Systematic reviews including this primary study

loading
6 articles (6 References) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Journal Journal of global health
Year 2021
Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Infectious outbreaks, most recently coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have required pervasive public health strategies, termed lockdown measures, including quarantine, social distancing, and closure of workplaces and educational establishments. Although evidence analysing immediate effects is expanding, repercussions following lockdown measures remain poorly understood. This systematic review aims to analyse biopsychosocial consequences after lockdown measures end according to short, medium, and long-term impacts. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to January 12, 2021. Reference lists were manually reviewed. Eligible studies analysed biopsychosocial functioning after lockdown measures secondary to recent infectious outbreaks ended. Lockdown measures were defined as quarantine, isolation, workplace or educational closures, social or physical distancing, and national or local closure of public institutions deemed non-essential. Studies exclusively researching outcomes during lockdown measures, examined infectious participants, or analysed lockdown measures not pertaining to an infectious outbreak were excluded. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed bias with a third resolving discrepancies. Data was extracted from published reports with further information requested from authors where necessary. The mixed methods appraisal tool assessed study quality, languages were restricted to English, German, Italian, and French and narrative synthesis was applied. RESULTS: Of 5149 identified studies, 40 were eligible for inclusion. Psychological distress, economic repercussions, social, biological, and behavioural ramifications were observed. Short to medium-term effects comprised reactions relating to early trauma processing whereas medium to long-term repercussions manifested in maladaptive behaviours and mental health deterioration. Increased alcohol intake, stigmatisation, and economic effects were also identified consequences. High-risk groups included health care workers, children, elderly, inpatients, those with pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses, and socially isolated individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Supporting vulnerable groups and offering education, workplace modifications, financial, and social assistance may mitigate negative repercussions. Establishing a rapid and comprehensive evidence base appraising the efficacy of such interventions and identifying areas for development is essential. This review was limited by study heterogeneity and lack of randomisation in available literature. Given the unprecedented nature and progression of COVID-19, the relevance of previous outcomes remains uncertain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42020181134.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Authors Chu IY , Alam P , Larson H , Lin L
Journal Journal of travel medicine
Year 2020
Loading references information
ABSTRACT: Four billion people worldwide have experienced COVID-19 confinement. Such unprecedented extent of mobility restriction to curb the COVID-19 pandemic may have profound impacts on how individuals live, travel, and retain well-being. This systematic review aims to identify: 1) the social consequences of mass quarantine-community-wide movement restrictions-during previous and current infectious disease outbreaks, and 2) recommended strategies to mitigate the negative social implications of COVID-19 lockdowns. Considering social determinants of health, we conducted a systematic review by searching five databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CNKI, and the WHO COVID-19 database) for publications from inception to 9 April 2020. No limitation was set on language, location, or study type. Studies that 1) contained peer-reviewed original empirical evidence and 2) focussed on non-epidemiological implications of mass quarantine were included. We thematically synthesised and reported data due to heterogeneous disease and country context. Of 3067 publications found, 15 original peer-reviewed articles were selected for full-text extraction. Psychological distress, heightened communication inequalities, food insecurity, economic challenges, diminished health care access, alternative delivery of education, and gender-based violence were identified as negative social consequences of community-based quarantine in six infectious disease epidemics, including the current COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, altruistic attitudes were identified as a positive consequence during previous quarantines. Diverse psychological and social consequences of mass quarantine in previous and current epidemics were evident, but individual country policies had been highly varied in how well they addressed the needs of affected individuals, especially those who are socially marginalised. Policymakers should balance the pros and cons of movement restrictions, facilitate multi-sectoral action to tackle social inequalities, provide clear and coherent guidance to the public, and undertake time-bound policy evaluations to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19 lockdowns and to establish preparedness strategies for future epidemics.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Pre-print medRxiv
Year 2020
Loading references information
