International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review

How to protect long-term care facilities from pandemic-like events? - A systematic review on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological measures to prevent viral respiratory infections

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic underscored the need for pandemic preparedness, with respiratory-transmitted viruses considered as a substantial risk. In pandemics, long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are a high-risk setting with severe outbreaks and burden of disease. Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) constitute the primary defence mechanism when pharmacological interventions are not available. However, evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs remains unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review assessing the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs to protect residents and staff from viral respiratory pathogens with pandemic potential. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and two COVID-19 registries in 09/2022. Screening and data extraction was conducted independently by two experienced researchers. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized observational studies of intervention effects. Quality appraisal was conducted using ROBINS-I and RoB2. Primary outcomes encompassed number of outbreaks, infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. We synthesized findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

We analysed 13 observational studies and three (cluster) randomized controlled trials. All studies were conducted in high-income countries, all but three focused on SARS-CoV-2 with the rest focusing on influenza or upper-respiratory tract infections. The evidence indicates that a combination of different measures and hand hygiene interventions can be effective in protecting residents and staff from infection-related outcomes (moderate CoE). Self-confinement of staff with residents, compartmentalization of staff in the LTCF, and the routine testing of residents and/or staff in LTCFs, among others, may be effective (low CoE). Other measures, such as restricting shared spaces, serving meals in room, cohorting infected and non-infected residents may be effective (very low CoE). An evidence gap map highlights the lack of evidence on important interventions, encompassing visiting restrictions, pre-entry testing, and air filtration systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CoE of interventions was low or very low for most outcomes, the implementation of NPIs identified as potentially effective in this review often constitutes the sole viable option, particularly prior to the availability of vaccinations. Our evidence-gap map underscores the imperative for further research on several interventions. These gaps need to be addressed to prepare LTCFs for future pandemics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42022344149.

Evaluation of the exit screening policy among travelers arriving from Asian and pacific nations

BACKGROUND

The Japanese government has instituted border control measures against COVID-19, including entry and exit screening of people arriving from overseas. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the exit screening policy in Japan in reducing the risk of importing COVID-19 cases among travelers from Asian and Pacific countries.

METHODS

The study period was stratified based on the timing of exit screening: (i) the control period (the pre-exit screening period from 25 October 2020 to 16 January 2021), (ii) the time period with the Alpha variant from 17 January to 10 April 2021, and (iii) the time period with the Delta variant from 2 May to 2 October 2021. Incidence data in the countries of origin were used to adjust for the risk of infection among travelers. The positivity rate of entry screening in Japan was compared among the three different study periods, adjusting for the risk of infection in the country of origin.

RESULTS

The adjusted relative risk of positivity was greatly reduced and substantially below the value of 1 during the Alpha variant period compared with the control period. Although the relative risks increased when comparing the Delta variant period against control, the estimate remained below 1, except for among travelers from India and Myanmar. The relative risk reduction was greatest in high-income countries, with estimates of 100% and 96% risk reduction during the Alpha and Delta variant periods, respectively, followed by upper-middle-income countries with estimates of 90% and 76%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the presence of the Alpha and Delta variants, exit screening clearly reduced the risk of infection among travelers arriving from Asian and Pacific nations. As the testing relies on the country of origin, the effectiveness varied greatly by the socioeconomic income status and epidemiological situation of those countries. Test standardization and quality assurance may be required in low- and middle-income countries.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

