1
|
Mecaskey J, Verboom B, Liverani M, Mijumbi-Deve R, Jessani NS. Improving institutional platforms for evidence-informed decision-making: getting beyond technical solutions. Health Res Policy Syst 2023; 21:5. [PMID: 36647051 PMCID: PMC9841961 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00948-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 11/25/2022] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Purely technical interventions aimed at enhancing evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) have rarely translated into organizational institutionalization or systems change. A panel of four presentations at the Health Systems Global 2020 conference provides a basis for inference about contextual factors that influence the establishment and sustainability of institutional platforms to support EIDM. These cases include local structures such as citizen panels in Uganda, regional knowledge translation structures such as the West African Health Organization, global multilateral initiatives such as the "One Health" Quadrapartite and regional public health networks in South-East Asia. They point to the importance of political economy as well as technical capability determinants of evidence uptake and utilization at institutional, organizational and individual levels. The cases also lend support to evidence that third-party (broker and intermediary) supportive institutions can facilitate EIDM processes. The involvement of third-party supranational organizations, however, poses challenges in terms of legitimacy and accountability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ben Verboom
- grid.4991.50000 0004 1936 8948University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Marco Liverani
- grid.8991.90000 0004 0425 469XDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom ,grid.174567.60000 0000 8902 2273School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Rhona Mijumbi-Deve
- The Center for Rapid Evidence Synthesis (ACRES), Kampala, Uganda ,grid.412988.e0000 0001 0109 131XAfrica Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Nasreen S. Jessani
- grid.11956.3a0000 0001 2214 904XCentre for Evidence Based Health Care, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa ,grid.21107.350000 0001 2171 9311Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Verboom B, Baumann A. Mapping the Qualitative Evidence Base on the Use of Research Evidence in Health Policy-Making: A Systematic Review. Int J Health Policy Manag 2022; 11:883-898. [PMID: 33160295 PMCID: PMC9808178 DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2020] [Accepted: 10/06/2020] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of research evidence in health policy-making is a popular line of inquiry for scholars of public health and policy studies, with qualitative methods constituting the dominant strategy in this area. Research on this subject has been criticized for, among other things, disproportionately focusing on high-income countries; overemphasizing 'barriers and facilitators' related to evidence use to the neglect of other, less descriptive concerns; relying on descriptive, rather than in-depth explanatory designs; and failing to draw on insights from political/policy studies theories and concepts. We aimed to comprehensively map the global, peer-reviewed qualitative literature on the use of research evidence in health policy-making and to provide a descriptive overview of the geographic, temporal, methodological, and theoretical characteristics of this body of literature. METHODS We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched nine electronic databases, hand-searched 11 health- and policy-related journals, and systematically scanned the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews. No language, date or geographic limitations were imposed. RESULTS The review identified 319 qualitative studies on a diverse array of topics related to the use of evidence in health policy-making, spanning 72 countries and published over a nearly 40 year period. A majority of these studies were conducted in high-income countries, but a growing proportion of the research output in this area is now coming from low- and middle-income countries, especially from sub-Saharan Africa. While over half of all studies did not use an identifiable theory or framework, and only one fifth of studies used a theory or conceptual framework drawn from policy studies or political science, we found some evidence that theory-driven and explanatory (eg, comparative case study) designs are becoming more common in this literature. Investigations of the barriers and facilitators related to evidence use constitute a large proportion but by no means a majority of the work in this area. CONCLUSION This review provides a bird's eye mapping of the peer reviewed qualitative research on evidence-to-policy processes, and has identified key features of - and gaps within - this body of literature that will hopefully inform, and improve, research in this area moving forward.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ben Verboom
- Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Aron Baumann
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland
- University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kratzer S, Pfadenhauer LM, Biallas RL, Featherstone R, Klinger C, Movsisyan A, Rabe JE, Stadelmaier J, Rehfuess E, Wabnitz K, Verboom B. Unintended consequences of measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 6:CD015397. [PMID: 35661990 PMCID: PMC9169532 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015397] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019, governments worldwide implemented a multitude of non-pharmaceutical interventions in order to control the spread of the virus. Most countries have implemented measures within the school setting in order to reopen schools or keep them open whilst aiming to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2. For informed decision-making on implementation, adaptation, or suspension of such measures, it is not only crucial to evaluate their effectiveness with regard to SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but also to assess their unintended consequences. OBJECTIVES To comprehensively identify and map the evidence on the unintended health and societal consequences of school-based measures to prevent and control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to generate a descriptive overview of the range of unintended (beneficial or harmful) consequences reported as well as the study designs that were employed to assess these outcomes. This review was designed to complement an existing Cochrane Review on the effectiveness of these measures by synthesising evidence on the implications of the broader system-level implications of school measures beyond their effects on SARS-CoV-2 transmission. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, four non-health databases, and two COVID-19 reference collections on 26 March 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and Google searches. SELECTION CRITERIA We included quantitative (including mathematical modelling), qualitative, and mixed-methods studies of any design that provided evidence on any unintended consequences of measures implemented in the school setting to contain the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Studies had to report on at least one unintended consequence, whether beneficial or harmful, of one or more relevant measures, as conceptualised in a logic model. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened the titles/abstracts and subsequently full texts in duplicate, with any discrepancies between review authors resolved through discussion. One review author extracted data for all included studies, with a second review author reviewing the data extraction for accuracy. The evidence was summarised narratively and graphically across four prespecified intervention categories and six prespecified categories of unintended consequences; findings were described as deriving from quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method studies. MAIN RESULTS Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 used quantitative methods (3 experimental/quasi-experimental; 5 observational; 5 modelling); four used qualitative methods; and one used mixed methods. Studies looked at effects in different population groups, mainly in children and teachers. The identified interventions were assigned to four broad categories: 14 studies assessed measures to make contacts safer; four studies looked at measures to reduce contacts; six studies assessed surveillance and response measures; and one study examined multiple measures combined. Studies addressed a wide range of unintended consequences, most of them considered harmful. Eleven studies investigated educational consequences. Seven studies reported on psychosocial outcomes. Three studies each provided information on physical health and health behaviour outcomes beyond COVID-19 and environmental consequences. Two studies reported on socio-economic consequences, and no studies reported on equity and equality consequences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We identified a heterogeneous evidence base on unintended consequences of measures implemented in the school setting to prevent and control the spread of SARS-CoV-2, and summarised the available study data narratively and graphically. Primary research better focused on specific measures and various unintended outcomes is needed to fill knowledge gaps and give a broader picture of the diverse unintended consequences of school-based measures before a more thorough evidence synthesis is warranted. The most notable lack of evidence we found was regarding psychosocial, equity, and equality outcomes. We also found a lack of research on interventions that aim to reduce the opportunity for contacts. Additionally, study investigators should provide sufficient data on contextual factors and demographics in order to ensure analyses of such are feasible, thus assisting stakeholders in making appropriate, informed decisions for their specific circumstances.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzie Kratzer
- 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
| | - Lisa M Pfadenhauer
- 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
| | | | - Carmen Klinger
- 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
| | - Julia E Rabe
- 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
| | - Julia Stadelmaier
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Eva Rehfuess
- 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
| | - 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
| | - 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
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Krishnaratne S, Littlecott H, Sell K, Burns J, Rabe JE, Stratil JM, Litwin T, Kreutz C, Coenen M, Geffert K, Boger AH, Movsisyan A, Kratzer S, Klinger C, Wabnitz K, Strahwald B, Verboom B, Rehfuess E, Biallas RL, Jung-Sievers C, Voss S, Pfadenhauer LM. Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 1:CD015029. [PMID: 35037252 PMCID: PMC8762709 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shari Krishnaratne
- 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 Disease Control, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Hannah Littlecott
- 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
- DECIPHer, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Kerstin Sell
- 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
| | - Julia E Rabe
- 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
| | - 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
| | - Tim Litwin
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (IMBI), Freiburg Center for Data Analytics and Modeling (FDM), Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Albert-Ludwig-University, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Clemens Kreutz
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (IMBI), Freiburg Center for Data Analytics and Modeling (FDM), Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Albert-Ludwig-University, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Michaela Coenen
- 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
| | - 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
| | - Anna Helen Boger
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (IMBI), Freiburg Center for Data Analytics and Modeling (FDM), Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Albert-Ludwig-University, Freiburg, 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
| | - Suzie Kratzer
- 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
| | - Carmen Klinger
- 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
| | - 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
| | - Brigitte Strahwald
- 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
| | - 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
| | - Eva Rehfuess
- 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
| | - Caroline Jung-Sievers
- 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
| | - 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
| | - Lisa M Pfadenhauer
- 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
|
5
|
Klinger C, Burns J, Movsisyan A, Biallas R, Norris SL, Rabe JE, Stratil JM, Voss S, Wabnitz K, Rehfuess EA, Verboom B. Unintended health and societal consequences of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. J Travel Med 2021; 28:taab123. [PMID: 34369562 PMCID: PMC8436381 DOI: 10.1093/jtm/taab123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2021] [Revised: 06/18/2021] [Accepted: 07/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carmen Klinger
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Jacob Burns
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Ani Movsisyan
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Renke Biallas
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Susan L Norris
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97239, USA
| | - Julia E Rabe
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Jan M Stratil
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Stephan Voss
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Katharina Wabnitz
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Eva A Rehfuess
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Ben Verboom
- Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology - IBE, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Elisabeth-Winterhalter-Weg 6, 81377 Munich, Germany
- Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Square Oxford OX1 2ER
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bach-Mortensen AM, Verboom B, Movsisyan A, Degli Esposti M. A systematic review of the associations between care home ownership and COVID-19 outbreaks, infections and mortality. Nat Aging 2021; 1:948-961. [PMID: 37118328 DOI: 10.1038/s43587-021-00106-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2021] [Accepted: 08/02/2021] [Indexed: 04/30/2023]
Abstract
Social care markets often rely on the for-profit sector to meet service demand. For-profit care homes have been reported to suffer higher rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections and deaths, but it is unclear whether these worse outcomes can be attributed to ownership status. To address this, we designed and prospectively registered a living systematic review protocol ( CRD42020218673 ). Here we report on the systematic review and quality appraisal of 32 studies across five countries that investigated ownership variation in COVID-19 outcomes among care homes. We show that, although for-profit ownership was not consistently associated with a higher risk of a COVID-19 outbreak, there was evidence that for-profit care homes had higher rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths. We also found evidence that for-profit ownership was associated with personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages. Variation in COVID-19 outcomes is not driven by ownership status alone, and factors related to staffing, provider size and resident characteristics were also linked to poorer outcomes. However, this synthesis finds that for-profit status and care home characteristics associated with for-profit status are linked to exacerbated COVID-19 outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ben Verboom
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, 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, Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [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
|
8
|
Burns J, Movsisyan A, Stratil JM, Biallas RL, Coenen M, Emmert-Fees KM, Geffert K, Hoffmann S, Horstick O, Laxy M, Klinger C, Kratzer S, Litwin T, Norris S, Pfadenhauer LM, von Philipsborn P, Sell K, Stadelmaier J, Verboom B, Voss S, Wabnitz K, Rehfuess E. International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3:CD013717. [PMID: 33763851 PMCID: PMC8406796 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013717.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In late 2019, the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in Wuhan, China, followed by a worldwide spread. Numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, travel restrictions, screening at borders, and quarantine of travellers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of international travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease transmission and screening-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research to 13 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across international borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the original review, we also considered evidence on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). In this version we decided to focus on COVID-19 evidence only. Primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) cases detected, and (iii) a shift in epidemic development. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts. For studies included in the analysis, one review author extracted data and appraised the study. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of data. To assess the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed these GRADE judgements. MAIN RESULTS Overall, we included 62 unique studies in the analysis; 49 were modelling studies and 13 were observational studies. Studies covered a variety of settings and levels of community transmission. Most studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of stringency of the measures (including relaxation of restrictions), or a combination of measures. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to the selection of travellers and the reference test, and unclear reporting of certain methodological aspects. Below we outline the results for each intervention category by illustrating the findings from selected outcomes. Travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel (31 modelling studies) The studies assessed cases avoided and shift in epidemic development. We found very low-certainty evidence for a reduction in COVID-19 cases in the community (13 studies) and cases exported or imported (9 studies). Most studies reported positive effects, with effect sizes varying widely; only a few studies showed no effect. There was very low-certainty evidence that cross-border travel controls can slow the spread of COVID-19. Most studies predicted positive effects, however, results from individual studies varied from a delay of less than one day to a delay of 85 days; very few studies predicted no effect of the measure. Screening at borders (13 modelling studies; 13 observational studies) Screening measures covered symptom/exposure-based screening or test-based screening (commonly specifying polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing), or both, before departure or upon or within a few days of arrival. Studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Studies generally predicted or observed some benefit from screening at borders, however these varied widely. For symptom/exposure-based screening, one modelling study reported that global implementation of screening measures would reduce the number of cases exported per day from another country by 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 95%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted delays in epidemic development, although there was wide variation in the results between the studies (very low-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted that the proportion of cases detected would range from 1% to 53% (very low-certainty evidence). Nine observational studies observed the detected proportion to range from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence), although all but one study observed this proportion to be less than 54%. For test-based screening, one modelling study provided very low-certainty evidence for the number of cases avoided. It reported that testing travellers reduced imported or exported cases as well as secondary cases. Five observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected varied from 58% to 90% (very low-certainty evidence). Quarantine (12 modelling studies) The studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. All studies suggested some benefit of quarantine, however the magnitude of the effect ranged from small to large across the different outcomes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Three modelling studies predicted that the reduction in the number of cases in the community ranged from 450 to over 64,000 fewer cases (very low-certainty evidence). The variation in effect was possibly related to the duration of quarantine and compliance. Quarantine and screening at borders (7 modelling studies; 4 observational studies) The studies assessed shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Most studies predicted positive effects for the combined measures with varying magnitudes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Four observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected for quarantine and screening at borders ranged from 68% to 92% (low-certainty evidence). The variation may depend on how the measures were combined, including the length of the quarantine period and days when the test was conducted in quarantine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS With much of the evidence derived from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-world' evidence. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures and outcomes is very low and the true effects are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Symptom/exposure-based screening measures at borders on their own are likely not effective; PCR testing at borders as a screening measure likely detects more cases than symptom/exposure-based screening at borders, although if performed only upon arrival this will likely also miss a meaningful proportion of cases. Quarantine, based on a sufficiently long quarantine period and high compliance is likely to largely avoid further transmission from travellers. Combining quarantine with PCR testing at borders will likely improve effectiveness. Many studies suggest that effects depend on factors, such as levels of community transmission, travel volumes and duration, other public health measures in place, and the exact specification and timing of the measure. Future research should be better reported, employ a range of designs beyond modelling and assess potential benefits and harms of the travel-related control measures from a societal perspective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- 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
| | - 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
| | - 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 Lars 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
| | - Michaela Coenen
- 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
| | - Karl Mf Emmert-Fees
- Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Munich, 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
| | - Sabine Hoffmann
- 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
| | - Olaf Horstick
- Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Michael Laxy
- Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Munich, Germany
- Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Carmen Klinger
- 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
| | - Suzie Kratzer
- 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 for Medical Biometry and Statistics (IMBI), Freiburg Center for Data Analysis and Modeling (FDM), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Susan Norris
- 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
- Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Lisa M Pfadenhauer
- 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
| | - Peter von Philipsborn
- 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
| | - Kerstin Sell
- 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
| | - Julia Stadelmaier
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, 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
| | - 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
| | - 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
| | - Eva Rehfuess
- 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
|
9
|
Bach-Mortensen AM, Verboom B. Barriers and facilitators systematic reviews in health: A methodological review and recommendations for reviewers. Res Synth Methods 2020; 11:743-759. [PMID: 32845574 DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2019] [Revised: 07/26/2020] [Accepted: 08/21/2020] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic reviews cataloguing the barriers to and facilitators of various outcomes are increasingly popular, despite criticisms of this type of review on philosophical, methodological, and practical grounds. The aims of this review are to appraise, analyze, and discuss the reporting and synthesis practices used in recently published barriers and facilitators reviews in health services research. METHODS All English-language peer-reviewed systematic reviews that synthesized research on barriers and facilitators in a health services context were eligible for inclusion. We searched 11 databases over a 13-month period (1 November 2017-30 November 2018) using an exhaustive list of search terms for "barrier(s)," "facilitator(s)," and "systematic review." RESULTS One hundred reviews were included. We found a high degree of variation in the synthesis practices used in these reviews, with the majority employing aggregative (rather than interpretive) approaches. The findings echo common critiques of this review type, including concerns about the reduction of complex phenomena to simplified, discrete factors. Although several reviews highlighted the "complexity" of barriers and facilitators, this was usually not analyzed systematically. Analysis of the subsample of reviews that explicitly discussed the barriers and facilitators approach revealed some common issues. These tended to be either conceptual/definitional (eg, ideas about interrelationships and overlap between factors) and methodological/practical (eg, challenges related to aggregating heterogeneous research). CONCLUSION Barriers and facilitators reviews should (a) clearly operationally define "barrier" and "facilitator," (b) explicitly describe how factors are extracted and subsequently synthesized, and (c) provide critical reflection on the contextual variability and reliability of identified factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ben Verboom
- Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Verboom B, Montgomery P, Bennett S. What factors affect evidence-informed policymaking in public health? Protocol for a systematic review of qualitative evidence using thematic synthesis. Syst Rev 2016; 5:61. [PMID: 27080993 PMCID: PMC4831125 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0240-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2016] [Accepted: 04/06/2016] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Claims of and calls for evidence-informed policymaking pervade public health journals and the literature of governments and global health agencies, yet our knowledge of the arrangements most conducive to the appropriate use of evidence is incomplete and fragmented. Designing interventions to encourage evidence use by policymakers requires an understanding of the processes through which officials access, assess and use research, including technical and political factors related to evidence uptake, and the ways in which the policymaking context can affect these processes. This review aims to systematically locate, synthesise and interpret the existing qualitative work on the process of evidence use in public health policymaking, with the aim of producing an empirically derived taxonomy of factors affecting evidence use. METHODS/DESIGN This review will include primary qualitative studies that examined the use of research evidence by policymakers to inform decisions about public health. To locate studies, we will search nine bibliographic databases, hand-search nine public health and policy journals and scan the websites of relevant organisations and the reference lists of previous reviews of evidence use in policymaking. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, apply inclusion criteria and appraise the quality of included studies. Data will be coded inductively and analysed using thematic synthesis. An augmented version of the CASP Qualitative Checklist will be used to appraise included studies, and the CERQual tool will be used to assess confidence in the review's findings. The review's results will be presented narratively and in tabular form. Synthesis findings will be summarised as a taxonomy of factors affecting evidence use in public health policymaking. A conceptual framework explaining the relationships between key factors will be proposed. Implications and recommendations for policy, practice and future research will be discussed. DISCUSSION This review will be the most comprehensive to date to synthesise the qualitative literature on evidence use by public health policymakers and will be the first to apply a formal method of qualitative metasynthesis to this body of evidence. Its results will be useful both to scholars of evidence use and knowledge translation and to decision-makers and academics attempting to influence public health policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ben Verboom
- />Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 3DW, UK
- />Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, 21205, MD USA
| | - Paul Montgomery
- />Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 3DW, UK
| | - Sara Bennett
- />Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, 21205, MD USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Verboom B, Spoelstra K. Effects of food abundance and wind on the use of tree lines by an insectivorous bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus. CAN J ZOOL 1999. [DOI: 10.1139/z99-116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
We tested the hypotheses that the distance bats fly from tree lines depend on food abundance and protection from wind. We monitored the activity of pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and measured insect abundance and wind speed and direction at fixed distances up to 50 m from tree lines. We compared bat behaviour in different situations: with and without wind and with low and high insect abundances in adjacent open areas. In all situations, pipistrelle bats' activity decreased with increasing distance from the tree line. Within nights, we found no effect of wind speed on bat activity (sound recorded per 5 min) on the leeward side of the tree lines. Between nights, however, bats concentrated their activities closer to the tree lines at high wind speeds or angles of incidence of wind from 45° to 90°. A significant relationship between bat and insect abundances was found only when the tree line was bordered by insect-rich grassland. Since wind and insect abundance only partly explained the distances bats flew from tree lines, two alternative explanations, namely predator avoidance and the use of tree lines as acoustic landmarks, are discussed. Pipistrelle bats using a double row of trees as a commuting route at dusk flew mainly between the tree lines, regardless of insect abundance or wind speed. It is argued that predator avoidance explains this behaviour, being a constraint on movements of bats at relatively high light levels. At high wind speeds and angles of incidence greater than 45°, the proportion of pipistrelle bats commuting on the leeward side of the tree lines increased.
Collapse
|
12
|
|
13
|
Verboom B, Spoelstra K. Effects of food abundance and wind on the use of tree lines by an insectivorous bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus. CAN J ZOOL 1999. [DOI: 10.1139/cjz-77-9-1393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
14
|
Britton ARC, Jones G, Rayner JMV, Boonman AM, Verboom B. Flight performance, echolocation and foraging behaviour in pond bats,Myotis dasycneme(Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). J Zool (1987) 1997. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1997.tb04842.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|