AimTo systematically review qualitative literature on social distancing in order to identify and describe factors that enable or prevent its implementation. MethodsA rapid systematic qualitative review was conducted for which a comprehensive systematic search was carried out across eleven databases. Included papers report on primary qualitative studies of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of social distancing measures in potentially epidemic infectious diseases. An adapted meta-ethnographical approach was used for synthesis. Review findings were assessed for strength and reliability using GRADE-CERQual. Results29 papers were included from the systematic search that yielded 5620 results and supplementary methods. The review identifies two broad categories of barriers to social distancing measures: individual- or community-level psychological or sociological phenomena, and perceived shortcomings in governmental action. Based on this, 25 themes are identified that can be addressed to improve the implementation of social distancing. ConclusionThere are many barriers, on different levels, to the implementation of social distancing measures. Among other findings, the review identifies the need for good communication as well as the need for authorities to provide comprehensive support as two key opportunities to increase acceptability and adherence. High-quality research is needed during the COVID-19 pandemic to better describe mechanisms by which implementation of social distancing can be improved, and, more importantly, what is already known has to be put into practice.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Journal Lancet (London, England)
Year 2020
Loading references information
The December, 2019 coronavirus disease outbreak has seen many countries ask people who have potentially come into contact with the infection to isolate themselves at home or in a dedicated quarantine facility. Decisions on how to apply quarantine should be based on the best available evidence. We did a Review of the psychological impact of quarantine using three electronic databases. Of 3166 papers found, 24 are included in this Review. Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects. In situations where quarantine is deemed necessary, officials should quarantine individuals for no longer than required, provide clear rationale for quarantine and information about protocols, and ensure sufficient supplies are provided. Appeals to altruism by reminding the public about the benefits of quarantine to wider society can be favourable.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Journal Psychiatrische Praxis
Year 2020
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: Review of the evidence on the psychosocial impact of quarantine measures during serious coronavirus outbreaks before COVID-19. Such information is highly relevant in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Search of the MEDLINE database for relevant studies related to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks. RESULTS: Across 13 identified studies, quarantine measures were consistently associated with negative psychosocial outcomes, including depressive symptoms, anxiety, anger, stress, posttraumatic stress, social isolation, loneliness and stigmatization. Determinants comprised duration of quarantine measures and income losses. Health care workers constituted a particularly vulnerable group. CONCLUSION: Quarantine measures during serious coronavirus outbreaks have extensive negative consequences for mental health. Prevention and intervention approaches to attenuate the psychosocial impact should be an integral component of crisis response during pandemic conditions.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Journal BMC public health
Year 2014
Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions may provide simple, low-cost, effective ways of minimising the transmission and impact of acute respiratory infections in pandemic and non-pandemic contexts. Understanding what influences the uptake of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as hand and respiratory hygiene, mask wearing and social distancing could help to inform the development of effective public health advice messages. The aim of this synthesis was to explore public perceptions of non-pharmaceutical interventions that aim to reduce the transmission of acute respiratory infections. METHODS: Five online databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science) were systematically searched. Reference lists of articles were also examined. We selected papers that used a qualitative research design to explore perceptions and beliefs about non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce transmission of acute respiratory infections. We excluded papers that only explored how health professionals or children viewed non-pharmaceutical respiratory infection control. Three authors performed data extraction and assessment of study quality. Thematic analysis and components of meta-ethnography were adopted to synthesise findings. RESULTS: Seventeen articles from 16 studies in 9 countries were identified and reviewed. Seven key themes were identified: perceived benefits of non-pharmaceutical interventions, perceived disadvantages of non-pharmaceutical interventions, personal and cultural beliefs about infection transmission, diagnostic uncertainty in emerging respiratory infections, perceived vulnerability to infection, anxiety about emerging respiratory infections and communications about emerging respiratory infections. The synthesis showed that some aspects of non-pharmaceutical respiratory infection control (particularly hand and respiratory hygiene) were viewed as familiar and socially responsible actions to take. There was ambivalence about adopting isolation and personal distancing behaviours in some contexts due to their perceived adverse impact and potential to attract social stigma. Common perceived barriers included beliefs about infection transmission, personal vulnerability to respiratory infection and concerns about self-diagnosis in emerging respiratory infections. CONCLUSIONS: People actively evaluate non-pharmaceutical interventions in terms of their perceived necessity, efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility. To enhance uptake, it will be necessary to address key barriers, such as beliefs about infection transmission, rejection of personal risk of infection and concern about the potential costs and stigma associated with some interventions.