More than 767 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6.9 million deaths with COVID-19 have been recorded as of August 2023. Several public health and social measures were implemented in schools to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent onward transmission. We built upon methods from a previous Cochrane review to capture current empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of school measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an updated assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to keep schools open safely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Educational Resources Information Center, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program COVID-19 Evidence Reviews on 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies focused on measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, among students (aged 4 to 18 years) or individuals relating to the school, or both. We categorized studies that reported quantitative measures of intervention effectiveness, and studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures as either 'main' or 'supporting' studies based on design and approach to handling key confounders. We were interested in transmission-related outcomes and intended or unintended consequences.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts. We extracted minimal data for supporting studies. For main studies, one review author extracted comprehensive data and assessed risk of bias, which a second author checked. We narratively synthesized findings for each intervention-comparator-outcome category (body of evidence). Two review authors assessed certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The 15 main studies consisted of measures to reduce contacts (4 studies), make contacts safer (7 studies), surveillance and response measures (6 studies; 1 assessed transmission outcomes, 5 assessed performance of surveillance measures), and multicomponent measures (1 study). These main studies assessed outcomes in the school population (12), general population (2), and adults living with a school-attending child (1). Settings included K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12; 9 studies), secondary (3 studies), and K-8 (kindergarten to grade 8; 1 study) schools. Two studies did not clearly report settings. Studies measured transmission-related outcomes (10), performance of surveillance measures (5), and intended and unintended consequences (4). The 15 main studies were based in the WHO Regions of the Americas (12), and the WHO European Region (3). Comparators were more versus less intense measures, single versus multicomponent measures, and measures versus no measures. We organized results into relevant bodies of evidence, or groups of studies relating to the same 'intervention-comparator-outcome' categories. Across all bodies of evidence, certainty of evidence ratings limit our confidence in findings. Where we describe an effect as 'beneficial', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention; a 'harmful' effect does not favour the intervention and 'null' shows no effect either way. Measures to reduce contact (4 studies) We grouped studies into 21 bodies of evidence: moderate- (10 bodies), low- (3 bodies), or very low-certainty evidence (8 bodies). The evidence was very low to moderate certainty for beneficial effects of remote versus in-person or hybrid teaching on transmission in the general population. For students and staff, mostly harmful effects were observed when more students participated in remote teaching. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that in the general population there was probably no effect on deaths and a beneficial effect on hospitalizations for remote versus in-person teaching, but no effect for remote versus hybrid teaching. The effects of hybrid teaching, a combination of in-person and remote teaching, were mixed. Very low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a harmful effect on risk of infection among adults living with a school student for closing playgrounds and cafeterias, a null effect for keeping the same teacher, and a beneficial effect for cancelling extracurricular activities, keeping the same students together and restricting entry for parents and caregivers. Measures to make contact safer (7 studies) We grouped studies into eight bodies of evidence: moderate- (5 bodies), and low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a beneficial effect of mask mandates on transmission-related outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence showed full mandates were probably more beneficial than partial or no mandates. Evidence of a beneficial effect of physical distancing on risk of infection among staff and students was mixed. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that ventilation measures probably reduce cases among staff and students. One study (very low-certainty evidence) found that there may be a beneficial effect of not sharing supplies and increasing desk space on risk of infection for adults living with a school student, but showed there may be a harmful effect of desk shields. Surveillance and response measures (6 studies) We grouped studies into seven bodies of evidence: moderate- (3 bodies), low- (1 body), and very low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Daily testing strategies to replace or reduce quarantine probably helped to reduce missed school days and decrease the proportion of asymptomatic school contacts testing positive (moderate-certainty evidence). For studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures, the proportion of cases detected by rapid antigen detection testing ranged from 28.6% to 95.8%, positive predictive value ranged from 24.0% to 100.0% (very low-certainty evidence). There was probably no onward transmission from contacts of a positive case (moderate-certainty evidence) and replacing or shortening quarantine with testing may have reduced missed school days (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent measures (1 study) Combining multiple measures may have led to a reduction in risk of infection among adults living with a student (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A range of measures can have a beneficial effect on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilization and school attendance. We rated the current findings at a higher level of certainty than the original review. Further high-quality research into school measures to control SARS-CoV-2 in a wider variety of contexts is needed to develop a more evidence-based understanding of how to keep schools open safely during COVID-19 or a similar public health emergency.

Cross-border mobility in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion: impact of COVID-19 border restrictions on everyday activities and visiting social network members

Introduction

Cross-border mobility (CBM) to visit social network members or for everyday activities is an important part of daily life for citizens in border regions, including the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion (EMR: neighboring regions from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany). We assessed changes in CBM during the COVID-19 pandemic and how participants experienced border restrictions.

Methods

Impact of COVID-19 on the EMR' is a longitudinal study using comparative cross-border data collection. In 2021, a random sample of the EMR-population was invited for participation in online surveys to assess current and pre-pandemic CBM. Changes in CBM, experience of border restrictions, and associated factors were analyzed using multinomial and multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

Pre-pandemic, 82% of all 3,543 participants reported any CBM: 31% for social contacts and 79% for everyday activities. Among these, 26% decreased social CBM and 35% decreased CBM for everyday activities by autumn 2021. Negative experience of border restrictions was reported by 45% of participants with pre-pandemic CBM, and was higher (p < 0.05) in Dutch participants (compared to Belgian; aOR= 1.4), cross-border [work] commuters (aOR= 2.2), participants with cross-border social networks of friends, family or acquaintances (aOR= 1.3), and those finding the measures 'limit group size' (aOR= 1.5) and 'minimalize travel' (aOR= 2.0) difficult to adhere to and finding 'minimalize travel' (aOR= 1.6) useless.

Discussion

CBM for social contacts and everyday activities was substantial in EMR-citizens, but decreased during the pandemic. Border restrictions were valued as negative by a considerable portion of EMR-citizens, especially when having family or friends across the border. When designing future pandemic control strategies, policy makers should account for the negative impact of CBM restrictions on their citizens.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

COVID-19 vaccination coverage among travellers at Lomé international airport (Togo), in 2022

COVID-19 pandemic management leads to new health policies including the requirement of a vaccination pass or a negative Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test for cross-border flights. The objective of this study was to estimate COVID-19 vaccination coverage among travellers, as well as factors associated with a full vaccination. A cross sectional study was conducted in July 2022 at the Gnassingbé Eyadema International Airport (LFW) in Lomé. Travellers met at LFW, aged 12 years or above, and who agreed to participate in the study have been submitted a questionnaire. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with full vaccination defined as having received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine according to a validated vaccine schedule. A total of 847 travellers were included. 67% were men The median age was 40 years, Interquartile Range [31-48]. The main health document presented by travellers was the vaccination pass (69.1%). The majority (84.4%) of travellers had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 63.9% had received at least two doses. Being 40 years of age or above (aOR=1.42; P=0.046), and travelling from a country outside Africa (aOR=2.18, P=0.003), were positively associated with full vaccination. Vaccination coverage among travellers at the LFW was relatively high. Travellers from a region outside Africa and aged 40 years or above were more likely to be full vaccinated. Better communication and strengthening of the vaccination strategies in Africa could help reduce these gaps.

