Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-International Travel-Related Measures.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ryu S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7181936 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-International Travel-Related Measures.
Ryu Sukhyun S Gao Huizhi H Wong Jessica Y JY Shiu Eunice Y C EYC Xiao Jingyi J Fong Min Whui MW Cowling Benjamin J BJ
Emerging infectious diseases 20200517 5
International travel-related nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), which can include traveler screening, travel restrictions, and border closures, often are included in national influenza pandemic preparedness plans. We performed systematic reviews to identify evidence for their effectiveness. We found 15 studies in total. Some studies reported that NPIs could delay the introduction of influenza virus. However, no available evidence indicated that screening of inbound travelers would have a su ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Influenza virus infections are believed to spread mostly by close contact in the community. Social distancing measures are essential components of the public health response to influenza pandemics. The objective of these mitigation measures is to reduce transmission, thereby delaying the epidemic peak, reducing the size of the epidemic peak, and spreading cases over a longer time to relieve pressure on the healthcare system. We conducted systematic reviews of the evidence base for effectiveness of multiple mitigation measures: isolating ill persons, contact tracing, quarantining exposed persons, school closures, workplace measures/closures, and avoiding crowding. Evidence supporting the effectiveness of these measures was obtained largely from observational studies and simulation studies. Voluntary isolation at home might be a more feasible social distancing measure, and pandemic plans should consider how to facilitate this measure. More drastic social distancing measures might be reserved for severe pandemics.
| S-EPMC7181908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.
| S-EPMC7181938 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has proven to be challenging to manage for many reasons, including its high infection rate. One of the potential ways to limit its spread is by limiting international travel. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, critically appraise and summarise evidence on international air travel-related control measures for COVID-19.MethodsThis review is based on the Cochrane review: International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and followed the same methods. In brief, we searched for clinical and modelling studies in general health and COVID-19-specific bibliographic databases. The primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) a shift in epidemic development and, (iii) cases detected.ResultsFrom 6,202 citations identified by the search strategy, we included 22 new studies (modelling = 9, observational = 13) in addition to the 62 studies identified in the Cochrane review. Studies suggest that quarantine or microbial detection or a combination may avoid further cases. Similarly, these interventions may produce a positive shift in epidemic development and case detection may improve. Most studies were evaluated as having a moderate to critical risk of bias. The studies did not change the main conclusions of the Cochrane review nor the quality of the evidence (very low certainty); however, they added to the evidence base for most outcomes.ConclusionsWeak evidence supports the use of international air travel-related control measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 via air travel. More real-world studies are required to support these conclusions.
| S-EPMC9691278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo comprehensively map the existing evidence assessing the impact of travel-related control measures for containment of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic.DesignRapid evidence map.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, and COVID-19 specific databases offered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the WHO.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies in human populations susceptible to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1/severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus/Middle East respiratory syndrome or influenza. Interventions of interest were travel-related control measures affecting travel across national or subnational borders. Outcomes of interest included infectious disease, screening, other health, economic and social outcomes. We considered all empirical studies that quantitatively evaluate impact available in Armenian, English, French, German, Italian and Russian based on the team's language capacities.Data extraction and synthesisWe extracted data from included studies in a standardised manner and mapped them to a priori and (one) post hoc defined categories.ResultsWe included 122 studies assessing travel-related control measures. These studies were undertaken across the globe, most in the Western Pacific region (n=71). A large proportion of studies focused on COVID-19 (n=59), but a number of studies also examined SARS, MERS and influenza. We identified studies on border closures (n=3), entry/exit screening (n=31), travel-related quarantine (n=6), travel bans (n=8) and travel restrictions (n=25). Many addressed a bundle of travel-related control measures (n=49). Most studies assessed infectious disease (n=98) and/or screening-related (n=25) outcomes; we found only limited evidence on economic and social outcomes. Studies applied numerous methods, both inferential and descriptive in nature, ranging from simple observational methods to complex modelling techniques.ConclusionsWe identified a heterogeneous and complex evidence base on travel-related control measures. While this map is not sufficient to assess the effectiveness of different measures, it outlines aspects regarding interventions and outcomes, as well as study methodology and reporting that could inform future research and evidence synthesis.
