Preventing Unequal Health Outcomes in COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Past Interventions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Williams BE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8742307 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn an unparalleled global response, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 90 countries asked 3.9 billion people to stay home. Yet other countries avoided lockdowns and focused on other strategies, like contact tracing. How effective and cost-effective are these strategies? We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on past pandemic controls, with a focus on cost-effectiveness.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE (1946 to April week 2, 2020) and EMBASE (1974 to April 17, 2020) were searched using a range of terms related to pandemic control. Articles reporting on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of at least one intervention were included.ResultsWe found 1653 papers; 62 were included. The effectiveness of hand-washing and face masks was supported by randomized trials. These measures were highly cost-effective. For other interventions, only observational and modelling studies were found. They suggested that (1) the most cost-effective interventions are swift contact tracing and case isolation, surveillance networks, protective equipment for healthcare workers, and early vaccination (when available); (2) home quarantines and stockpiling antivirals are less cost-effective; (3) social distancing measures like workplace and school closures are effective but costly, making them the least cost-effective options; (4) combinations are more cost-effective than single interventions; and (5) interventions are more cost-effective when adopted early. For 2009 H1N1 influenza, contact tracing was estimated to be 4363 times more cost-effective than school closure ($2260 vs. $9,860,000 per death prevented).Conclusions and contributionsFor COVID-19, a cautious interpretation suggests that (1) workplace and school closures are effective but costly, especially when adopted late, and (2) scaling up as early as possible a combination of interventions that includes hand-washing, face masks, ample protective equipment for healthcare workers, and swift contact tracing and case isolation is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.
| S-EPMC9096744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic that brought the whole world to a standstill, has led to financial and health care burden. We aimed to evaluate epidemiological characteristics, needs of resources, outcomes, and global burden of the disease.MethodsSystematic review was performed searching PubMed from December 1, 2019, to March 25, 2020, for full-text observational studies that described epidemiological characteristics, following MOOSE protocol. Global data were collected from the JHU-Corona Virus Resource Center, WHO-COVID-2019 situation reports, KFF.org, and Worldometers.info until March 31, 2020. The prevalence percentages were calculated. The global data were plotted in excel to calculate case fatality rate (CFR), predicted CFR, COVID-19 specific mortality rate, and doubling time for cases and deaths. CFR was predicted using Pearson correlation, regression models, and coefficient of determination.ResultsFrom 21 studies of 2747 patients, 8.4% of patients died, 20.4% recovered, 15.4% were admitted to ICU and 14.9% required ventilation. COVID-19 was more prevalent in patients with hypertension (19.3%), smoking (11.3%), diabetes mellitus (10%), and cardiovascular diseases (7.4%). Common complications were pneumonia (82%), cardiac complications (26.4%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (15.7%), secondary infection (11.2%), and septic shock (4.3%). Though CFR and COVID-19 specific death rates are dynamic, they were consistently high for Italy, Spain, and Iran. Polynomial growth models were best fit for all countries for predicting CFR. Though many interventions have been implemented, stern measures like nationwide lockdown and school closure occurred after very high infection rates (>10cases per 100 000population) prevailed. Given the trend of government measures and decline of new cases in China and South Korea, most countries will reach the peak between April 1-20, if interventions are followed.ConclusionsA collective approach undertaken by a responsible government, wise strategy implementation and a receptive population may help contain the spread of COVID-19 outbreak. Close monitoring of predictive models of such indicators in the highly affected countries would help to evaluate the potential fatality if the second wave of pandemic occurs. The future studies should be focused on identifying accurate indicators to mitigate the effect of underestimation or overestimation of COVID-19 burden.
| S-EPMC7567430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The COVID‑19 pandemic and associated public health measures have disrupted the lives of people around the world. It is already evident that the direct and indirect psychological and social effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic are insidious and affect the mental health of young children and adolescents now and will in the future. The aim and objectives of this knowledge-synthesis study were to identify the impact of the pandemic on children's and adolescent's mental health and to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions employed during previous and the current pandemic to promote children's and adolescents' mental health. Methodology: We conducted the systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and included experimental randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, observational studies, and qualitative studies. Results: Of the 5828 articles that we retrieved, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. We thematically analyzed them and put the major findings under the thematic areas of impact of the pandemic on children's and adolescents' mental health. These studies reported that pandemics cause stress, worry, helplessness, and social and risky behavioral problems among children and adolescents (e.g., substance abuse, suicide, relationship problems, academic issues, and absenteeism from work). Interventions such as art-based programs, support services, and clinician-led mental health and psychosocial services effectively decrease mental health issues among children and adolescents. Conclusion: Children and adolescents are more likely to experience high rates of depression and anxiety during and after a pandemic. It is critical that future researchers explore effective mental health strategies that are tailored to the needs of children and adolescents. Explorations of effective channels regarding the development and delivery of evidenced-based, age-appropriate services are vital to lessen the effects and improve long-term capacities for mental health services for children and adolescents. Key Practitioner Message: The COVID-19 pandemic's physical restrictions and social distancing measures have affected each and every domain of life. Although the number of children and adolescents affected by the disease is small, the disease and the containment measures such as social distancing, school closure, and isolation have negatively impacted the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. The impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of children and adolescents is of great concern. Anxiety, depression, disturbances in sleep and appetite, as well as impairment in social interactions are the most common presentations. It has been indicated that compared to adults, this pandemic may continue to have increased long term adverse consequences on children's and adolescents' mental health. As the pandemic continues, it is important to monitor the impact on children's and adolescents' mental health status and how to help them to improve their mental health outcomes in the time of the current or future pandemics.
| S-EPMC8038056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:To describe perinatal and neonatal outcomes in newborns exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Methods:A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed Central, LILACS, and Google Scholar using the keywords 'covid ' AND 'newborn' OR 'child' OR 'infant,' on 18 March 2020, and again on 17 April 2020. One researcher conducted the search and extracted data on demographics, maternal outcomes, diagnostic tests, imaging, and neonatal outcomes. Results:Of 256 publications identified, 20 met inclusion criteria and comprised neonatal outcome data for 222 newborns whose mothers were suspected or confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2 positive perinatally (17 studies) or of newborns referred to hospital with infection/pneumonia (3 studies). Most (12 studies) were case-series reports; all were from China, except three (Australia, Iran, and Spain). Of the 222 newborns, 13 were reported as positive for SARS-CoV-2; most of the studies reported no or mild symptoms and no adverse perinatal outcomes. Two papers among those from newborns who tested positive reported moderate or severe clinical characteristics. Five studies using data on umbilical cord blood, placenta, and/or amniotic fluid reported no positive results. Nine studies reported radiographic imaging, including 5 with images of pneumonia, increased lung marking, thickened texture, or high-density nodular shadow. Minor, non-specific changes in biochemical variables were reported. Studies that tested breast milk reported negative SARS-CoV-2 results. Conclusions:Given the paucity of studies at this time, vertical transmission cannot be confirmed or denied. Current literature does not support abstaining from breastfeeding nor separating mothers and newborns. Further evidence and data collection networks, particularly in the Americas, are needed for establishing definitive guidelines and recommendations.
| S-EPMC7241573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA high variety of team interventions aims to improve team performance outcomes. In 2008, we conducted a systematic review to provide an overview of the scientific studies focused on these interventions. However, over the past decade, the literature on team interventions has rapidly evolved. An updated overview is therefore required, and it will focus on all possible team interventions without restrictions to a type of intervention, setting, or research design.ObjectivesTo review the literature from the past decade on interventions with the goal of improving team effectiveness within healthcare organizations and identify the "evidence base" levels of the research.MethodsSeven major databases were systematically searched for relevant articles published between 2008 and July 2018. Of the original search yield of 6025 studies, 297 studies met the inclusion criteria according to three independent authors and were subsequently included for analysis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Scale was used to assess the level of empirical evidence.ResultsThree types of interventions were distinguished: (1) Training, which is sub-divided into training that is based on predefined principles (i.e. CRM: crew resource management and TeamSTEPPS: Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety), on a specific method (i.e. simulation), or on general team training. (2) Tools covers tools that structure (i.e. SBAR: Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation, (de)briefing checklists, and rounds), facilitate (through communication technology), or trigger (through monitoring and feedback) teamwork. (3) Organizational (re)design is about (re)designing structures to stimulate team processes and team functioning. (4) A programme is a combination of the previous types. The majority of studies evaluated a training focused on the (acute) hospital care setting. Most of the evaluated interventions focused on improving non-technical skills and provided evidence of improvements.ConclusionOver the last decade, the number of studies on team interventions has increased exponentially. At the same time, research tends to focus on certain interventions, settings, and/or outcomes. Principle-based training (i.e. CRM and TeamSTEPPS) and simulation-based training seem to provide the greatest opportunities for reaching the improvement goals in team functioning.