Epidemiological impact of travel enhancement on the inter-prefectural importation dynamics of COVID-19 in Japan, 2020

Mobility restrictions were widely practiced to reduce contact with others and prevent the spatial spread of COVID-19 infection. Using inter-prefectural mobility and epidemiological data, a statistical model was devised to predict the number of imported cases in each Japanese prefecture. The number of imported cases crossing prefectural borders in 2020 was predicted using inter-prefectural mobility rates based on mobile phone data and prevalence estimates in the origin prefectures. The simplistic model was quantified using surveillance data of cases with an inter-prefectural travel history. Subsequently, simulations were carried out to understand how imported cases vary with the mobility rate and prevalence at the origin. Overall, the predicted number of imported cases qualitatively captured the observed number of imported cases over time. Although Hokkaido and Okinawa are the northernmost and the southernmost prefectures, respectively, they were sensitive to differing prevalence rate in Tokyo and Osaka and the mobility rate. Additionally, other prefectures were sensitive to mobility change, assuming that an increment in the mobility rate was seen in all prefectures. Our findings indicate the need to account for the weight of an inter-prefectural mobility network when implementing countermeasures to restrict human movement. If the mobility rates were maintained lower than the observed rates, then the number of imported cases could have been maintained at substantially lower levels than the observed, thus potentially preventing the unnecessary spatial spread of COVID-19 in late 2020.

A comparative study of eight COVID-19 protective measures and their impact on Swiss tourists' travel intentions

A comparative vignette-based experimental survey design incorporating various socio-psychological factors, linked to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the Health Belief Model (HBM) and the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking scale (DOSPERT) was carried out to test variations in eight travel-related COVID-19 protective measures on Swiss tourists' travel intentions. Among the tested measures, vaccination passports, surgical masks and quarantining are those that stand out the most, with surgical masks having the greatest acceptance and willingness to adopt while traveling. Quarantining, on the other hand, appears to have a deterrent influence on travel intentions, and vaccination passports have the lowest perceived barriers during travel, but the highest perceived benefits in mitigating the spread of the infection. The discussion of individual differences has specific implications for tourism management against the background of our empirical findings.

Point-of-care real-time DNA detection device for SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples

Since the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2, people's health and the economic support of their countries have been seriously affected. It was necessary to develop a low-cost and faster diagnostic tool that allows the evaluation of symptomatic patients. Point-of-care testing and point-of-need testing systems have been recently developed to solve these drawbacks, providing accurate and rapid diagnostics at field level or at the site of outbreaks. In this work, a bio-photonic device has been developed for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The device is used with an isothermal system (Easy Loop Amplification based) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The performance of the device was evaluated in the detection of a SARS-CoV-2 RNA sample panel, showing an analytical sensitivity comparable to the reference method of quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction used commercially. In addition, the device was mainly built with simple and low-cost components; therefore, it is possible to obtain a high-efficiency and low-cost instrument. The device excites the sample to be analyzed with a semiconductor laser with a specific wavelength, thus triggering spontaneous emission of the fluorophore bound to the specific probe. The emitted fluorescence is suitably managed by using interferential filters. Under these conditions, a signal is registered and, depending on this level, defines the case as positive or negative. All the analysis is done autonomously inside the developed device through an integrated control system, and it is connected to a portable device to show the results wirelessly.

Public health and social measures during health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic: An initial framework to conceptualize and classify measures

Background

Public health and social measures (PHSM) intend to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases and to reduce the burden on health systems, economies and societies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, PHSM have been selected, combined and implemented in a variable manner and inconsistently categorized in policy trackers. This paper presents an initial conceptual framework depicting how PHSM operate in a complex system, enabling a wide-reaching description of these measures and their intended and unintended outcomes.

Methods

In a multi-stage development process, we combined (i) a complexity perspective and systems thinking; (ii) literature on existing COVID-19 PHSM frameworks, taxonomies and policy trackers; (iii) expert input and (iv) application to school and international travel measures.

Results

The initial framework reflects our current understanding of how PHSM are intended to achieve transmission-related outcomes in a complex system, offering visualizations, definitions and worked examples. First, PHSM operate through two basic mechanisms, that is, reducing contacts and/or making contacts safer. Second, PHSM are defined not only by the measures themselves but by their stringency and application to specific populations and settings. Third, PHSM are critically influenced by contextual factors. The framework provides a tool for structured thinking and further development, rather than a ready-to-use tool for practice.

Conclusions

This conceptual framework seeks to facilitate coordinated, interdisciplinary research on PHSM effectiveness, impact and implementation; enable consistent, coherent PHSM monitoring and evaluation; and contribute to evidence-informed decision-making on PHSM implementation, adaptation and de-implementation. We expect this framework to be modified and refined over time.

Randomized trials on non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

We aimed at providing a systematic overview of randomised trials assessing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to prevent COVID-19.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

We included all randomised trials assessing NPIs to prevent COVID-19 in any country and setting registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform using the COVID-evidence platform (until 17 August 2021). We searched for corresponding publications in MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, the Living Overview of Evidence platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 registry as well as for results posted in registries (until 14 November 2021). Descriptive statistics using numbers and percentages were used in the narrative synthesis of the results.

RESULTS

We identified 41 randomised trials. Of them, 12 were completed (29.3%) including 9 with published results. The 41 trials planned to recruit a median of 1700 participants (IQR 588-9500, range 30-35 256 399) with a median planned duration of 8 months (IQR 3-14, range 1-24). Most came from the USA (n=11, 26.8%). The trials mostly assessed protective equipment (n=11, 26.8%), COVID-19-related information and education programmes (n=9, 22.0%), access to mass events under specific safety measures (n=5, 12.2%), testing and screening strategies (n=5, 12.2%) and hygiene management (n=5, 12.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Worldwide, 41 randomised trials assessing NPIs have been initiated with published results available to inform policy decisions for only 9 of them. A long-term research agenda including behavioural, environmental, social and systems level interventions is urgently needed to guide policies and practices in the current and future public health emergencies.

A Survey of Public Health Failures During COVID-19

The prolonged coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised concerns about the failures in the public health measures used to manage the spread of this deadly virus. This review focuses its attention on research papers that at their core highlight the individual public health measures instituted by organizations, institutions, and the government of the United States (US) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and that were published in 2019 to 2022. Together, these sources help paint a well-rounded view of the US management of this pandemic so that conclusions may be drawn from mistakes that were made and this country may respond better in the future to such situations. This paper is unique because it highlights the areas where improvement is needed, whereas other published work describes the measures taken and how they were carried out, not the failures, which leaves a gap in the literature that this paper hopes to fill. Through a deep dive into public health measures, seven areas in which improvements could be made were pinpointed by the authors. Such measures included mask mandates, social distancing, lockdown/quarantine, hand hygiene, COVID-19 testing, travel screening, and vaccine hesitancy. In exploring each measure, a discussion was carried out about its benefits and shortcomings in alleviating the ramifications of a global pandemic. In addition to the poor supply chain for critical products like personal protective equipment (PPE), the miscommunication between states and federal policies did not allow for the entirety of the US to respond cohesively in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. This general review is crucial to know what is working and what needs to be changed to increase the benefits provided to the population.

The Efficacy of the Combination of Naproxen and Fexofenadine (SJP-003) to Prevent or Reduce Side Effects of Receiving Multiple Travel Vaccines: A Case Report

A considerable number of travelers receive multiple travel vaccinations before going on holiday. Here, we present a case report of a 56-year-old male traveler. On day 1, he received vaccinations against influenza, Tdab (tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis), MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), yellow fever, and cholera. On days 1,3, 5, and 7, he self-administered an oral vaccine against typhoid. Treatment comprised the combination of 220 mg naproxen and 180 mg fexofenadine (SJP-003), to be taken 4h before and 6h after the vaccinations on day 1, and every 12 h thereafter until the end of day 7. Side effects were noted daily, and their severity was scored on a scale ranging from 0 (absent) to 10 (severe). These reports revealed that, except from a slight bruising at the injection site, no side effects were experienced from day 1 to day 4. After the second dose on day 3, treatment was discontinued. Two hours after taking the typhoid vaccine on Day 5, various flu-like symptoms were reported of moderate to high severity, including fever, muscle aches (both with severity score of 8), headache (severity score 7), and nausea (severity score 6). Therefore, at 2 h after typhoid vaccination on day 5, naproxen and fexofenadine were self-administered. At 4 h thereafter, all symptoms were resolved. Treatment was continued at the 12 h schedule. On day 6 and 7, no side effects were reported. Taken together, this case study suggests that the combination of naproxen and fexofenadine was effective in preventing or reducing vaccination side effects. Therefore, more research is warranted to further evaluate the efficacy of SJP-003.

Comparative Dynamics of Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variants across and between California and Mexico

Evolutionary analysis using viral sequence data can elucidate the epidemiology of transmission. Using publicly available SARS-CoV-2 sequence and epidemiological data, we developed discrete phylogeographic models to interrogate the emergence and dispersal of the Delta and Omicron variants in 2021 between and across California and Mexico. External introductions of Delta and Omicron in the region peaked in early July (2021-07-10 [95% CI: 2021-04-20, 2021-11-01]) and mid-December (2021-12-15 [95% CI: 2021-11-14, 2022-01-09]), respectively, 3 months and 2 weeks after first detection. These repeated introductions coincided with domestic migration events with no evidence of a unique transmission hub. The spread of Omicron was most consistent with gravity centric patterns within Mexico. While cross-border events accounted for only 5.1% [95% CI: 4.3-6] of all Delta migration events, they accounted for 20.6% [95% CI: 12.4-29] of Omicron movements, paralleling the increase in international travel observed in late 2021. Our investigations of the Delta and Omicron epidemics in the California/Mexico region illustrate the complex interplay and the multiplicity of viral and structural factors that need to be considered to limit viral spread, even as vaccination is reducing disease burden. Understanding viral transmission patterns may help intra-governmental responses to viral epidemics.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Classification Schemes of COVID-19 High Risk Areas and Resulting Policies: A Rapid Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant global health threat since January 2020. Policies to reduce human mobility have been recognized to effectively control the spread of COVID-19; although the relationship between mobility, policy implementation, and virus spread remains contentious, with no clear pattern for how countries classify each other, and determine the destinations to- and from which to restrict travel. In this rapid review, we identified country classification schemes for high-risk COVID-19 areas and associated policies which mirrored the dynamic situation in 2020, with the aim of identifying any patterns that could indicate the effectiveness of such policies. We searched academic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and EMBASE. We also consulted web pages of the relevant government institutions in all countries. This rapid review's searches were conducted between October 2020 and December 2021. Web scraping of policy documents yielded additional 43 country reports on high-risk area classification schemes. In 43 countries from which relevant reports were identified, six issued domestic classification schemes. International classification schemes were issued by the remaining 38 countries, and these mainly used case incidence per 100,000 inhabitants as key indicator. The case incidence cut-off also varied across the countries, ranging from 20 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 7 days to more than 100 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 28 days. The criteria used for defining high-risk areas varied across countries, including case count, positivity rate, composite risk scores, community transmission and satisfactory laboratory testing. Countries either used case incidence in the past 7, 14 or 28 days. The resulting policies included restrictions on internal movement and international travel. The quarantine policies can be summarized into three categories: (1) 14 days self-isolation, (2) 10 days self-isolation and (3) 14 days compulsory isolation.

Locked out: An ethical analysis of Trinidad and Tobago's COVID-19 border closure

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced nearly every nation around the world to implement border restrictions, some of which have prevented citizens from entering their own country. Restricting access to one's own country was a burdensome intervention, but may have been necessary given the global emergency. Thus, the decision restrict citizens' entry as a public health intervention warrants ethical analysis to determine its appropriateness. The focus of this paper is on the ethics of the 15-month border closure implemented in Trinidad and Tobago during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY

Ethical analysis of the COVID-19 border closure in Trinidad and Tobago was done using a six-part ethical framework for public health.

DISCUSSION

The ethical analysis highlights various areas of concern which question the justification for the border closure. The effectiveness, necessity and proportionality of the intervention were justified in the short-term, however, as benefits diminished over time, this did not result in appropriate policy changes. Continuous evaluation of the intervention throughout its use could have improved the balance of benefits and burdens thereby providing stronger ethical validation.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 border closure in Trinidad and Tobago brought substantial burdens upon its citizens without comparable benefits. Data from previous pandemics and the best available data during the current pandemic showed that effectiveness was limited to the initial months, after which it would have been unnecessary to maintain. Thus, the government's decision to prolong the border closure for 15 months, well past its time of effectiveness, was not ethically justified from our analysis.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

