1
|
Ryan RE, Silke C, Parkhill A, Virgona A, Merner B, Hurley S, Walsh L, de Moel-Mandel C, Schonfeld L, Edwards AG, Kaufman J, Cooper A, Chung RKY, Solo K, Hellard M, Di Tanna GL, Pedrana A, Saich F, Hill S. Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 10:CD015144. [PMID: 37811673 PMCID: PMC10561351 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/10/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca E Ryan
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Charlotte Silke
- UNESCO Child & Family Research Centre, School of Political Science & Sociology, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Anne Parkhill
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Ariane Virgona
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Bronwen Merner
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Shauna Hurley
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Louisa Walsh
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
- Department of Nursing and Allied Health, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia
- Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Lina Schonfeld
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| | - Adrian Gk Edwards
- Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, Cardiff University, 8th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN , UK
- PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, 8th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK
| | - Jessica Kaufman
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
- Vaccine Uptake Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute , The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia
| | - Alison Cooper
- Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, Cardiff University, 8th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN , UK
- PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, 8th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK
| | | | - Karla Solo
- GRADE McMaster & Cochrane Canada, Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University , Hamilton, Ontario , Canada
| | | | - Gian Luca Di Tanna
- Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland
- The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | | | | | - Sophie Hill
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Drury L, Abrams D, Swift HJ. Intergenerational contact during and beyond COVID-19. THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES 2022; 78:860-882. [PMID: 36711193 PMCID: PMC9874911 DOI: 10.1111/josi.12551] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2021] [Revised: 08/09/2022] [Accepted: 08/09/2022] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
Intergenerational contact is crucial for promoting intergenerational harmony and reducing ageism. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted and changed the nature and frequency of intergenerational contact. In addition, research suggests that both ageism towards older adults and intergenerational threat regarding succession and consumption, have increased. Through the lens of the Temporally Integrated Model of Intergroup Contact and Threat (TIMICAT; Abrams & Eller, 2016), we explore the implications of these changing dynamics on ageism towards older adults during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Our review reveals that research into intergenerational contact needs to articulate both the time course and salience of contact and threats before making predictions about their impacts on prejudice. The implications of understanding how contact and threat combine to affect ageism for policy and practice are discussed in relation to employment, education, and intergenerational contact programs. We highlight that policy makers play a key role in promoting intergenerational harmony through the reduction of narratives that inflame intergenerational tensions and threat.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisbeth Drury
- Department of Organizational PsychologyBirkbeckUniversity of LondonLondonUK
| | - Dominic Abrams
- Center for the Study of Group Processes, School of PsychologyUniversity of KentCanterburyUK
| | - Hannah J. Swift
- Center for the Study of Group Processes, School of PsychologyUniversity of KentCanterburyUK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Farrell TW, Hung WW, Unroe KT, Brown TR, Furman CD, Jih J, Karani R, Mulhausen P, Nápoles AM, Nnodim JO, Upchurch G, Whittaker CF, Kim A, Lundebjerg NE, Rhodes RL. Exploring the intersection of structural racism and ageism in healthcare. J Am Geriatr Soc 2022; 70:3366-3377. [PMID: 36260413 PMCID: PMC9886231 DOI: 10.1111/jgs.18105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Accepted: 10/13/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) has consistently advocated for a healthcare system that meets the needs of older adults, including addressing impacts of ageism in healthcare. The intersection of structural racism and ageism compounds the disadvantage experienced by historically marginalized communities. Structural racism and ageism have long been ingrained in all aspects of US society, including healthcare. This intersection exacerbates disparities in social determinants of health, including poor access to healthcare and poor outcomes. These deeply rooted societal injustices have been brought to the forefront of the collective public consciousness at different points throughout history. The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare and exacerbated existing inequities inflicted on historically marginalized communities. Ageist rhetoric and policies during the COVID-19 pandemic further marginalized older adults. Although the detrimental impact of structural racism on health has been well-documented in the literature, generative research on the intersection of structural racism and ageism is limited. The AGS is working to identify and dismantle the healthcare structures that create and perpetuate these combined injustices and, in so doing, create a more just US healthcare system. This paper is intended to provide an overview of important frameworks and guide future efforts to both identify and eliminate bias within healthcare delivery systems and health professions training with a particular focus on the intersection of structural racism and ageism.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy W. Farrell
- Division of Geriatrics, Spencer Fox Eccles School of
Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- VA Salt Lake City Geriatric Research, Education, and
Clinical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - William W. Hung
- Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn
School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York New York, USA
- Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, James J
Peters VA Medical Center, New York New York, USA
| | - Kathleen T. Unroe
- Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis,
Indiana, USA
- Regenstrief Institute, Indiana University Center for Aging
Research Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Teneille R. Brown
- Center for Law and Biomedical Sciences, University of Utah
S.J. Quinney College of Law, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Christian D. Furman
- Department of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Geriatric
and Palliative Medicine, Trager Institute/Optimal Aging Clinic, University of
Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
| | - Jane Jih
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Multiethnic Health
Equity Research Center, Asian American Research Center on Health, University of
California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Reena Karani
- Department of Medical Education, Department of Medicine,
Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine
at Mount Sinai, New York New York, USA
| | | | - Anna María Nápoles
- Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on
Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,
Maryland, USA
| | - Joseph O. Nnodim
- Division of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, Department
of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Gina Upchurch
- Senior PharmAssist, Durham, North Carolina, USA
- Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Department of Public Health
Leadership, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Chanel F. Whittaker
- Department of Practice, Sciences, and Health Outcomes
Research (P-SHOR), The Peter Lamy Center on Drug Therapy and Aging, University of
Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Anna Kim
- American Geriatrics Society, New York New York, USA
| | | | - Ramona L. Rhodes
- Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Geriatric
Research Education and Clinical Center, North Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
- Department of Geriatrics, University of Arkansas for
Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
- Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ramasawmy M, Poole L, Thorlu-Bangura Z, Chauhan A, Murali M, Jagpal P, Bijral M, Prashar J, G-Medhin A, Murray E, Stevenson F, Blandford A, Potts HWW, Khunti K, Hanif W, Gill P, Sajid M, Patel K, Sood H, Bhala N, Modha S, Mistry M, Patel V, Ali SN, Ala A, Banerjee A. Frameworks for implementation, uptake and use of digital health interventions in ethnic minority populations: a scoping review using cardiometabolic disease as a case study. (Preprint). JMIR Cardio 2022; 6:e37360. [PMID: 35969455 PMCID: PMC9412726 DOI: 10.2196/37360] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2022] [Revised: 04/17/2022] [Accepted: 04/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. Objective We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. Methods SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. Results Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. Conclusions Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mel Ramasawmy
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lydia Poole
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Aneesha Chauhan
- Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mayur Murali
- Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine, and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Parbir Jagpal
- School of Pharmacy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Mehar Bijral
- University College London Medical School, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jai Prashar
- University College London Medical School, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Abigail G-Medhin
- Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Elizabeth Murray
- eHealth Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, London, United Kingdom
| | - Fiona Stevenson
- eHealth Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ann Blandford
- University College London Interaction Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Henry W W Potts
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kamlesh Khunti
- Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester General Hospital, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Wasim Hanif
- Department of Diabetes and Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Paramjit Gill
- Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
| | - Madiha Sajid
- Patient and Public Involvement Representative, DISC Study (UK), United Kingdom
| | - Kiran Patel
- Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
- University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, United Kingdom
| | - Harpreet Sood
- Health Education England, London, United Kingdom
- Hurley Group Practice, London, United Kingdom
| | - Neeraj Bhala
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Shivali Modha
- Patient and Public Involvement Representative, DISC Study (UK), United Kingdom
| | - Manoj Mistry
- Patient and Public Involvement Representative, DISC Study (UK), United Kingdom
| | - Vinod Patel
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah N Ali
- Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Aftab Ala
- Department of Access and Medicine, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, United Kingdom
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
- Institute of Liver Studies, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Amitava Banerjee
- Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abootalebi M, Delbari A, Abolfathi Momtaz Y, Kaveh MH, Zanjari N. Facing double jeopardy: Experiences of driving cessation in older adults during COVID-19 pandemic. JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT & HEALTH 2021; 23:101285. [PMID: 34900586 PMCID: PMC8643713 DOI: 10.1016/j.jth.2021.101285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2021] [Revised: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/17/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The COVID-19 pandemic is a multidimensional phenomenon whose consequences can be detected in various economic, social, cultural, and political areas. Driving cessation in older adults is one of the areas affected by the social consequences of this crisis. This study aimed to explain the concept of facing the double jeopardy of the COVID-19 pandemic and driving cessation in older adults. METHODS This qualitative study was conducted using a thematic analysis approach. Fifteen older adults aged 60 years and above who lived in a community-based setting of Shiraz, Iran were selected based on purposive sampling. The data were collected using semi-structured interviews. RESULTS The findings indicated two themes, namely dualization of common challenges and fitness with limitations, and nine sub-themes, which showed the experiences of older adults regarding the main theme of facing the double jeopardy of the COVID-19 pandemic and driving cessation. DISCUSSION Facing the double jeopardy created unique challenges for older adults, as the combined adverse effects of the two sources simultaneously put them at a greater risk. This double jeopardy endangered the health of older adults in various dimensions. This can be the beginning of a new era in older adults' life and care. In this context, application of telecommunication technology and home-based applications increases the flexibility of older adults as well as their ability to cope with stress to meet their mental, social, and physical health needs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maliheh Abootalebi
- Department of Aging, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Ahmad Delbari
- Iranian Research Center on Aging, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Yadollah Abolfathi Momtaz
- Iranian Research Center on Aging, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Mohammad Hossein Kaveh
- Research Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health, Department of Health Promotion, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | - Nasibeh Zanjari
- Iranian Research Center on Aging, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Stratil JM, Biallas RL, Burns J, Arnold L, Geffert K, Kunzler AM, Monsef I, Stadelmaier J, Wabnitz K, Litwin T, Kreutz C, Boger AH, Lindner S, Verboom B, Voss S, Movsisyan A. Non-pharmacological measures implemented in the setting of long-term care facilities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 9:CD015085. [PMID: 34523727 PMCID: PMC8442144 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015085.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan M Stratil
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Renke L Biallas
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Jacob Burns
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Laura Arnold
- Academy of Public Health Services, Duesseldorf, Germany
| | - Karin Geffert
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Angela M Kunzler
- Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Ina Monsef
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Julia Stadelmaier
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Katharina Wabnitz
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Tim Litwin
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (IMBI), Freiburg Center for Data Analysis and Modeling (FDM), Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Clemens Kreutz
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (IMBI), Freiburg Center for Data Analysis and Modeling (FDM), Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anna Helen Boger
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (IMBI), Freiburg Center for Data Analysis and Modeling (FDM), Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Saskia Lindner
- Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Ben Verboom
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
- Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stephan Voss
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | - Ani Movsisyan
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|