Search

Abstract Background The COVID‐19 pandemic, caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is frequent handwashing. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of handwashing. Objectives We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to handwashing aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19. Search Methods We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID‐19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health‐Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with handwashing, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021. Selection Criteria Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full‐text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team. Data Collection and Analysis All data extraction was managed in EPPI‐Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full‐text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross‐sectional studies. Main Results Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 56 studies were included in this review. The included studies were cross sectional in design, came from 22 countries and had a combined sample of 199,376 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with eight of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of the majority of the studies was good (n = 30 rated low risk of bias), with 8 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Thirty‐four studies were included in the narrative synthesis and 28 in the meta‐analysis. Findings indicated that emotions about COVID‐19 (worry [0.381, confidence interval [CI] = 0.270–0.482, I2 = 92%) and anxiety (0.308, CI = 0.154–0.448, I2 = 91%]), knowledge of COVID‐19 (0.323, CI = 0.223–0.417, I2 = 94%), and perceived social norms (0.303, CI = 0.184–0.413, I2 = 92%) were among the malleable determinants most associated with handwashing. Perceived severity (0.006, CI = ‐0.011–0.023) and susceptibility of COVID‐19 (0.041, CI = −0.034 to 0.115) had little to no effect on handwashing behaviour. Authors' Conclusions Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID‐related handwashing can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote handwashing behaviour in potential new waves of COVID‐19 or other respiratory infections. Emotions about COVID, knowledge of COVID and perceived social norms warrant further consideration in future research and policy.

Abstract Background The COVID‐19 pandemic, caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. One commonly recommended measure to limit risk of infection is face covering. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of face covering. Objectives We aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to face covering aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19. Search Methods We searched various literature sources including electronic databases (Medline ALL, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycInfo, CINAHL & Web of Science), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories of literature and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID19), (2) behaviour of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health‐Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with face covering, to capture malleable determines. Searches capture studies up until October 2021. Selection Criteria Eligibility criteria included observational studies (both retrospective and prospective) and experimental studies that measure and report malleable psychological and psychosocial determinants and handwashing at an individual level, amongst the general public. Screening was supported by the Cochrane Crowd. Studies titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria by three independent screeners. Following this, all potentially relevant studies were screened at full‐text level by the research team. All conflicts between screeners were resolved by discussion between the core research team. Data Collection and Analysis All data extraction was managed in EPPI‐Reviewer software. All eligible studies, identified through full‐text screening were extracted by one author. We extracted data on study information, population, determinant, behaviour and effects. A second author checked data extraction on 20% of all included papers. All conflicts were discussed by the two authors until consensus was reached. We assessed methodological quality of all included studies using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality appraisal tool for cross‐sectional studies. Main Results Our initial searches yielded 23,587 results, of which 23 were included in this review. The included studies were cross‐sectional in design, came from nine countries and had a combined sample of 54,401 participants. The vast majority of studies had samples from the general public, with five of the studies focusing on specific samples. All included studies considered people over the age of 18. The quality of 10 of the studies was rated as unclear, 10 were rated as low, and 3 rated high risk of bias, predominately due to lack of reporting of recruitment, sample characteristics and methodology. Ten studies were included in the meta‐analysis and 16 in the narrative synthesis. Findings from the meta‐analysis indicated that knowledge of COVID‐19 (0.341, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06, 0.530, I2 = 100%) was the malleable determinant most associated with face covering behaviour. Perceived susceptibility of COVID‐19 (r = 0.088, 95% CI = −0.004, 0.180, I2 = 80%) and COVID‐related worry and anxiety (r = 0.064, 95% CI = −0.066, 0.191, I2 = 93% had little to no effect on face covering behaviour. In the narrative synthesis, the strongest association was found between perceived benefits and effectiveness of behaviours and mask wearing behaviour. Authors' Conclusions Understanding the effects of various malleable determinants on COVID‐related face covering can aid in the development and implementation of interventions and public health campaigns to promote face covering behaviour in potential new waves of COVID‐19 or other respiratory infections. Knowledge of COVID and perceived benefits of face coverings warrant further consideration in future research and policy.

Abstract Background The COVID‐19 pandemic, caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. Common recommended measures to limit risk of infection include frequent handwashing, reducing the frequency of social interactions and the use of face coverings. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of these protective behaviours. Objectives We aimed to identify and map the existing evidence (published and unpublished) on psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to behaviours aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19. Search Methods Our extensive search included electronic databases (n = 12), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories including both published peer reviewed, pre‐prints and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID‐19), (2) behaviours of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health‐Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with recommended behaviours, to capture both malleable and non‐malleable determinants (i.e. determinants that could be changed and those that could not). Selection Criteria This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) includes all types of studies examining determinants of common recommended behaviours aimed at mitigating human‐to‐human spread of COVID‐19. All potential malleable and non‐malleable determinants of one or more behaviours are included in the map. As part of the mapping process, categories are used to group determinants. The mapping categories were based on a previous rapid review by Hanratty 2021. These include: ‘behaviour’, ‘cognition’, ‘demographics’, ‘disease’, ‘emotions’, ‘health status’, ‘information’, ‘intervention’, and ‘knowledge’. Those not suitable for categorisation in any of these groups are included in the map as ‘other’ determinants. Data Collection and Analysis Results were imported to a bibliographic reference manager where duplications of identical studies gathered from multiple sources were removed. Data extraction procedures were managed in EPPI‐Reviewer software. Information on study type, population, behaviours measured and determinants measured were extracted. We appraised the methodological quality of systematic reviews with AMSTAR‐2. We did not appraise the quality of primary studies in this map. Main Results As of 1 June 2022 the EGM includes 1034 records reporting on 860 cross‐sectional, 68 longitudinal, 78 qualitative, 25 reviews, 62 interventional, and 39 other studies (e.g., mixed‐methods approaches). The map includes studies that measured social distancing (n = 487), masks and face coverings (n = 382), handwashing (n = 308), physical distancing (n = 177), isolation/quarantine (n = 157), respiratory hygiene/etiquette (n = 75), cleaning surfaces (n = 59), and avoiding touching the T‐zone (n = 48). There were 333 studies that assessed composite measures of two or more behaviours. The largest cluster of determinants was ‘demographics’ (n = 730 studies), followed by ‘cognition’ (n = 496 studies) and determinants categorised as ‘other’ (n = 447). These included factors such as ‘beliefs’, ‘culture’ and ‘access to resources’. Less evidence is available for some determinants such as ‘interventions’ (n = 99 studies), ‘information’ (n = 101 studies), and ‘behaviour’ (149 studies). Authors' Conclusions This EGM provides a valuable resource for researchers, policy‐makers and the public to access the available evidence on the determinants of various COVID‐19 health‐related behaviours. The map can also be used to help guide research commissioning, by evidence synthesis teams and evidence intermediaries to inform policy during the ongoing pandemic and potential future outbreaks of COVID‐19 or other respiratory infections. Evidence included in the map will be explored further through a series of systematic reviews examining the strength of the associations between malleable determinants and the uptake and maintenance of individual protective behaviours.

Abstract This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objective of this EGM is to identify and map all primary studies (including randomised and cluster randomised trials) and systematic reviews on universal, school‐based social and emotional learning programmes for young children (3–11 years) to create a live, searchable, and publicly available evidence and gap map.

Abstract Objective The US risdiplam expanded access program (EAP; NCT04256265) was opened to provide individuals with Type 1 or 2 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) who had no satisfactory treatment options access to risdiplam prior to commercial availability. The program was designed to collect safety data during risdiplam treatment. Methods Patients were enrolled from 23 non‐preselected sites across 17 states and treated with risdiplam orally once daily. Eligible patients had a 5q autosomal recessive Type 1 or 2 SMA diagnosis, were aged ≥2 months at enrollment, and were ineligible for available and approved SMA treatments or could not continue treatment due to a medical condition, lack/loss of efficacy, or the COVID‐19 pandemic. Results Overall, 155 patients with Type 1 (n = 73; 47.1%) or 2 SMA (n = 82; 52.9%) were enrolled and 149 patients (96.1%) completed the EAP (defined as obtaining access to commercial risdiplam, if desired). The median treatment duration was 4.8 months (range, 0.3–9.2 months). The median patient age was 11 years (range, 0–50 years), and most patients (n = 121; 78%) were previously treated with a disease‐modifying therapy. The most frequently reported adverse events were diarrhea (n = 10; 6.5%), pyrexia (n = 7; 4.5%), and upper respiratory tract infection (n = 5; 3.2%). The most frequently reported serious adverse event was pneumonia (n = 3; 1.9%). No deaths were reported. Interpretation In the EAP, the safety profile of risdiplam was similar to what was reported in pivotal risdiplam clinical trials. These safety data provide further support for the use of risdiplam in the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with SMA.

Abstract Background Involving men and boys as both users and supporters of Family Planning (FP) is now considered essential for optimising maternal and child health outcomes. Evidence on how to engage men and boys to meet FP needs is therefore important. Objectives The main objective of this review was to assess the strength of evidence in the area and uncover the effective components and critical process‐ and system‐level characteristics of successful interventions. Search Methods We searched nine electronic databases, seven grey literature databases, organisational websites, and the reference lists of systematic reviews relating to FP. To identify process evaluations and qualitative papers associated with the included experimental studies, we used Connected Papers and hand searches of reference lists. Selection Criteria Experimental and quasi‐experimental studies of behavioural and service‐level interventions involving males aged 10 years or over in low‐ and middle‐income countries to increase uptake of FP methods were included in this review. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology was a causal chain analysis involving the development and testing of a logic model of intervention components based on stakeholder consultation and prior research. Qualitative and quantitative data relating to the evaluation studies and interventions were extracted based on the principles of ‘effectiveness‐plus’ reviews. Quantitative analysis was undertaken using r with robust variance estimation (RVE), meta‐analysis and meta‐regression. Qualitative analysis involved ‘best fit’ framework synthesis. Results We identified 8885 potentially relevant records and included 127 in the review. Fifty‐nine (46%) of these were randomised trials, the remainder were quasi‐experimental studies with a comparison group. Fifty‐four percent of the included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias. A meta‐analysis of 72 studies (k = 265) showed that the included group of interventions had statistically significantly higher odds of improving contraceptive use when compared to comparison groups (odds ratio = 1.38, confidence interval = 1.21 to 1.57, prediction interval = 0.36 to 5.31, p

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: we intend to identify and synthesise the existing evidence (published and unpublished) on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to behaviours that can reduce the risk of infection or transmission of COVID‐19.

Abstract Background Globally, almost 1.6 billion individuals lack adequate housing. Many accommodation‐based approaches have evolved across the globe to incorporate additional support and services beyond delivery of housing. Objectives This review examines the effectiveness of accommodation‐based approaches on outcomes including housing stability, health, employment, crime, wellbeing, and cost for individuals experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. Search Methods The systematic review is based on evidence already identified in two existing EGMs commissioned by the Centre for Homelessness Impact (CHI) and built by White et al. The maps were constructed using a comprehensive three stage search and mapping process. Stage one mapped included studies in an existing systematic review on homelessness, stage two was an extensive search of 17 academic databases, three EGM databases, and eight systematic review databases. Finally stage three included web searches for grey literature, scanning reference lists of included studies and consultation with experts to identify additional literature. We identified 223 unique studies across 551 articles from the effectiveness map on 12th April 2019. Selection Criteria We include research on all individuals currently experiencing, or at risk of experiencing homelessness irrespective of age or gender, in high‐income countries. The Network Meta‐Analysis (NMA) contains all study designs where a comparison group was used. This includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi‐experimental designs, matched comparisons and other study designs that attempt to isolate the impact of the intervention on homelessness. The NMA primarily addresses how interventions can reduce homelessness and increase housing stability for those individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness. Additional outcomes are examined and narratively described. These include: access to mainstream healthcare; crime and justice; employment and income; capabilities and wellbeing; and cost of intervention. These outcomes reflect the domains used in the EGM, with the addition of cost. Data Collection and Analysis Due to the diverse nature of the literature on accommodation‐based approaches, the way in which the approaches are implemented in practice, and the disordered descriptions of the categories, the review team created a novel typology to allow meaningful categorisations for functional and useful comparison between the various intervention types. Once these eligible categories were identified, we undertook dual data extraction, where two authors completed data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessments independently for each study. NMA was conducted across outcomes related to housing stability and health.Qualitative data from process evaluations is included using a “Best Fit” Framework synthesis. The purpose of this synthesis is to complement the quantitative evidence and provide a better understanding of what factors influenced programme effectiveness. All included Qualitative data followed the initial framework provided by the five main analytical categories of factors of influence (reflected in the EGM), namely: contextual factors, policy makers/funders, programme administrators/managers/implementing agencies, staff/case workers and recipients of the programme. Main Results There was a total of 13,128 people included in the review, across 51 reports of 28 studies. Most of the included studies were carried out in the United States of America (25/28), with other locations including Canada and the UK. Sixteen studies were RCTs (57%) and 12 were nonrandomised (quasi‐experimental) designs (43%). Assessment of methodological quality and potential for bias was conducted using the second version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for Randomised controlled trials. Nonrandomised studies were coded using the ROBINS‐ I tool. Out of the 28 studies, three had sufficiently low ROB (11%), 11 (39%) had moderate ROB, and five (18%) presented serious problems with ROB, and nine (32%) demonstrated high, critical problems with their methodology. A NMA on housing stability outcomes demonstrates that interventions offering the highest levels of support alongside unconditional accommodation (High/Unconditional) were more effective in improving housing stability compared to basic support alongside unconditional housing (Basic/Unconditional) (ES=1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.39, 1.82]), and in comparison to a no‐intervention control group (ES=0.62, 95% CI [0.19, 1.06]). A second NMA on health outcomes demonstrates that interventions categorised as offering Moderate/Conditional (ES= 0.36, 95% CI [0.03, 0.69]) and High/Unconditional (ES = 0.22, 95% CI [0.01, 0.43]) support were effective in improving health outcomes compared to no intervention. These effects were smaller than those observed for housing stability. The quality of the evidence was relatively low but varied across the 28 included studies. Depending on the context, finding accommodation for those who need it can be hindered by supply and affordability in the market. The social welfare approach in each jurisdiction can impact heavily on support available and can influence some of the prejudice and stigma surrounding homelessness. The evaluations emphasised the need for collaboration and a shared commitment between policymakers, funders and practitioners which creates community and buy in across sectors and agencies. However, co‐ordinating this is difficult and requires sustainability to work. For those implementing programmes, it was important to invest time in developing a culture together to build trust and solid relationships. Additionally, identifying sufficient resources and appropriate referral routes allows for better implementation planning. Involving staff and case workers in creating processes helps drive enthusiasm and energy for the service. Time should be allocated for staff to develop key skills and communicate engage effectively with service users. Finally, staff need time to develop trust and relationships with service users; this goes hand in hand with providing information that is up to date and useful as well making themselves accessible in terms of location and time. Authors' Conclusions The network meta‐analysis suggests that all types of accommodation which provided support are more effective than no intervention or Basic/Unconditional accommodation in terms of housing stability and health. The qualitative evidence synthesis raised a primary issue in relation to context: which was the lack of stable, affordable accommodation and the variability in the rental market, such that actually sourcing accommodation to provide for individuals who are homeless is extremely challenging. Collaboration between stakeholders and practitioners can be fruitful but difficult to coordinate across different agencies and organisations.