Non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination during COVID-19 in Canada: Implications for COVID and non-COVID outcomes

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Mehdi Ammi , Zachary W. Desson , Maeva Z. Doumbia
{"title":"Non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination during COVID-19 in Canada: Implications for COVID and non-COVID outcomes","authors":"Mehdi Ammi ,&nbsp;Zachary W. Desson ,&nbsp;Maeva Z. Doumbia","doi":"10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>As a federal country where health prerogatives are primarily at the subnational level (provinces), Canada has implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) of differing stringency and attained varied COVID-19 vaccination coverage across the different vaccination campaigns. NPIs and vaccination may have thus interacted in different ways.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A mixed-methods design combining a regression analysis and a comparative case study. The regression analysis focuses on COVID-19 outcomes such as COVID-19 cases, deaths, hospitalizations, and admissions in intensive care units. The case study centers on three provinces and explores outcomes beyond COVID-19, such as spillover on the healthcare system and the economy.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>While more stringent NPIs are associated with lower COVID outcomes, their interaction with vaccination coverage depends on the vaccination campaign. Increasing the vaccination coverage with more stringent NPIs was not associated with a decrease in COVID cases growth rate during the primary campaign (two-doses), however it was associated with a decrease in COVID hospitalizations during the booster campaign. For non-COVID outcomes, having less stringent restrictions and lower initial vaccination coverage did not help prevent longer wait times for healthcare nor higher initial unemployment.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The differing interaction between NPIs and vaccination coverage suggests that the interaction was more effective when the vaccine uptake was primarily from high-risk populations. Confirming this finding would require further detailed microdata analysis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48672,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883723000771/pdfft?md5=632a501c6062c435f2af6e2dd0e9acde&pid=1-s2.0-S2211883723000771-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883723000771","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

As a federal country where health prerogatives are primarily at the subnational level (provinces), Canada has implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) of differing stringency and attained varied COVID-19 vaccination coverage across the different vaccination campaigns. NPIs and vaccination may have thus interacted in different ways.

Methods

A mixed-methods design combining a regression analysis and a comparative case study. The regression analysis focuses on COVID-19 outcomes such as COVID-19 cases, deaths, hospitalizations, and admissions in intensive care units. The case study centers on three provinces and explores outcomes beyond COVID-19, such as spillover on the healthcare system and the economy.

Results

While more stringent NPIs are associated with lower COVID outcomes, their interaction with vaccination coverage depends on the vaccination campaign. Increasing the vaccination coverage with more stringent NPIs was not associated with a decrease in COVID cases growth rate during the primary campaign (two-doses), however it was associated with a decrease in COVID hospitalizations during the booster campaign. For non-COVID outcomes, having less stringent restrictions and lower initial vaccination coverage did not help prevent longer wait times for healthcare nor higher initial unemployment.

Conclusion

The differing interaction between NPIs and vaccination coverage suggests that the interaction was more effective when the vaccine uptake was primarily from high-risk populations. Confirming this finding would require further detailed microdata analysis.

加拿大 COVID-19 期间的非药物干预和疫苗接种:对 COVID 和非 COVID 结果的影响
背景加拿大是一个联邦制国家,其卫生特权主要在次国家一级(省),因此加拿大实施了不同强度的非药物干预措施(NPI),并在不同的疫苗接种活动中实现了不同的 COVID-19 疫苗接种覆盖率。因此,非药物干预措施和疫苗接种可能以不同的方式相互作用。回归分析侧重于 COVID-19 的结果,如 COVID-19 病例、死亡、住院和入住重症监护室。案例研究以三个省份为中心,探讨了 COVID-19 以外的结果,如对医疗保健系统和经济的溢出效应。结果虽然更严格的 NPIs 与较低的 COVID 结果相关,但它们与疫苗接种覆盖率的相互作用取决于疫苗接种活动。采用更严格的 NPI 提高疫苗接种覆盖率与初级接种(两剂)期间 COVID 病例增长率的下降无关,但与加强接种期间 COVID 住院率的下降有关。就非 COVID 结果而言,较宽松的限制和较低的初始疫苗接种覆盖率无助于避免更长的医疗等待时间或更高的初始失业率。要证实这一发现,需要进一步进行详细的微观数据分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Policy and Technology
Health Policy and Technology Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
88 days
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Technology (HPT), is the official journal of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine (FPM), a cross-disciplinary journal, which focuses on past, present and future health policy and the role of technology in clinical and non-clinical national and international health environments. HPT provides a further excellent way for the FPM to continue to make important national and international contributions to development of policy and practice within medicine and related disciplines. The aim of HPT is to publish relevant, timely and accessible articles and commentaries to support policy-makers, health professionals, health technology providers, patient groups and academia interested in health policy and technology. Topics covered by HPT will include: - Health technology, including drug discovery, diagnostics, medicines, devices, therapeutic delivery and eHealth systems - Cross-national comparisons on health policy using evidence-based approaches - National studies on health policy to determine the outcomes of technology-driven initiatives - Cross-border eHealth including health tourism - The digital divide in mobility, access and affordability of healthcare - Health technology assessment (HTA) methods and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical and non-clinical health technologies - Health and eHealth indicators and benchmarks (measure/metrics) for understanding the adoption and diffusion of health technologies - Health and eHealth models and frameworks to support policy-makers and other stakeholders in decision-making - Stakeholder engagement with health technologies (clinical and patient/citizen buy-in) - Regulation and health economics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信