a more accessible and affordable treatment that could increase mental health care capacity 4-fold if proven viable.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04478526; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04478526.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/27772.

Dataset Information

Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe in 2020: a quasi-experimental non-equivalent group and time series design study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets