Systematic review of empiric studies on lockdowns, workplace closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in non-healthcare workplaces during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic: benefits and selected unintended consequences

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.

The societal value of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination in Indonesia

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the expected socio-economic value of booster vaccination in terms of averted deaths and averted closures of businesses and schools using simulation modelling.

METHODS

The value of booster vaccination in Indonesia is estimated by comparing simulated societal costs under a twelve-month, 187-million-dose Moderna booster vaccination campaign to costs without boosters. The costs of an epidemic and its mitigation consist of lost lives, economic closures and lost education; cost-minimising non-pharmaceutical mitigation is chosen for each scenario.

RESULTS

The cost-minimising non-pharmaceutical mitigation depends on the availability of vaccines: the differences between the two scenarios are 14 to 19 million years of in-person education and $153 to $204 billion in economic activity. The value of the booster campaign ranges from $2,500 ($1,400-$4,100) to $2,800 ($1,700-$4,600) per dose in the first year, depending on life-year valuations.

CONCLUSIONS

The societal benefits of booster vaccination are substantial. Much of the value of vaccination resides in the reduced need for costly non-pharmaceutical mitigation. We propose cost minimisation as a tool for policy decision-making and valuation of vaccination, taking into account all socio-economic costs, and not averted deaths alone.

Assessing the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the transmissibility and severity of COVID-19 during the first five months in the Western Pacific Region

While most countries in the Western Pacific Region (WPR) had similar trajectories of COVID-19 from January to May, their implementations of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) differed by transmission stages. To offer a better understanding for an implementation of multidisciplinary policies in COVID-19 control, we compared the impact of NPIs by assessing the transmissibility and severity of COVID-19 in different phases of the epidemic during the first five months in WPR. In this study, we estimated the piecewise instantaneous reproduction number (R_t) and the reporting delay-adjusted case-fatality ratio (dCFR) of COVID-19 in seven WPR jurisdictions: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Japan, Malaysia, Shanghai, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. According to the results, implementing NPIs was associated with an apparent reduction of the piecewise R_t in two epidemic waves in general. However, large cluster outbreaks raised the piecewise R_t to a high level. We also observed relaxing the NPIs could result in an increase of R_t. The estimated dCFR ranged from 0.09% to 1.59% among the jurisdictions, except in Japan where an estimate of 5.31% might be due to low testing efforts. To conclude, in conjunction with border control measures to reduce influx of imported cases which might cause local outbreaks, other NPIs including social distancing measures along with case finding by rapid tests are also necessary to prevent potential large cluster outbreaks and transmissions from undetected cases. A comparatively lower CFR may reflect the health system capacity of these jurisdictions. In order to keep track of sustained disease transmission due to resumption of economic activities, a close monitoring of disease transmissibility is recommended in the relaxation phase. The report of transmission of SARS CoV-2 to pets in Hong Kong and to mink in farm outbreaks highlight for the control of COVID-19 and emerging infectious disease, the One Health approach is critical in understanding and accounting for how human, animals and environment health are intricately connected.

•

Multidisciplinary One Health policies to combat COVID-19 are required in WPR.

•

NPIs were associated with an apparent reduction in transmissibility of COVID-19.

•

However, some large cluster outbreaks raised the transmissibility to a high level.

•

We observed an increase in transmissibility when NPIs were partially lifted.

•

A lower case-fatality ratio in WPR may reflect the health system capacity.

Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review

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.

Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review

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.