| S-EPMC8042592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of COVID-19 international travel restrictions has to date, not been fully explored, and with the ongoing threat that new variants could potentially restrict movement further, it is important to consider the impacts that travel restrictions have on community members. This study aimed to evaluate the psychological and financial impact of COVID-19 travel restrictions on those separated from their partners or immediate families, as well as temporary visa holders who were unable to migrate.MethodsBetween 4 November 2021 to 1 December 2021, we executed a cross-sectional online survey targeting three specific groups; (1) those stranded from their partners; (2) those stranded from immediate families; and (3) temporary visa holders unable to migrate or cross international borders. We collected data on respondents' demographic profile; the nature of COVID-19-related travel impacts; depression, anxiety, and stress levels (using the validated DASS-21); and finally, data on respondents financial, employment and accommodation situation.Results1363 respondents located globally completed the survey. 71.2% reported financial stress, 76.8% ([Formula: see text], SD = 5.94) reported moderate-to-extremely severe depression, 51.6% ([Formula: see text], SD = 5.49) moderate-to-extremely severe anxiety, and 62.6% ([Formula: see text], SD = 5.55) moderate-to-extremely severe stress levels. Statistically significant factors associated with moderate-to-extremely severe depression, anxiety, and stress included being female, chronic illness, and experiencing financial stress. Employment during COVID-19 -specifically essential services workers or unemployed-was associated with higher levels of anxiety and stress, with only essential workers being a predictor of higher stress severity. Factors that provided psychological protection included being older and having children.ConclusionThis study is one of the first to explore the impact COVID-19-related international travel restrictions have had on the financial status and psychological health of affected individuals. It highlights the significant human cost associated with the restrictions and identifies psychologically vulnerable populations. These results will help the design of targeted health and social policy responses.
| S-EPMC9355190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:International travel measures to contain the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represent a relatively intrusive form of non-pharmaceutical intervention. To inform decision-making on the (re)implementation, adaptation, relaxation or suspension of such measures, it is essential to not only assess their effectiveness but also their unintended effects. This scoping review maps existing empirical studies on the unintended consequences, both predicted and unforeseen, and beneficial or harmful, of international travel measures. We searched multiple health, non-health and COVID-19-specific databases. The evidence was charted in a map in relation to the study design, intervention and outcome categories identified and discussed narratively. Twenty-three studies met our inclusion criteria-nine quasi-experimental, two observational, two mathematical modelling, six qualitative and four mixed-methods studies. Studies addressed different population groups across various countries worldwide. Seven studies provided information on unintended consequences of the closure of national borders, six looked at international travel restrictions and three investigated mandatory quarantine of international travellers. No studies looked at entry and/or exit screening at national borders exclusively, however six studies considered this intervention in combination with other international travel measures. In total, 11 studies assessed various combinations of the aforementioned interventions. The outcomes were mostly referred to by the authors as harmful. Fifteen studies identified a variety of economic consequences, six reported on aspects related to quality of life, well-being, and mental health and five on social consequences. One study each provided information on equity, equality, and the fair distribution of benefits and burdens, environmental consequences and health system consequences. This scoping review represents the first step towards a systematic assessment of the unintended benefits and harms of international travel measures during COVID-19. The key research gaps identified might be filled with targeted primary research, as well as the additional consideration of gray literature and non-empirical studies.
| S-EPMC8436381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the adoption of international travel measures during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsTo comprehensively analyze the measures adopted, we constructed a dataset based on the WHO's Public Health and Social Measures (PHSM) database, which covered 252 countries, territories, or other areas (CTAs), including all 194 WHO Member States, from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2020. We examined the adoption of measures by type, over time, and by the implementing and targeted CTA, including their levels of income.FindingsWe identified 11,431 international travel measures implemented during the first year of the pandemic. The adoption of measures was rapid and widespread: over 60% of Member States had adopted a travel measure before the WHO declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020. Initially, health screening and travel restrictions were the most adopted measures; however, quarantine and testing became more widely adopted over time. Although only a small portion of the total measures adopted constituted full border closure, approximately half of all Member States implemented this measure. Many travel measures targeted all CTAs but were unlikely to have been adopted universally enough to provide public health benefits. Low-income countries relied more on more universal measures, including full border closure, and were slower in scaling up testing compared to higher-income countries.ConclusionThe adoption of international travel measures during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic varied across jurisdictions and over time. Lower-income countries used a different mix and scaled-up measures slower than higher-income countries. Understanding what measures were used is crucial for assessing their effectiveness in controlling the spread of COVID-19, reviewing the usefulness of the International Health Regulations, and informing future pandemic preparedness and response activities.
