Search

Background: We conducted a systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions within non-healthcare workplaces and community-level workplace closures and lockdowns on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, selected mental disorders, and employment outcomes in workers or the general population. Methods: The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The exclusion criteria included modeling studies. Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from January 1, 2020, through May 11, 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis and sign tests were performed. Results: A total of 60 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 40 studies on COVID-19 outcomes, 15 on anxiety and depression symptoms, and five on unemployment and labor force participation. There was a paucity of studies on physical distancing, physical barriers, and symptom and temperature screening within workplaces. The sign test indicated that lockdown reduced COVID-19 incidence or case growth rate (23 studies, p < 0.001), reproduction number (11 studies, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 mortality or death growth rate (seven studies, p < 0.05) in the general population. Lockdown did not have any effect on anxiety symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.02). Lockdown had a small effect on increasing depression symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.21), but publication bias could account for the observed effect. Lockdown increased unemployment (pooled mean difference = 4.48 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.79, 7.17) and decreased labor force participation (pooled mean difference = -2.46 percentage points, 95% CI: -3.16, -1.77). The risk of bias for most of the studies on COVID-19 or employment outcomes was moderate or serious. The risk of bias for the studies on anxiety or depression symptoms was serious or critical. Conclusions: Empiric studies indicated that lockdown reduced the impact of COVID-19, but that it had notable unwanted effects. There is a pronounced paucity of studies on the effect of interventions within still-open workplaces. It is important for countries that implement lockdown in future pandemics to consider strategies to mitigate these unintended consequences. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182660. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) may be considered as part of national pandemic preparedness as a first line defense against influenza pandemics. Preemptive school closures (PSCs) are an NPI reserved for severe pandemics and are highly effective in slowing influenza spread but have unintended consequences. Methods: We used results of simulated PSC impacts for a 1957-like pandemic (i.e., an influenza pandemic with a high case fatality rate) to estimate population health impacts and quantify PSC costs at the national level using three geographical scales, four closure durations, and three dismissal decision criteria (i.e., the number of cases detected to trigger closures). At the Chicago regional level, we also used results from simulated 1957-like, 1968-like, and 2009-like pandemics. Our net estimated economic impacts resulted from educational productivity costs plus loss of income associated with providing childcare during closures after netting out productivity gains from averted influenza illness based on the number of cases and deaths for each mitigation strategy. Results: For the 1957-like, national-level model, estimated net PSC costs and averted cases ranged from $7.5 billion (2016 USD) averting 14.5 million cases for two-week, community-level closures to $97 billion averting 47 million cases for 12-week, county-level closures. We found that 2-week school-by-school PSCs had the lowest cost per discounted life-year gained compared to county-wide or school district–wide closures for both the national and Chicago regional-level analyses of all pandemics. The feasibility of spatiotemporally precise triggering is questionable for most locales. Theoretically, this would be an attractive early option to allow more time to assess transmissibility and severity of a novel influenza virus. However, we also found that county-wide PSCs of longer durations (8 to 12 weeks) could avert the most cases (31–47 million) and deaths (105,000–156,000); however, the net cost would be considerably greater ($88-$103 billion net of averted illness costs) for the national-level, 1957-like analysis. Conclusions: We found that the net costs per death averted ($180,000-$4.2 million) for the national-level, 1957-like scenarios were generally less than the range of values recommended for regulatory impact analyses ($4.6 to 15.0 million). This suggests that the economic benefits of national-level PSC strategies could exceed the costs of these interventions during future pandemics with highly transmissible strains with high case fatality rates. In contrast, the PSC outcomes for regional models of the 1968-like and 2009-like pandemics were less likely to be cost effective; more targeted and shorter duration closures would be recommended for these pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In early 2020, following the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, institutions of higher education (IHEs) across the United States rapidly pivoted to online learning to reduce the risk of on-campus virus transmission. We explored IHEs' use of this and other nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during the subsequent pandemic-affected academic year 2020–2021. Methods: From December 2020 to June 2021, we collected publicly available data from official webpages of 847 IHEs, including all public (n = 547) and a stratified random sample of private four-year institutions (n = 300). Abstracted data included NPIs deployed during the academic year such as changes to the calendar, learning environment, housing, common areas, and dining; COVID-19 testing; and facemask protocols. We performed weighted analysis to assess congruence with the October 29, 2020, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance for IHEs. For IHEs offering ≥50% of courses in person, we used weighted multivariable linear regression to explore the association between IHE characteristics and the summated number of implemented NPIs. Results: Overall, 20% of IHEs implemented all CDC-recommended NPIs. The most frequently utilized NPI was learning environment changes (91%), practiced as one or more of the following modalities: distance or hybrid learning opportunities (98%), 6-ft spacing (60%), and reduced class sizes (51%). Additionally, 88% of IHEs specified facemask protocols, 78% physically changed common areas, and 67% offered COVID-19 testing. Among the 33% of IHEs offering ≥50% of courses in person, having < 1000 students was associated with having implemented fewer NPIs than IHEs with ≥1000 students. Conclusions: Only 1 in 5 IHEs implemented all CDC recommendations, while a majority implemented a subset, most commonly changes to the classroom, facemask protocols, and COVID-19 testing. IHE enrollment size and location were associated with degree of NPI implementation. Additional research is needed to assess adherence to NPI implementation in IHE settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Social distancing is one of the community mitigation measures that may be recommended during influenza pandemics. Social distancing can reduce virus transmission by increasing physical distance or reducing frequency of congregation in socially dense community settings, such as schools or workplaces. We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence that social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces reduces or slows influenza transmission.Methods: Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC-2, and EconLit to identify studies published in English from January 1, 2000, through May 3, 2017. Data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis was performed.Results: Fifteen studies, representing 12 modeling and three epidemiological, met the eligibility criteria. The epidemiological studies showed that social distancing was associated with a reduction in influenza-like illness and seroconversion to 2009 influenza A (H1N1). However, the overall risk of bias in the epidemiological studies was serious. The modeling studies estimated that workplace social distancing measures alone produced a median reduction of 23% in the cumulative influenza attack rate in the general population. It also delayed and reduced the peak influenza attack rate. The reduction in the cumulative attack rate was more pronounced when workplace social distancing was combined with other nonpharmaceutical or pharmaceutical interventions. However, the effectiveness was estimated to decline with higher basic reproduction number values, delayed triggering of workplace social distancing, or lower compliance.Conclusions: Modeling studies support social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces, but there is a paucity of well-designed epidemiological studies.Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO registration # CRD42017065310. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During an evolving influenza pandemic, community mitigation strategies, such as social distancing, can slow down virus transmission in schools and surrounding communities. To date, research on school practices to promote social distancing in primary and secondary schools has focused on prolonged school closure, with little attention paid to the identification and feasibility of other more sustainable interventions. To develop a list and typology of school practices that have been proposed and/or implemented in an influenza pandemic and to uncover any barriers identified, lessons learned from their use, and documented impacts.Methods: We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on social distancing interventions in schools other than school closure. We also collected state government guidance documents directed to local education agencies or schools to assess state policies regarding social distancing. We collected standardized information from each document using an abstraction form and generated descriptive statistics on common plan elements.Results: The document review revealed limited literature on school practices to promote social distancing, as well as limited incorporation of school practices to promote social distancing into state government guidance documents. Among the 38 states that had guidance documents that met inclusion criteria, fewer than half (42%) mentioned a single school practice to promote social distancing, and none provided any substantive detail about the policies or practices needed to enact them. The most frequently identified school practices were cancelling or postponing after-school activities, canceling classes or activities with a high rate of mixing/contact that occur within the school day, and reducing mixing during transport.Conclusion: Little information is available to schools to develop policies and procedures on social distancing. Additional research and guidance are needed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of school practices to promote social distancing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]