In response to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments have implemented a variety of measures to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. Among these, have been measures to control the pandemic in primary and secondary school settings.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the different types of measures implemented in school settings and the outcomes used to measure their impacts on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilisation outcomes, other health outcomes as well as societal, economic, and ecological outcomes.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease (indexing preprints) on 9 December 2020. We conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered experimental (i.e. randomised controlled trials; RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome categories were (i) transmission-related outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of cases); (ii) healthcare utilisation outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of hospitalisations); (iii) other health outcomes (e.g. physical, social and mental health); and (iv) societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. costs, human resources and education). We considered studies that included any population at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or developing COVID-19 disease including students, teachers, other school staff, or members of the wider community.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author extracted data and critically appraised each study. One additional review author validated the extracted data. To critically appraise included studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental and observational studies, the QUADAS-2 tool for observational screening studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. Three review authors made an initial assessment of the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed and agreed on the ratings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 unique studies in the analysis, comprising 33 modelling studies, three observational studies, one quasi-experimental and one experimental study with modelling components. Measures fell into four broad categories: (i) measures reducing the opportunity for contacts; (ii) measures making contacts safer; (iii) surveillance and response measures; and (iv) multicomponent measures. As comparators, we encountered the operation of schools with no measures in place, less intense measures in place, single versus multicomponent measures in place, or closure of schools. Across all intervention categories and all study designs, very low- to low-certainty evidence ratings limit our confidence in the findings. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the model structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. Across all categories, few studies reported on implementation or described how measures were implemented. Where we describe effects as 'positive', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention(s); 'negative' effects do not favour the intervention.  We found 23 modelling studies assessing measures reducing the opportunity for contacts (i.e. alternating attendance, reduced class size). Most of these studies assessed transmission and healthcare utilisation outcomes, and all of these studies showed a reduction in transmission (e.g. a reduction in the number or proportion of cases, reproduction number) and healthcare utilisation (i.e. fewer hospitalisations) and mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 11 modelling studies and two observational studies assessing measures making contacts safer (i.e. mask wearing, cleaning, handwashing, ventilation). Five studies assessed the impact of combined measures to make contacts safer. They assessed transmission-related, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, and a reduction in hospitalisations; however, studies showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 13 modelling studies and one observational study assessing surveillance and response measures, including testing and isolation, and symptomatic screening and isolation. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Outcomes included transmission, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed effects in favour of the intervention in terms of reductions in transmission and hospitalisations, however some showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. fewer number of days spent in school). We found three studies that reported outcomes relating to multicomponent measures, where it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of each individual intervention, including one modelling, one observational and one quasi-experimental study. These studies employed interventions, such as physical distancing, modification of school activities, testing, and exemption of high-risk students, using measures such as hand hygiene and mask wearing. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, however some showed mixed or no effects.   As the majority of studies included in the review were modelling studies, there was a lack of empirical, real-world data, which meant that there were very little data on the actual implementation of interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences, such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention). Further, most studies assessed the effects of a combination of interventions, which could not be disentangled to estimate their specific effects. Studies assessing measures to reduce contacts and to make contacts safer consistently predicted positive effects on transmission and healthcare utilisation, but may reduce the number of days students spent at school. Studies assessing surveillance and response measures predicted reductions in hospitalisations and school days missed due to infection or quarantine, however, there was mixed evidence on resources needed for surveillance. Evidence on multicomponent measures was mixed, mostly due to comparators. The magnitude of effects depends on multiple factors. New studies published since the original search date might heavily influence the overall conclusions and interpretation of findings for this review.

COVID-19 Pandemic- Ethical Challenges for Healthcare Workers Practicing in Resource-Limited Settings

In this review, the ethical issues peculiar to the COVID-19 pandemics and the role of healthcare workers, especially those in resource-limited settings are x-rayed. We contend that there is a pressing ethical issue that needs urgent clarification on the rights and responsibilities of healthcare workers, especially in the current context of COVID-19 pandemic preparedness and responsiveness. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, PUBMED related articles, newspaper articles, and online news sources for relevant information. The various professional codes of conduct (World Medical Association, Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria) were also consulted. The ethical principles of equitable distribution of healthcare resources, confidentiality with associated stigmatization, issues relating to duty to care by the healthcare workers and those pertaining to conduct of clinical trials and access to approved therapies or vaccines were highlighted in this study. We agree with the submission that healthcare workers only have a moral duty to treat patients with COVID-19 if the necessary protective equipment and adequate compensation are not provided. We argue that the duty of physicians and other healthcare workers to care for patients during pandemics such as COVID-19 is obligatory in the absence of required protective equipment and other forms of compensation. There is a need for the government and other stakeholders to put in place a National Pandemic /Epidemic Ethical Framework to address these identified ethical challenges.

High attack rate of COVID-19 in an organized tour group of vaccinated travellers to Iceland

In a COVID-19 outbreak in a group of 25 twice-vaccinated Israeli travellers, the attack rate was 84%, despite negative preflight polymerase chain reaction tests. This extremely high breakthrough infection rate is attributed mainly to close and prolonged exposures during long bus drives. Masking, distancing and personal responsibility are required to avoid such outbreaks.

Risk mitigation behaviors to prevent infection in the mitochondrial disease community during the COVID19 pandemic

Background

A challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic has been widespread adherence to risk-reducing behaviors. Individuals with mitochondrial disease (MtD) are special population with an increased risk of morbidity associated with infection.

Purpose

To measure risk mitigation behaviors (RMBs) in families affected by MtD and identify factors that may influence these behaviors.

Methods

An online questionnaire was distributed in April and June 2020. Individuals with MtD or their caregivers completed the survey.

Results

We received 529 eligible responses with n = 312 completing all questions for our multivariate regression model. The most common RMBs were increased hand washing (96%), social distancing (94%), and avoiding public gatherings (93%). Higher numbers of recent healthcare visits (b = 0.62, p < 0.05) and expressed fear of the MtD patient contracting COVID-19 (b = 0.92, p < 0.05) were associated with more RMBs. Living in a rural community (b = −0.99,p < 0.05) and a history of COVID-19 testing (b = −2.14,p < 0.01) were associated with fewer RMBs.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that during the COVID-19 pandemic, families affected by MtD have near universal adherence to basic RMBs. This may be motivated by fear of the severe morbidity associated with infection in MtD. Patients with frequent healthcare visits may be sicker and therefore take more precautions. Living in a rural community may also impact these behaviors. People who practice fewer RMBs may be more likely to seek testing. Our findings may generalize to other chronic diseases.