| S-EPMC6950792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough the understanding of several aspects of long COVID-19 syndrome is increasing, there is limited literature regarding the treatment of these signs and symptoms. The aim of our systematic review was to understand which therapies have proved effective against the symptoms of long COVID-19.MethodsA systematic search for randomized controlled or clinical trials in several databases was conducted through 15 May 2022. Specific inclusion criteria included: (1) intervention studies, either randomized controlled (RCTs) or clinical trials; (2) diagnosis of long COVID-19, according to the World Health Organization criteria; (3) presence of long COVID-19 for at least 12 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsWe initially found 1638 articles to screen. After removing 1602 works based on their title/abstract, we considered 35 full texts, and among them, two intervention studies were finally included. The first RCT focused on the greater improvement of treatment combining olfactory rehabilitation with oral supplementation with Palmitoylethanolamide and Luteolin in patients with olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19. The second study evaluated the positive impact of aromatherapy vs. standard care in adult females affected by fatigue.ConclusionOur systematic review found only two intervention studies focused on patients affected by long COVID-19. More intervention studies are needed to investigate potentially positive interventions for long COVID-19 symptoms.
| S-EPMC9502379 | biostudies-literature
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:ImportanceProsocial interventions encourage voluntary actions that benefit others. Community solidarity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, expanding mutual aid programs, and health workforce issues have accelerated prosocial health interventions.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of prosocial interventions with health outcomes in clinical trials and observational studies.Data sourcesIn this systematic review and meta-analysis informed by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 5 databases (MEDLINE [via PubMed], Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched from database inception through February 23, 2023. The search included terms for altruism and prosocial behaviors, health outcomes, and study type.Study selectionIncluded studies, determined by multiple reviewers, compared health outcomes in a prosocial intervention group with a nonintervention group.Data extraction and synthesisFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, data extraction and synthesis captured quantitative and qualitative data. To pool data from quantitative studies, random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the impact of prosocial interventions. To combine data from quantitative and qualitive studies, data were transformed into qualitative narratives using meta-aggregation.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was whether prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation of these interventions were assessed.ResultsThe search identified 5229 citations; 30 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies indicated that prosocial interventions were associated with positive health outcomes for givers (17 studies [56.7]) and recipients (8 [26.7%]). Prosocial interventions included acts of kindness (12 studies [40.0%]), cash gifts (7 [23.3%]), pay-it-forward approaches (6 [20.0%]), and expressions of kindness (5 [16.7%]). Improvements were reported in depression, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, vaccine uptake, physical activity, and individual biomarkers. Data from 6 studies (20.0%) demonstrated that pay-it-forward approaches were associated with increased uptake of diagnostic tests or vaccines among vulnerable groups (moderate certainty of evidence). Data from 14 studies (46.7%) suggested that community connectedness facilitated prosocial interventions. Shared vulnerabilities among groups (eg, sexual minority individuals, older adults) may provide a context for collective mobilization to improve health in local communities.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis found that prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes among vulnerable groups and have been useful for addressing health disparities. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate prosocial interventions.
| S-EPMC10709779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We document the heterogeneous effect of Covid-19 on health and economic outcomes across socioeconomic strata in Bogotá. We assess its distributional impact and evaluate policy counterfactuals in a heterogeneous agent quantitative dynamic general equilibrium model intertwined with a behavioral epidemiological model.
| S-EPMC8816851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Epidemiological differences between men and women have been reported with regards to sepsis, influenza and severe coronavirus infections including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. AIM:To systematically review the literature relating to men versus women on SARS-CoV-2 in order to seek differences in disease characteristics (e.g. infectivity, severity) and outcomes (e.g. mortality). METHODS:We searched 3 electronic databases up or observational studies reporting differences between men and women in the SARS-CoV-2 disease characteristics stated. We identified and included 47 studies, reporting data for 21,454 patients mainly from China. RESULTS:The unadjusted mortality rates of men were higher than those of women, with a mortality OR 0.51 [0.42, 0.61] (p<0.001) for women. The proportion of men presenting with severe disease and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) was also higher than that of women (OR 0.75 [0.60-0.93] p<0.001 and OR 0.45 [0.40-0.52] p<0.001 respectively). Adjusted analyses could not be conducted due to lack of data. CONCLUSION:COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes in males than in females. However, until more detailed data are provided in further studies enabling adjusted analysis, this remains an unproven assumption.
| S-EPMC7608911 | biostudies-literature