WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19

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.

Implementing evidence ecosystems in the public health service: Development of a framework for designing tailored training programs

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of local evidence ecosystems in which academia and practice in the Public Health Service (PHS) are interconnected. However, appropriate organizational structures and well-trained staff are lacking and evidence use in local public health decision-making has to be integrated into training programs in Germany. To address this issue, we developed a framework incorporating a toolbox to conceptualize training programs designed to qualify public health professionals for working at the interface between academia and practice. We conducted a scoping review of training programs, key-informant interviews with public health experts, and a multi-professional stakeholder workshop and triangulated their output. The resulting toolbox consists of four core elements, encompassing 15 parameters: (1) content-related aspects, (2) context-related aspects, (3) aspects relevant for determining the training format, and (4) aspects relevant for consolidation and further development. Guiding questions with examples supports the application of the toolbox. Additionally, we introduced a how-to-use guidance to streamline the creation of new training programs, fostering knowledge transfer at the academia-practice interface, equipping public health researchers and practitioners with relevant skills for needs-based PHS research. By promoting collaborative training development across institutions, our approach encourages cross-institutional cooperation, enhances evidence utilization, and enables efficient resource allocation. This collaborative effort in developing training programs within local evidence ecosystems not only strengthens the scientific and practical impact but also lays a foundation for implementing complex public health measures effectively at the local level.

Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a rapid review undertaken in 2020 to identify relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control. The rapid review was published when little was known about transmission, treatment or future vaccination, and when physical distancing measures (isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, crowd avoidance, work and school measures) were the cornerstone of public health responses globally. This updated review includes more recent evidence to extend what we know about effective pandemic public health communication. This includes considerations of changes needed over time to maintain responsiveness to pandemic transmission waves, the (in)equities and variable needs of groups within communities due to the pandemic, and highlights again the critical role of effective communication as integral to the public health response.

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence on the question 'What are relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control?', our primary focus was communication approaches to promote and support acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

to explore and identify key elements of effective communication for physical distancing measures for different (diverse) populations and groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception, with searches for this update including the period 1 January 2020 to 18 August 2021. Systematic review and study repositories and grey literature sources were searched in August 2021 and guidelines identified for the eCOVID19 Recommendations Map were screened (November 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Guidelines or reviews focusing on communication (information, education, reminders, facilitating decision-making, skills acquisition, supporting behaviour change, support, involvement in decision-making) related to physical distancing measures for prevention and/or control of COVID-19 or selected other diseases (sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola virus disease (EVD) or tuberculosis (TB)) were included. New evidence was added to guidelines, reviews and primary studies included in the 2020 review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methods were based on the original rapid review, using methods developed by McMaster University and informed by Cochrane rapid review guidance. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted by one author and checked by a second author. Synthesis of results was conducted using modified framework analysis, with themes from the original review used as an initial framework.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update includes 68 studies, with 17 guidelines and 20 reviews added to the original 31 studies. Synthesis identified six major themes, which can be used to inform policy and decision-making related to planning and implementing communication about a public health emergency and measures to protect the community. Theme 1: Strengthening public trust and countering misinformation: essential foundations for effective public health communication Recognising the key role of public trust is essential. Working to build and maintain trust over time underpins the success of public health communications and, therefore, the effectiveness of public health prevention measures. Theme 2: Two-way communication: involving communities to improve the dissemination, accessibility and acceptability of information Two-way communication (engagement) with the public is needed over the course of a public health emergency: at first, recognition of a health threat (despite uncertainties), and regularly as public health measures are introduced or adjusted. Engagement needs to be embedded at all stages of the response and inform tailoring of communications and implementation of public health measures over time. Theme 3: Development of and preparation for public communication: target audience, equity and tailoring Communication and information must be tailored to reach all groups within populations, and explicitly consider existing inequities and the needs of disadvantaged groups, including those who are underserved, vulnerable, from diverse cultural or language groups, or who have lower educational attainment. Awareness that implementing public health measures may magnify existing or emerging inequities is also needed in response planning, enactment and adjustment over time. Theme 4: Public communication features: content, timing and duration, delivery Public communication needs to be based on clear, consistent, actionable and timely (up-to-date) information about preventive measures, including the benefits (whether for individual, social groupings or wider society), harms (likewise) and rationale for use, and include information about supports available to help follow recommended measures. Communication needs to occur through multiple channels and/or formats to build public trust and reach more of the community. Theme 5: Supporting behaviour change at individual and population levels Supporting implementation of public health measures with practical supports and services (e.g. essential supplies, financial support) is critical. Information about available supports must be widely disseminated and well understood. Supports and communication related to them require flexibility and tailoring to explicitly consider community needs, including those of vulnerable groups. Proactively monitoring and countering stigma related to preventive measures (e.g. quarantine) is also necessary to support adherence. Theme 6: Fostering and sustaining receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication Efforts to foster and sustain public receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication are needed throughout a public health emergency. Trust, acceptance and behaviours change over time, and communication needs to be adaptive and responsive to these changing needs. Ongoing community engagement efforts should inform communication and public health response measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implications for practice Evidence highlights the critical role of communication throughout a public health emergency. Like any intervention, communication can be done well or poorly, but the consequences of poor communication during a pandemic may mean the difference between life and death. The approaches to effective communication identified in this review can be used by policymakers and decision-makers, working closely with communication teams, to plan, implement and adjust public communications over the course of a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications for research Despite massive growth in research during the COVID-19 period, gaps in the evidence persist and require high-quality, meaningful research. This includes investigating the experiences of people at heightened COVID-19 risk, and identifying barriers to implementing public communication and protective health measures particular to lower- and middle-income countries, and how to overcome these.

Learning from the covid-19 outbreaks in long-term care facilities: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastatingly affected Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCF), exposing aging people, staff members, and visitors. The world has learned through the pandemic and lessons can be taken to adopt effective measures to deal with COVID-19 outbreaks in LTCF. We aimed to systematically review the available evidence on the effect of measures to minimize the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in LTCs during outbreaks since 2021.

METHODS

The search method was guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA) and the reporting guideline synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews. The search was performed in April 2023. Observational and interventional studies from the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and Academic Search were systematically reviewed. We included studies conducted in the LTCF with outbreaks that quantitatively assess the effect of non-pharmacological measures on cases of COVID-19. Two review authors independently reviewed titles for inclusion, extracted data, and undertook the risk of bias according to pre-specified criteria. The quality of studies was analyzed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included, with 8442 LTCF experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks and 598 thousand participants (residents and staff members). Prevention and control of COVID-19 infection interventions were grouped into three themes: strategic, tactical, and operational measures. The strategic measures reveal the importance of COVID-19 prevention and control as LTCF structural characteristics, namely the LTCF size, new admissions, infection control surveillance, and architectural structure. At the tactical level, the lack of personal and long staff shifts is related to COVID-19's spread. Operational measures with a favorable effect on preventing COVID-19 transmission are sufficient. Personal protective equipment stock, correct mask use, signaling, social distancing, and resident cohorting.

CONCLUSIONS

Operational, tactical, and strategic approaches may have a favorable effect on preventing the spread of COVID-19 in LTCFs experiencing outbreaks. Given the heterogeneous nature of the measures, performing a meta-analysis was not possible. Future research should use more robust study designs to explore similar infection control measures in LTCFs during endemic situations with comparable outbreaks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020214566).

Prioritisation processes for programme implementation and evaluation in public health: A scoping review

Background

Programme evaluation is an essential and systematic activity for improving public health programmes through useful, feasible, ethical, and accurate methods. Finite budgets require prioritisation of which programmes can be funded, first, for implementation, and second, evaluation. While criteria for programme funding have been discussed in the literature, a similar discussion around criteria for which programmes are to be evaluated is limited. We reviewed the criteria and frameworks used for prioritisation in public health more broadly, and those used in the prioritisation of programmes for evaluation. We also report on stakeholder involvement in prioritisation processes, and evidence on the use and utility of the frameworks or sets of criteria identified. Our review aims to inform discussion around which criteria and domains are best suited for the prioritisation of public health programmes for evaluation.

Methods

We reviewed the peer-reviewed literature through OVID MEDLINE (PubMed) on 11 March 2022. We also searched the grey literature through Google and across key websites including World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) (14 March 2022). Articles were limited to those published between 2002 and March 2022, in English, French or German.

Results

We extracted over 300 unique criteria from 40 studies included in the analysis. These criteria were categorised into 16 high-level conceptual domains to allow synthesis of the findings. The domains most frequently considered in the studies were “burden of disease” (33 studies), “social considerations” (30 studies) and “health impacts of the intervention” (28 studies). We only identified one paper which proposed criteria for use in the prioritisation of public health programmes for evaluation. Few prioritisation frameworks had evidence of use outside of the setting in which they were developed, and there was limited assessment of their utility. The existing evidence suggested that prioritisation frameworks can be used successfully in budget allocation, and have been reported to make prioritisation more robust, systematic, transparent, and collaborative.

Conclusion

Our findings reflect the complexity of prioritisation in public health. Development of a framework for the prioritisation of programmes to be evaluated would fill an evidence gap, as would formal assessment of its utility. The process itself should be formal and transparent, with the aim of engaging a diverse group of stakeholders including patient/public representatives.

A Utility Framework for COVID-19 Online Forward Triage Tools: A Swiss Telehealth Case Study

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic caused a surge in online tools commonly known as symptom checkers. The purpose of these symptom checkers was mostly to reduce the health system burden by providing worried people with testing criteria, where to test and how to self-care. Technical, usability and organizational challenges with regard to online forward triage tools have also been reported. Very few of these online forward triage tools have been evaluated. Evidence for decision frameworks may be of particular value in a pandemic setting where time frames are restricted, uncertainties are ubiquitous and the evidence base is changing rapidly. The objective was to develop a framework to evaluate the utility of COVID-19 online forward triage tools. The development of the online forward triage tool utility framework was conducted in three phases. The process was guided by the socio-ecological framework for adherence that states that patient (individual), societal and broader structural factors affect adherence to the tool. In a further step, pragmatic incorporation of themes on the utility of online forward triage tools that emerged from our study as well as from the literature was performed. Seven criteria emerged; tool accessibility, reliability as an information source, medical decision-making aid, allaying fear and anxiety, health system burden reduction, onward forward transmission reduction and systems thinking (usefulness in capacity building, planning and resource allocation, e.g., tests and personal protective equipment). This framework is intended to be a starting point and a generic tool that can be adapted to other online forward triage tools beyond COVID-19. A COVID-19 online forward triage tool meeting all seven criteria can be regarded as fit for purpose. How useful an OFTT is depends on its context and purpose.

Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives

INTRODUCTION

The exceptional production of research evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic required deployment of scientists to act in advisory roles to aid policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions. The unprecedented breadth, scale and duration of the pandemic provides an opportunity to understand how science advisors experience and mitigate challenges associated with insufficient, evolving and/or conflicting evidence to inform public health decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To explore critically the challenges for advising evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in pandemic contexts, particularly around non-pharmaceutical control measures, from the perspective of experts advising policy-makers during COVID-19 globally.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 27 scientific experts and advisors who are/were engaged in COVID-19 EIDM representing four WHO regions and 11 countries (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ghana, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Sweden, Uganda, UK, USA) from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants informed decision-making at various and multiple levels of governance, including local/city (n=3), state/provincial (n=8), federal or national (n=20), regional or international (n=3) and university-level advising (n=3). Following each interview, we conducted member checks with participants and thematically analysed interview data using NVivo for Mac software.

RESULTS

Findings from this study indicate multiple overarching challenges to pandemic EIDM specific to interpretation and translation of evidence, including the speed and influx of new, evolving, and conflicting evidence; concerns about scientific integrity and misinterpretation of evidence; the limited capacity to assess and produce evidence, and adapting evidence from other contexts; multiple forms of evidence and perspectives needed for EIDM; the need to make decisions quickly and under conditions of uncertainty; and a lack of transparency in how decisions are made and applied.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest the urgent need for global EIDM guidance that countries can adapt for in-country decisions as well as coordinated global response to future pandemics.

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

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

International travel measures to contain the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represent a relatively intrusive form of non-pharmaceutical intervention. To inform decision-making on the (re)implementation, adaptation, relaxation or suspension of such measures, it is essential to not only assess their effectiveness but also their unintended effects.

METHODS

This scoping review maps existing empirical studies on the unintended consequences, both predicted and unforeseen, and beneficial or harmful, of international travel measures. We searched multiple health, non-health and COVID-19-specific databases. The evidence was charted in a map in relation to the study design, intervention and outcome categories identified and discussed narratively.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies met our inclusion criteria-nine quasi-experimental, two observational, two mathematical modelling, six qualitative and four mixed-methods studies. Studies addressed different population groups across various countries worldwide. Seven studies provided information on unintended consequences of the closure of national borders, six looked at international travel restrictions and three investigated mandatory quarantine of international travellers. No studies looked at entry and/or exit screening at national borders exclusively, however six studies considered this intervention in combination with other international travel measures. In total, 11 studies assessed various combinations of the aforementioned interventions. The outcomes were mostly referred to by the authors as harmful. Fifteen studies identified a variety of economic consequences, six reported on aspects related to quality of life, well-being, and mental health and five on social consequences. One study each provided information on equity, equality, and the fair distribution of benefits and burdens, environmental consequences and health system consequences.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review represents the first step towards a systematic assessment of the unintended benefits and harms of international travel measures during COVID-19. The key research gaps identified might be filled with targeted primary research, as well as the additional consideration of gray literature and non-empirical studies.

[Expert committees in German public health policymaking during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a document analysis]

Hintergrund

In der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie muss die Politik weitreichende Entscheidungen treffen, die von wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen gestützt sein sollten. Angesichts der zumeist limitierten Evidenz in Krisensituationen stellt dies eine große Herausforderung dar, insbesondere in frühen Phasen der Pandemie. Entscheidungsträger*innen haben daher wissenschaftliche Expert*innen einbezogen, welche die Evidenzlage vermitteln und kontextualisieren sollten. Die Formen dieser Konsultationen variierten stark. Zum Teil wurden sogenannte Expert*innenräte mit Vertreter*innen verschiedenster Disziplinen einberufen. Die Zusammensetzung dieser Expert*innenräte hat jedoch Fragen der Repräsentation und Transparenz aufgeworfen.

Unser Forschungsvorhaben untersucht, ob und wie Expert*innenräte in Deutschland auf Bundes- und Landesebene einberufen wurden, um die Regierungen und Ministerien in der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie zu beraten. Es wurden die disziplinäre Zusammensetzung, die Geschlechterverteilung und die Transparenz der Arbeitsabläufe analysiert.

Methoden

Wir führten eine mehrstufige Dokumentenanalyse durch. Zwischen Mai und Juli 2020 wurden Anfragen an die Regierungseinrichtungen der Länder und die Bundesministerien nach dem Informationsfreiheitsgesetz gestellt. Ergänzend zur Analyse der Antwortschreiben wurde eine Sichtung und Analyse der i) Pandemiepläne, ii) der offiziellen Pressemitteilungen und iii) der kleinen Anfragen auf Bundes- und auf Landesebene zu Expert*innenräten im SARS-CoV-2-Kontext für den Zeitraum von Januar bis Anfang Dezember 2020 durchgeführt. Die Auswertung erfolgte mittels qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse.