Complementation of contact tracing by mass testing for successful containment of beta COVID-19 variant (SARS-CoV-2 VOC B.1.351) epidemic in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Global dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOCs) remains a concern. The aim of this study is to describe how mass testing and phylogenetic analysis successfully prevented local transmission of SARS-CoV-2 VOC in a densely populated city with low herd immunity for COVID-19.

METHODS

In this descriptive study, we conducted contact tracing, quarantine, and mass testing of the potentially exposed contacts with the index case. Epidemiological investigation and phylogeographic analysis were performed.

FINDINGS

Among 11,818 laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19 diagnosed till 13th May 2021 in Hong Kong, SARS-CoV-2 VOCs were found in 271 (2.3%) cases. Except for 10 locally acquired secondary cases, all SARS-CoV-2 VOCs were imported or acquired in quarantine hotels. The index case of this SARS-CoV-2 VOC B.1.351 epidemic, an inbound traveler with asymptomatic infection, was diagnosed 9 days after completing 21 days of quarantine. Contact tracing of 163 contacts in household, hotel, and residential building only revealed 1 (0.6%) secondary case. A symptomatic foreign domestic helper (FDH) without apparent epidemiological link but infected by virus with identical genome sequence was subsequently confirmed. Mass testing of 0.34 million FDHs identified two more cases which were phylogenetically linked. A total of 10 secondary cases were identified that were related to two household gatherings. The clinical attack rate of household close contact was significantly higher than non-household exposure during quarantine (7/25, 28% vs 0/2051, 0%; p<0.001).

INTERPRETATION

The rising epidemic of SARS-CoV-2 VOC transmission could be successfully controlled by contact tracing, quarantine, and rapid genome sequencing complemented by mass testing.

FUNDING

Health and Medical Research Fund Commissioned Research on Control of Infectious Disease (see acknowledgments for full list).

A snapshot of the practicality and barriers to COVID-19 interventions: Public health and healthcare workers' perceptions in high and low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have implemented a range of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) to reduce transmission and minimise morbidity and mortality, whilst maintaining social and economic activities. The perceptions of public health workers (PHWs) and healthcare workers (HCWs) are essential to inform future COVID-19 strategies as they are viewed as trusted sources and are at the forefront of COVID-19 response. The objectives of this study were to 1) describe the practicality of implementing NPIs and PIs and 2) identify potential barriers to implementation, as perceived by HCWs and PHWs.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of PHWs and HCWs perceptions of the implementation, practicality of, and barriers to implementation of NPIs and PIs using an online survey (28/9/2020-1/11/2020) available in English, French and Portuguese. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to analyse quantitative and qualitative responses.

RESULTS

In total, 226 respondents (67 HCWs and 159 PHWs) from 52 countries completed the survey and 222 were included in the final analysis. Participants from low and middle-income countries (LMICs) accounted for 63% of HCWs and 67% of PHWs, with the remaining from high-income (HICs). There was little difference between the perceptions of PHWs and HCWs in HICs and LMICs, with the majority regarding a number of common NPIs as difficult to implement. However, PHWs in HICs perceived restrictions on schools and educational institutions to be more difficult to implement, with a lack of childcare support identified as the main barrier. Additionally, most contact tracing methods were perceived to be more difficult to implement in HICs than LMICs, with a range of barriers reported. A lack of public support was the most commonly reported barrier to NPIs overall across both country income and professional groups. Similarly, public fear of vaccine safety and lack of vaccine supply were the main reported barriers to implementing a COVID-19 vaccine. However, PHWs and HCWs in LMICs perceived a lack of financial support and the vaccine being manufactured in another country as additional barriers.

CONCLUSION

This snapshot provides insight into the difficulty of implementing interventions as perceived by PHWs and HCWs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to implementing interventions, and barriers in different contexts do vary. Barriers to implementing a vaccine programme expressed here by HCWs and PHCWs have subsequently come to the fore internationally.

Non-pharmacological measures implemented in the setting of long-term care facilities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Starting in late 2019, COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, spread around the world. Long-term care facilities are at particularly high risk of outbreaks, and the burden of morbidity and mortality is very high among residents living in these facilities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities to prevent or reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents, staff, and visitors.