| S-EPMC11451053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale for reviewThis review aims to summarize the transmission patterns of influenza, its seasonality in different parts of the globe, air travel- and cruise ship-related influenza infections and interventions to reduce transmission.Key findingsThe seasonality of influenza varies globally, with peak periods occurring mainly between October and April in the northern hemisphere (NH) and between April and October in the southern hemisphere (SH) in temperate climate zones. However, influenza seasonality is significantly more variable in the tropics. Influenza is one of the most common travel-related, vaccine-preventable diseases and can be contracted during travel, such as during a cruise or through air travel. Additionally, travellers can come into contact with people from regions with ongoing influenza transmission. Current influenza immunization schedules in the NH and SH leave individuals susceptible during their respective spring and summer months if they travel to the other hemisphere during that time.Conclusions/recommendationsThe differences in influenza seasonality between hemispheres have substantial implications for the effectiveness of influenza vaccination of travellers. Health care providers should be aware of influenza activity when patients report travel plans, and they should provide alerts and advise on prevention, diagnostic and treatment options. To mitigate the risk of travel-related influenza, interventions include antivirals for self-treatment (in combination with the use of rapid self-tests), extending the shelf life of influenza vaccines to enable immunization during the summer months for international travellers and allowing access to the influenza vaccine used in the opposite hemisphere as a travel-related vaccine. With the currently available vaccines, the most important preventive measure involves optimizing the seasonal influenza vaccination. It is also imperative that influenza is recognized as a travel-related illness among both travellers and health care professionals.
| S-EPMC11758160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuided by the best practices adapted from national and international bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the UK Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC), this paper aims to develop and provide an empirical risk stratification and assessment framework for advancing the safe resumption of global travel during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodVariables included in our model are categorized into four pillars: (i) incidence of cases, (ii) reliability of case data, (iii) vaccination, and (iv) variant surveillance. These measures are combined based on weights that reflect their corresponding importance in risk assessment within the context of the pandemic to calculate the risk score for each country. As a validation step, the outcome of the risk stratification from our model is compared against four countries.ResultsOur model is found to have good agreement with these benchmarked risk designations for 27 out of the top 30 countries with the strongest travel ties to Malaysia (90%). Each factor within this model signifies its importance and can be adapted by governing bodies to address the changing needs of border control policies for the recommencement of international travel.ConclusionIn practice, the proposed model provides a turnkey solution for nations to manage transmission risk by enabling stakeholders to make informed, evidence-based decisions to minimize fluctuations of imported cases and serves as a structure to support the improvement, planning, and activation of public health control measures.
| S-EPMC8949657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPlanning for a possible influenza pandemic is an extremely high priority, as social and economic effects of an unmitigated pandemic would be devastating. Mathematical models can be used to explore different scenarios and provide insight into potential costs, benefits, and effectiveness of prevention and control strategies under consideration.Methods and findingsA stochastic, equation-based epidemic model is used to study global transmission of pandemic flu, including the effects of travel restrictions and vaccination. Economic costs of intervention are also considered. The distribution of First Passage Times (FPT) to the United States and the numbers of infected persons in metropolitan areas worldwide are studied assuming various times and locations of the initial outbreak. International air travel restrictions alone provide a small delay in FPT to the U.S. When other containment measures are applied at the source in conjunction with travel restrictions, delays could be much longer. If in addition, control measures are instituted worldwide, there is a significant reduction in cases worldwide and specifically in the U.S. However, if travel restrictions are not combined with other measures, local epidemic severity may increase, because restriction-induced delays can push local outbreaks into high epidemic season. The per annum cost to the U.S. economy of international and major domestic air passenger travel restrictions is minimal: on the order of 0.8% of Gross National Product.ConclusionsInternational air travel restrictions may provide a small but important delay in the spread of a pandemic, especially if other disease control measures are implemented during the afforded time. However, if other measures are not instituted, delays may worsen regional epidemics by pushing the outbreak into high epidemic season. This important interaction between policy and seasonality is only evident with a global-scale model. Since the benefit of travel restrictions can be substantial while their costs are minimal, dismissal of travel restrictions as an aid in dealing with a global pandemic seems premature.
| S-EPMC1855004 | biostudies-literature