Non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent community transmission of infectious diseases with pandemic potential-an umbrella review and evidence map.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jonas Björk, Gunlög Rasmussen, Susanne Johansson, Jessica Dagerhamn, Hanna Olofsson, Karin Wilbe Ramsay
{"title":"Non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent community transmission of infectious diseases with pandemic potential-an umbrella review and evidence map.","authors":"Jonas Björk, Gunlög Rasmussen, Susanne Johansson, Jessica Dagerhamn, Hanna Olofsson, Karin Wilbe Ramsay","doi":"10.1093/eurpub/ckaf170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to mitigate virus transmission and decrease morbidity and mortality. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify and map systematic reviews on the effectiveness of NPIs to reduce widespread community transmission of infectious diseases with pandemic potential. We searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, INAHTA [International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Asseesment], and World Health Organization COVID-19) and websites (January 2024). Systematic reviews on NPIs during outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics of COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, or Ebola were included and organized in an interactive evidence map grouped by type of intervention (individual/population/environmental), disease, risk of bias, and search date. Five of the 132 included reviews were assessed as having low, 43 moderate, and 84 high risk of bias. COVID-19 was targeted in 100 reviews, influenza 66, SARS 39, MERS 34, and Ebola in five reviews. The most frequently investigated NPIs were use of face masks, hand washing, physical distancing, travel restrictions, restrictions on public gatherings, and school closures. The five reviews at low risk of bias concluded at low level of evidence about the effectiveness of most NPIs, with exceptions of hand hygiene and some measures in school settings where low- to moderate-certainty evidence was found. There is substantial lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of several commonly used NPIs, including restrictions on public gatherings, travel restrictions, and visiting restrictions in long-term care facilities. There is a paucity not only of systematic reviews but also of primary studies at low risk of bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":12059,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Public Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaf170","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to mitigate virus transmission and decrease morbidity and mortality. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify and map systematic reviews on the effectiveness of NPIs to reduce widespread community transmission of infectious diseases with pandemic potential. We searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, INAHTA [International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Asseesment], and World Health Organization COVID-19) and websites (January 2024). Systematic reviews on NPIs during outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics of COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, or Ebola were included and organized in an interactive evidence map grouped by type of intervention (individual/population/environmental), disease, risk of bias, and search date. Five of the 132 included reviews were assessed as having low, 43 moderate, and 84 high risk of bias. COVID-19 was targeted in 100 reviews, influenza 66, SARS 39, MERS 34, and Ebola in five reviews. The most frequently investigated NPIs were use of face masks, hand washing, physical distancing, travel restrictions, restrictions on public gatherings, and school closures. The five reviews at low risk of bias concluded at low level of evidence about the effectiveness of most NPIs, with exceptions of hand hygiene and some measures in school settings where low- to moderate-certainty evidence was found. There is substantial lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of several commonly used NPIs, including restrictions on public gatherings, travel restrictions, and visiting restrictions in long-term care facilities. There is a paucity not only of systematic reviews but also of primary studies at low risk of bias.

预防具有大流行潜力的传染病社区传播的非药物干预措施——概括性综述和证据图
在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,大多数国家实施了非药物干预措施,以减轻病毒传播并降低发病率和死亡率。这项总体性审查的目的是确定并绘制系统审查国家行动计划在减少具有大流行潜力的传染病的广泛社区传播方面的有效性的地图。我们检索了电子数据库(Medline、Embase、Scopus、INAHTA[国际卫生技术评估机构网络]和世界卫生组织COVID-19)和网站(2024年1月)。在COVID-19、严重急性呼吸综合征(SARS)、中东呼吸综合征(MERS)、流感或埃博拉疫情暴发、流行或大流行期间对npi的系统评价被纳入并组织在一个交互式证据图中,按干预类型(个人/人群/环境)、疾病、偏倚风险和搜索日期分组。在纳入的132篇综述中,有5篇评价为低偏倚风险,43篇为中等偏倚风险,84篇为高偏倚风险。100篇综述以COVID-19为目标,流感66篇,SARS 39篇,MERS 34篇,埃博拉5篇。最常被调查的国家行动指标是使用口罩、洗手、保持身体距离、限制旅行、限制公共集会和关闭学校。低偏倚风险的五项综述得出的结论是,除了发现低至中等确定性证据的手卫生和学校环境中的一些措施外,大多数npi的有效性证据水平较低。关于几种常用的国家行动计划的有效性,包括限制公共集会、旅行限制和对长期护理设施的探视限制,严重缺乏证据。不仅缺乏系统评价,而且缺乏低偏倚风险的初级研究。
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
European Journal of Public Health
European Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
2.30%
发文量
2039
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Public Health (EJPH) is a multidisciplinary journal aimed at attracting contributions from epidemiology, health services research, health economics, social sciences, management sciences, ethics and law, environmental health sciences, and other disciplines of relevance to public health. The journal provides a forum for discussion and debate of current international public health issues, with a focus on the European Region. Bi-monthly issues contain peer-reviewed original articles, editorials, commentaries, book reviews, news, letters to the editor, announcements of events, and various other features.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信