Dataset Information

A scoping review of the impacts of COVID-19 physical distancing measures on vulnerable population groups.

ABSTRACT: Most governments have enacted physical or social distancing measures to control COVID-19 transmission. Yet little is known about the socio-economic trade-offs of these measures, especially for vulnerable populations, who are exposed to increased risks and are susceptible to adverse health outcomes. To examine the impacts of physical distancing measures on the most vulnerable in society, this scoping review screened 39,816 records and synthesised results from 265 studies worldwide documenting the negative impacts of physical distancing on older people, children/students, low-income populations, migrant workers, people in prison, people with disabilities, sex workers, victims of domestic violence, refugees, ethnic minorities, and people from sexual and gender minorities. We show that prolonged loneliness, mental distress, unemployment, income loss, food insecurity, widened inequality and disruption of access to social support and health services were unintended consequences of physical distancing that impacted these vulnerable groups and highlight that physical distancing measures exacerbated the vulnerabilities of different vulnerable populations.

SUBMITTER: Li L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9897623 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A scoping review of the impacts of COVID-19 physical distancing measures on vulnerable population groups.

Li Lili L Taeihagh Araz A Tan Si Ying SY

Nature communications 20230203 1

Most governments have enacted physical or social distancing measures to control COVID-19 transmission. Yet little is known about the socio-economic trade-offs of these measures, especially for vulnerable populations, who are exposed to increased risks and are susceptible to adverse health outcomes. To examine the impacts of physical distancing measures on the most vulnerable in society, this scoping review screened 39,816 records and synthesised results from 265 studies worldwide documenting the ...[more]

PMID: 36737447

Similar Datasets

Project description:Extensive non-pharmaceutical and physical distancing measures are currently the primary interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. It is therefore urgent to estimate the impact such measures are having. We introduce a Bayesian epidemiological model in which a proportion of individuals are willing and able to participate in distancing, with the timing of distancing measures informed by survey data on attitudes to distancing and COVID-19. We fit our model to reported COVID-19 cases in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and five other jurisdictions, using an observation model that accounts for both underestimation and the delay between symptom onset and reporting. We estimated the impact that physical distancing (social distancing) has had on the contact rate and examined the projected impact of relaxing distancing measures. We found that, as of April 11 2020, distancing had a strong impact in BC, consistent with declines in reported cases and in hospitalization and intensive care unit numbers; individuals practising physical distancing experienced approximately 0.22 (0.11-0.34 90% CI [credible interval]) of their normal contact rate. The threshold above which prevalence was expected to grow was 0.55. We define the "contact ratio" to be the ratio of the estimated contact rate to the threshold rate at which cases are expected to grow; we estimated this contact ratio to be 0.40 (0.19-0.60) in BC. We developed an R package 'covidseir' to make our model available, and used it to quantify the impact of distancing in five additional jurisdictions. As of May 7, 2020, we estimated that New Zealand was well below its threshold value (contact ratio of 0.22 [0.11-0.34]), New York (0.60 [0.43-0.74]), Washington (0.84 [0.79-0.90]) and Florida (0.86 [0.76-0.96]) were progressively closer to theirs yet still below, but California (1.15 [1.07-1.23]) was above its threshold overall, with cases still rising. Accordingly, we found that BC, New Zealand, and New York may have had more room to relax distancing measures than the other jurisdictions, though this would need to be done cautiously and with total case volumes in mind. Our projections indicate that intermittent distancing measures-if sufficiently strong and robustly followed-could control COVID-19 transmission. This approach provides a useful tool for jurisdictions to monitor and assess current levels of distancing relative to their threshold, which will continue to be essential through subsequent waves of this pandemic.

Project description:Effective communication during a pandemic, such as the current COVID-19 crisis, can save lives. At the present time, social and physical distancing measures are the lead strategy in combating the spread of COVID-19. In this study, a survey was administered to 705 adults from Switzerland about their support and practice of social distancing measures to examine if their responses depended on (1) whether these measures were supported by a government official or an internationally recognized celebrity as a spokesperson, (2) whether this spokesperson was liked, and (3) the respondent's age. We also considered several attitudinal and demographic variables that may influence the degree to which people support and comply with social distancing measures. We found that the government official was more effective in eliciting responses supportive of social distancing, particularly as manifested in the stated current compliance with social distancing measures. The effect was substantially stronger among older respondents, although these respondents expressed a lower risk perception. Although there was a general trend for greater endorsement of the social distancing measures among participants who liked the spokesperson, this was non-significant. In addition, respondents' greater support and compliance was positively associated with (1) higher concern for the current situation, (2) higher concern for the well-being of others, and (3) greater belief that others were practicing social distancing, and negatively with (4) greater self-reported mobility. Current compliance correlated negatively with (5) household size. Since different parts of the population appear to have different perceptions of risk and crisis, our preliminary results suggest that different spokespersons may be needed for different segments of the population, and particularly for younger and older populations. The development of evidence-based knowledge is required to further identify who would be the most effective spokesperson, and in particular to groups with low risk perception and low compliance.

Project description:BackgroundA significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures.Methods and findingsIn this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of "Fair" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsMany effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.

Dataset Information

A scoping review of the impacts of COVID-19 physical distancing measures on vulnerable population groups.

Publications

A scoping review of the impacts of COVID-19 physical distancing measures on vulnerable population groups.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets