Effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical public health interventions against COVID-19; a protocol of a systematic review and realist review.
Effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical public health interventions against COVID-19; a protocol of a systematic review and realist review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0239554
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Gholipour K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Iezadi S;Azami-Aghdash S;Ghiasi A;Rezapour A;Pourasghari H;Pashazadeh F;Gholipour K
在没有任何药物干预和疫苗接种的情况下，对抗2019冠状病毒病（COVID-19）的唯一方法是通过采取非药物公共卫生干预措施（PHI）来减缓疾病的传播。患者隔离、封锁、隔离、社交距离、医疗保健提供的变化和大规模筛查是科普疫情最常见的非药物性潜在危险因素。然而，并无系统证据显示非药物潜在危险装置在控制COVID-19方面的成效，亦无证据显示这些干预措施在不同情况下如何发挥作用。因此，在这项研究中，我们将解决两个主要目标：1）使用系统性综述和荟萃分析评估非药物性PHI在控制COVID-19传播方面的有效性; 2）使用现实主义综述探索这些干预措施为什么、如何以及对谁有效。这项审查研究有两个主要阶段。在本研究的第一阶段，我们将从两种主要类型的研究中提取数据，包括准实验性研究（如准随机试验、对照前后研究（CBA）和中断时间序列研究（ITS））和观察性研究（如队列、病例对照和横断面研究），以英语撰写。我们将探讨针对抑制或缓解策略（或两者结合）的非药物潜在危险装置在社区层面控制COVID-19疫情的成效。有效性将被视为死亡率、发病率、基本生育率、发病率、住院率、重症监护室（ICU）住院率和其他健康结局（如可能）的变化。如果可能，我们将使用CMA软件进行随机效应荟萃分析。在第二阶段，我们会进行实事求是的检讨，找出非药物潜在危险装置如何、为何、为谁而设，以及在甚么情况下有效。在现实主义审查中，我们将确定和探索背景-机制-结果配置，以使用Pawson的5步现实主义审查模板对不同背景下干预措施的有效性提供强有力的解释，包括：“澄清范围;寻找证据;评估主要研究和提取数据;综合证据并得出结论;传播，实施和评估“。虽然这些步骤是以线性方式呈现的，但在实践中，我们将在迭代阶段中遵循它们来填充任何潜在的重叠。这项研究的结果将为非药物性潜在危险装置如何以及在何种背景下控制COVID-19的传播提供重要见解。根据现实主义审查进行系统审查和荟萃分析将使我们能够就干预措施的效果和工作方式得出强有力的结论。了解背景因素在非药品潜在危险装置有效性中的作用以及这一过程的机制，可以使政策制定者实施适当的政策，更有效地管理COVID-19疫情。CRD 42020186855。
Without any pharmaceutical intervention and vaccination, the only way to combat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is to slow down the spread of the disease by adopting non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (PHIs). Patient isolation, lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, changes in health care provision, and mass screening are the most common non-pharmaceutical PHIs to cope with the epidemic. However, there is neither systematic evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the COVID-19 nor on how these interventions work in different contexts. Therefore, in this study we will address two main objectives: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19 using a systematic review and meta-analyses; 2) to explore why, how, and for whom these interventions work using a realist review. This review study has two main phases. In the first phase of this study, we will extract data from two main types of studies including quasi-experimental studies (such as quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs)) and observational studies (such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies), written in the English language. We will explore effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs targeted either suppression or mitigation strategies (or a combination of both) in controlling the COVID-19 epidemics in the community level. Effectiveness will be considered as the changes in mortality rate, incidence rate, basic reproduction number rate, morbidity rate, rates of hospitalization, rates of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and other health outcomes where possible. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses, if possible, using CMA software. In the second phase, we will conduct a realist review to find out how, why, for whom, and in what circumstances the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work. At the realist review, we will identify and explore Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations to provide a robust explanation on the effectiveness of the interventions in different contexts using Pawson's 5-step realist review template including: "clarify scope; search for evidence; appraise primary studies and extract data; synthesize evidence and draw conclusions; and disseminate, implement and evaluate". Although the steps are presented in a linear manner, in practice, we will follow them in iterative stages to fill any potential overlap. The findings of this research will provide a crucial insight into how and in which context the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with a realist review will allow us to draw a robust conclusion on the effects and the way in which the interventions work. Understanding the role of contextual factors in the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs and the mechanism of this process could enable policymakers to implement appropriate policies and manage the COVID-19 epidemics more efficiently. CRD42020186855.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
McCormack, B;Kitson, A;Seers, K
通讯作者：
Seers, K
1997-2011 年，来自里约热内卢的一组接受抗逆转录病毒治疗的 HIV 感染者的病毒学结果随着时间的推移有所改善。
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Martin DA;Luz PM;Lake JE;Clark JL;Veloso VG;Moreira RI;Cardoso SW;Klausner JD;Grinsztejn B
通讯作者：
Grinsztejn B
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4
发表时间：
2016-03-22
期刊：
Implementation science : IS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Lau, Rosa;Stevenson, Fiona;Murray, Elizabeth
通讯作者：
Murray, Elizabeth
影响因子：
39.2
作者：
Moher, David;Liberati, Alessandro;Altman, Douglas G.
通讯作者：
Altman, Douglas G.
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Linde-Arias, Ana Rosa;Roura, Maria;Siqueira, Eduardo
通讯作者：
Siqueira, Eduardo