Ergebnisse

Zehn Bundesländer und vier Bundesministerien etablierten insgesamt 21 Expert*innenräte. Für elf Gremien waren Namen und disziplinärer Hintergrund der Mitglieder bekannt. In diesen Gremien betrug der Frauenanteil 26%. Am häufigsten waren biomedizinische Fachbereiche wie Virologie, Krankenhaushygiene, Medizin, und Biologie vertreten. Weitere Disziplinen (Wirtschafts-, Rechts- und Sozialwissenschaften) und nichtwissenschaftliche Expert*innen waren in sieben Bundesländern vertreten. Die zehn Räte ohne namentliche Nennung der Mitglieder waren verschiedenen Themenbereichen (Schule und Kita, Bürgerbeteiligung, Medizin und Pflege, Wirtschaft) zuzuordnen, ihre Mitglieder waren häufig Akteur*innen aus der Praxis und Betroffene.

Diskussion

Die SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie hat zu einer verstärkten Konsultation von Expert*innen durch die Politik geführt. Die entsprechenden Gremien in Deutschland sind jedoch nicht ausreichend repräsentativ, trans- und interdisziplinär zusammengesetzt, um die Politik in komplexen Pandemielagen zu beraten und unterschiedliche Perspektiven zu berücksichtigen. Die Arbeitsweise der Gremien ist unter anderem durch einen erschwerten Zugang zu Informationen nicht ausreichend transparent.

Schlussfolgerung

Aufgrund fehlender Transparenz ist unklar, ob und wie die identifizierten Expert*innenräte Einfluss auf die Politik genommen haben. Transparenz politischer Entscheidungsprozesse und die Berücksichtigung pluralistischer Perspektiven gelten jedoch als wesentlich für die Legitimation und Güte politischer Entscheidungen in einer Pandemie und sollten in Deutschland im Pandemiemanagement gestärkt werden.

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.

COVID-19 response: mitigating negative impacts on other areas of health

‘Vertical’ responses focused primarily on preventing and containing COVID-19 have been implemented in countries around the world with negative consequences for other health services, people’s access to and use of them, and associated health outcomes, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). ‘Lockdowns’ and restrictive measures, especially, have complicated service provision and access, and disrupted key supply chains. Such interventions, alongside more traditional public health measures, interact with baseline health, health system, and social and economic vulnerabilities in LMICs to compound negative impacts. This analysis, based on a rapid evidence assessment by the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform in mid-2020, highlights the drivers and evidence of these impacts, emphasises the additional vulnerabilities experienced by marginalised social groups, and provides insight for governments, agencies, organisations and communities to implement more proportionate, appropriate, comprehensive and socially just responses that address COVID-19 in the context of and alongside other disease burdens. In the short term, there is an urgent need to monitor and mitigate impacts of pandemic responses on health service provision, access and use, including through embedding COVID-19 response within integrated health systems approaches. These efforts should also feed into longer-term strategies to strengthen health systems, expand universal healthcare coverage and attend to the social determinants of health—commitments, both existing and new—which governments, donors and international agencies must make and be held accountable to. Crucially, affected communities must be empowered to play a central role in identifying health priorities, allocating resources, and designing and delivering services.

Selecting Review Outcomes for Systematic Reviews of Public Health Interventions

For systematic reviews to have an impact on public health, they must report outcomes that are important for decision-making. Systematic reviews of public health interventions, however, have a range of potential end users, and identifying and prioritizing the most important and relevant outcomes represents a considerable challenge.In this commentary, we describe potentially useful approaches that systematic review teams can use to identify review outcomes to best inform public health decision-making. Specifically, we discuss the importance of stakeholder engagement, the use of logic models, consideration of core outcome sets, reviews of the literature on end users' needs and preferences, and the use of decision-making frameworks in the selection and prioritization of outcomes included in reviews.The selection of review outcomes is a critical step in the production of public health reviews that are relevant to those who use them. Utilizing the suggested strategies may help the review teams better achieve this.