SEARCH METHODS

On 22 January 2021, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We also conducted backward citation searches of existing reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies that assessed the effects of the measures implemented in long-term care facilities to protect residents and staff against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcomes were infections, hospitalisations and deaths due to COVID-19, contaminations of and outbreaks in long-term care facilities, and adverse health effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author performed data extractions, risk of bias assessments and quality appraisals, and at least one other author checked their accuracy. Risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted using the ROBINS-I tool for cohort and interrupted-time-series studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for case-control studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, with the author team critically discussing the ratings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 observational studies and 11 modelling studies in the analysis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies compared outcomes in long-term care facilities that implemented the measures with predicted or observed control scenarios without the measure (but often with baseline infection control measures also in place). Several modelling studies assessed additional comparator scenarios, such as comparing higher with lower rates of testing. There were serious concerns regarding risk of bias in almost all observational studies and major or critical concerns regarding the quality of many modelling studies. Most observational studies did not adequately control for confounding. Many modelling studies used inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of the models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Overall, we identified five intervention domains, each including a number of specific measures. Entry regulation measures (4 observational studies; 4 modelling studies) Self-confinement of staff with residents may reduce the number of infections, probability of facility contamination, and number of deaths. Quarantine for new admissions may reduce the number of infections. Testing of new admissions and intensified testing of residents and of staff after holidays may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain regarding whether restricting admissions of new residents reduces the number of infections, but the measure may reduce the probability of facility contamination. Visiting restrictions may reduce the number of infections and deaths. Furthermore, it may increase the probability of facility contamination, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is very uncertain how visiting restrictions may adversely affect the mental health of residents. Contact-regulating and transmission-reducing measures (6 observational studies; 2 modelling studies) Barrier nursing may increase the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent cleaning and environmental hygiene measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is unclear how contact reduction measures affect the probability of outbreaks. These measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. Personal hygiene measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain.  Mask and personal protective equipment usage may reduce the number of infections, the probability of outbreaks, and the number of deaths, but the evidence is very uncertain. Cohorting residents and staff may reduce the number of infections, although evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent contact -regulating and transmission -reducing measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Surveillance measures (2 observational studies; 6 modelling studies) Routine testing of residents and staff independent of symptoms may reduce the number of infections. It may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Evidence from one observational study suggests that the measure may reduce, while the evidence from one modelling study suggests that it probably reduces hospitalisations. The measure may reduce the number of deaths among residents, but the evidence on deaths among staff is unclear.  Symptom-based surveillance testing may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Outbreak control measures (4 observational studies; 3 modelling studies) Separating infected and non-infected residents or staff caring for them may reduce the number of infections. The measure may reduce the probability of outbreaks and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. Isolation of cases may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent measures (2 observational studies; 1 modelling study) A combination of multiple infection-control measures, including various combinations of the above categories, may reduce the number of infections and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive framework and synthesis of a range of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities. These may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences. However, the certainty of evidence is predominantly low to very low, due to the limited availability of evidence and the design and quality of available studies. Therefore, true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Overall, more studies producing stronger evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological measures are needed, especially in low- and middle-income countries and on possible unintended consequences of these measures. Future research should explore the reasons behind the paucity of evidence to guide pandemic research priority setting in the future.

Institutional and behaviour-change interventions to support COVID-19 public health measures: a review by the Lancet Commission Task Force on public health measures to suppress the pandemic

The Lancet COVID-19 Commission Task Force for Public Health Measures to Suppress the Pandemic was launched to identify critical points for consideration by governments on public health interventions to control coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Drawing on our review of published studies of data analytics and modelling, evidence synthesis and contextualisation, and behavioural science evidence and theory on public health interventions from a range of sources, we outline evidence for a range of institutional measures and behaviour-change measures. We cite examples of measures adopted by a range of countries, but especially jurisdictions that have, thus far, achieved low numbers of COVID-19 deaths and limited community transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Finally, we highlight gaps in knowledge where research should be undertaken. As countries consider long-term measures, there is an opportunity to learn, improve the response and prepare for future pandemics.

Risk of COVID-19 variant importation - How useful are travel control measures?

We consider models for the importation of a new variant COVID-19 strain in a location already seeing propagation of a resident variant. By distinguishing contaminations generated by imported cases from those originating in the community, we are able to evaluate the contribution of importations to the dynamics of the disease in a community. We find that after an initial seeding, the role of importations becomes marginal compared to that of community-based propagation. We also evaluate the role of two travel control measures, quarantine and travel interruptions. We conclude that quarantine is an efficacious way of lowering importation rates, while travel interruptions have the potential to delay the consequences of importations but need to be applied within a very tight time window following the initial emergence of the variant.

Racial Differences in Generalized Anxiety Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic among Brazilian University Students: a National Survey

There is evidence that during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in anxiety and depression rates among college students. However, little is known about how generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) developed among individuals of different race/skin color. This study aimed to determine whether there are racial differences in GAD in Brazilian university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a nationwide cross-sectional study, carried out through the application of online questionnaires to university students from 94 Brazilian universities. Self-reported data on age, sex, economic class, race/skin color, anthropometric data, and adherence to social distancing measures were collected. To determine the GAD, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale was applied. A total of 5879 participants were included, with a mean age of 24.1 ± 6.4 years, and the majority were female (n = 4324, 73.5%), most self-declared to be whites (n = 2945, 50.1%), followed by browns (n = 2185, 37.2%) and blacks (n = 749, 12.7%). The prevalence of GAD among black Brazilian university students (47.3% [95% CI 43.7, 50.8]) was significantly higher than that of browns (38.6% [95% CI 36.6, 40.7]) and whites (44.1% [95% CI 42.3, 45.9]), even after multivariable adjustment by other sociodemographic factors. The findings of the present study suggest a possible racial difference in GAD among Brazilian university students, in which those who declared their race/skin color as black showed a greater risk for GAD than those who declared themselves as white or brown.