Dataset Information

Unintended health and societal consequences of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objective

International 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

Twenty-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.

Conclusion

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Klinger C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8436381 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the current COVID-19 pandemic, aggressive Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures have been adopted to prevent health care-associated transmission of COVID-19. We evaluated the impact of a multimodal IPC strategy originally designed for the containment of COVID-19 on the rates of other hospital-acquired-infections (HAIs).MethodologyFrom February-August 2020, a multimodal IPC strategy was implemented across a large health care campus in Singapore, comprising improved segregation of patients with respiratory symptoms, universal masking and heightened adherence to Standard Precautions. The following rates of HAI were compared pre- and postpandemic: health care-associated respiratory-viral-infection (HA-RVI), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and CP-CRE acquisition rates, health care-facility-associated C difficile infections and device-associated HAIs.ResultsEnhanced IPC measures introduced to contain COVID-19 had the unintended positive consequence of containing HA-RVI. The cumulative incidence of HA-RVI decreased from 9.69 cases per 10,000 patient-days to 0.83 cases per 10,000 patient-days (incidence-rate-ratio = 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.05-0.13, P< .05). Hospital-wide MRSA acquisition rates declined significantly during the pandemic (incidence-rate-ratio = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.46-0.64, P< .05), together with central-line-associated-bloodstream infection rates (incidence-rate-ratio = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.07-0.57, P< .05); likely due to increased compliance with Standard Precautions. Despite the disruption caused by the pandemic, there was no increase in CP-CRE acquisition, and rates of other HAIs remained stable.ConclusionsMultimodal IPC strategies can be implemented at scale to successfully mitigate health care-associated transmission of RVIs. Good adherence to personal-protective-equipment and hand hygiene kept other HAI rates stable even during an ongoing pandemic where respiratory infections were prioritized for interventions.

Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is primarily a crisis that affects people's physical health. However, it is well-known from previous epidemics and pandemics that there are other indirect negative impacts on mental health, among others. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore and summarise primary empirical research evidence on how the COVID-19 pandemic and societal infection control measures have impacted children and adolescents' mental health. Methods: A literature search was conducted in five scientific databases: PubMed, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINHAL, and Social Science Premium Collection. The search string was designed using the Population (0-18 years), Exposure (COVID-19), Outcomes (mental health) framework. Mental health was defined broadly, covering mental well-being to mental disorders and psychiatric conditions. Results: Fifty-nine studies were included in the scoping review. Of these, 44 were cross-sectional and 15 were longitudinal studies. Most studies reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child and adolescent mental health outcomes, yet the evidence was mixed. This was also the case for studies investigating societal control measures. Strong resilience, positive emotion regulation, physical activity, parental self-efficacy, family functioning and emotional regulation, and social support were reported as protective factors. On the contrary, emotional reactivity and experiential avoidance, exposure to excessive information, COVID-19 school concerns, presence of COVID-19 cases in the community, parental mental health problems, and high internet, social media and video game use were all identified as potentially harmful factors. Conclusions: Due to the methodological heterogeneity of the studies and geographical variation, it is challenging to draw definitive conclusions about the real impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of children and adolescents. However, the existing body of research gives some insight to how parents, clinicians and policy makers can take action to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 and control measures. Interventions to promote physical activity and reduce screen time among children and adolescents are recommended, as well as parenting support programs.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has led to the adoption of unprecedented mitigation measures which could trigger many unintended consequences. These unintended consequences can be far-reaching and just as important as the intended ones. The World Health Organization identified the assessment of unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures as a top priority. Thus far, however, their systematic assessment has been neglected due to the inattention of researchers as well as the lack of training and practical tools.Main textOver six years our team has gained extensive experience conducting research on the unintended consequences of complex health interventions. Through a reflexive process, we developed insights that can be useful for researchers in this area. Our analysis is based on key literature and lessons learned reflexively in conducting multi-site and multi-method studies on unintended consequences. Here we present practical guidance for researchers wishing to assess the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures. To ensure resource allocation, protocols should include research questions regarding unintended consequences at the outset. Social science theories and frameworks are available to help assess unintended consequences. To determine which changes are unintended, researchers must first understand the intervention theory. To facilitate data collection, researchers can begin by forecasting potential unintended consequences through literature reviews and discussions with stakeholders. Including desirable and neutral unintended consequences in the scope of study can help minimize the negative bias reported in the literature. Exploratory methods can be powerful tools to capture data on the unintended consequences that were unforeseen by researchers. We recommend researchers cast a wide net by inquiring about different aspects of the mitigation measures. Some unintended consequences may only be observable in subsequent years, so longitudinal approaches may be useful. An equity lens is necessary to assess how mitigation measures may unintentionally increase disparities. Finally, stakeholders can help validate the classification of consequences as intended or unintended.ConclusionStudying the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures is not only possible but also necessary to assess their overall value. The practical guidance presented will help program planners and evaluators gain a more comprehensive understanding of unintended consequences to refine mitigation measures.

Project description:Controlling the spread of COVID-19 - even after a licensed vaccine is available - requires the effective use of non-pharmaceutical interventions, e.g., physical distancing, limits on group sizes, mask wearing, etc1-7. To date, such interventions have not been uniformly and/or systematically implemented across the United States of America (US)8. For example, even when under strict stay-at-home orders, numerous jurisdictions in the US granted exceptions and/or were in close proximity to locations with entirely different regulations in place. Here, we investigate the impact of such geographic inconsistencies in epidemic control policies by coupling high-resolution mobility, search, and COVID case data to a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Our results show that while stay-at-home orders decrease contacts in most areas of the US, some specific activities and venues often see an increase in attendance. As an example, over the month of March 2020, between 10 and 30% of churches in the US saw increases in attendance; even as the total number of visits to churches declined nationally. This heterogeneity, where certain venues see substantial increases in attendance while others close, suggests that closure can cause individuals to find an open venue, even if that requires longer-distance travel. And, indeed, the average distance travelled to churches in the US rose by 13% over the same period, and over the summer, churches with more than 50 average weekly visitors saw an increase of 81% in distance visitors had to travel to attend. Strikingly, our mathematical model reveals that, across a broad range of model parameters, partial measures can often be worse than no measures at all. In the most severe cases, individuals not complying with policies by traveling to neighboring jurisdictions can create epidemics when the outbreak would otherwise have been contained. Indeed, using county-level COVID-19 data, we show that mobility from high-incidence to low-incidence associated with travel for venues like churches, parks, and gyms consistently precedes rising case numbers in the low-incidence counties. Taken together, our data analysis of nearly 120 million church visitors across 184,677 churches, 14 million grocery visitors across 7,662 grocery stores, 13.5 million gym visitors across 5,483 gyms, 7.7 million cases across 3,195 counties, and modeling results highlight the potential unintended consequences of inconsistent epidemic control policies and stress the importance of balancing the societal needs of a population with the risk of an outbreak growing into a large epidemic, and the urgent need for centralized implementation and enforcement of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

Project description:ObjectivesTo comprehensively map the existing evidence assessing the impact of travel-related control measures for containment of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic.DesignRapid evidence map.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, and COVID-19 specific databases offered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the WHO.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies in human populations susceptible to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1/severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus/Middle East respiratory syndrome or influenza. Interventions of interest were travel-related control measures affecting travel across national or subnational borders. Outcomes of interest included infectious disease, screening, other health, economic and social outcomes. We considered all empirical studies that quantitatively evaluate impact available in Armenian, English, French, German, Italian and Russian based on the team's language capacities.Data extraction and synthesisWe extracted data from included studies in a standardised manner and mapped them to a priori and (one) post hoc defined categories.ResultsWe included 122 studies assessing travel-related control measures. These studies were undertaken across the globe, most in the Western Pacific region (n=71). A large proportion of studies focused on COVID-19 (n=59), but a number of studies also examined SARS, MERS and influenza. We identified studies on border closures (n=3), entry/exit screening (n=31), travel-related quarantine (n=6), travel bans (n=8) and travel restrictions (n=25). Many addressed a bundle of travel-related control measures (n=49). Most studies assessed infectious disease (n=98) and/or screening-related (n=25) outcomes; we found only limited evidence on economic and social outcomes. Studies applied numerous methods, both inferential and descriptive in nature, ranging from simple observational methods to complex modelling techniques.ConclusionsWe identified a heterogeneous and complex evidence base on travel-related control measures. While this map is not sufficient to assess the effectiveness of different measures, it outlines aspects regarding interventions and outcomes, as well as study methodology and reporting that could inform future research and evidence synthesis.