132
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To review the evidence on the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality.

          Design

          Systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis, Joanna Briggs, Global Health, and World Health Organization COVID-19 database (preprints).

          Eligibility criteria for study selection

          Observational and interventional studies that assessed the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality.

          Main outcome measures

          The main outcome measure was incidence of covid-19. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 transmission and covid-19 mortality.

          Data synthesis

          DerSimonian Laird random effects meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of mask wearing, handwashing, and physical distancing measures on incidence of covid-19. Pooled effect estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were computed, and heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and the I 2 metrics, with two tailed P values.

          Results

          72 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 35 evaluated individual public health measures and 37 assessed multiple public health measures as a “package of interventions.” Eight of 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated a reduction in incidence of covid-19 associated with handwashing (relative risk 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.12, I 2=12%), mask wearing (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75, I 2=84%), and physical distancing (0.75, 0.59 to 0.95, I 2=87%). Owing to heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of quarantine and isolation, universal lockdowns, and closures of borders, schools, and workplaces. The effects of these interventions were synthesised descriptively.

          Conclusions

          This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that several personal protective and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are associated with reductions in the incidence covid-19. Public health efforts to implement public health measures should consider community health and sociocultural needs, and future research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of public health measures in the context of covid-19 vaccination.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO CRD42020178692.

          Related collections

          Most cited references134

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ
                1756-1833
                November 17 2021
                : e068302
                Article
                10.1136/bmj-2021-068302
                151bb182-3db5-40bd-8277-44d83a589c42
                © 2021

                Free to read

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article