Assessing the effectiveness of public health interventions for Covid-19 in Greece and Cyprus.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zahariadis N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9349912 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Assessing the effectiveness of public health interventions for Covid-19 in Greece and Cyprus.
Zahariadis Nikolaos N Exadaktylos Theofanis T Sparf Jörgen J Petridou Evangelia E Kyriakidis Alexandros A Papadopoulos Ioannis I
European policy analysis 20220726 3
In this article, we statistically examine the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the national governments of Greece and Cyprus during 2020 to (a) limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and (b) mitigate the economic fallout brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. Applying a modified health belief model, we hypothesize that behavioral outcomes at the policy level are a function of NPIs, perceived severity, and social context. We employ a Prais-Winsten estima ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn dealing with community spread of COVID-19, two active interventions have been attempted or advocated-containment, and mitigation. Given the extensive impact of COVID-19 globally, there is international interest to learn from best practices that have been shown to work in controlling community spread to inform future outbreaks. This study explores the trajectory of COVID-19 infection in Singapore had the government intervention not focused on containment, but rather on mitigation. In addition, we estimate the actual COVID-19 infection cases in Singapore, given that confirmed cases are publicly available.Methods and findingsWe developed a COVID-19 infection model, which is a modified SIR model that differentiate between detected (diagnosed) and undetected (undiagnosed) individuals and segments total population into seven health states: susceptible (S), infected asymptomatic undiagnosed (A), infected asymptomatic diagnosed (I), infected symptomatic undiagnosed (U), infected symptomatic diagnosed (E), recovered (R), and dead (D). To account for the infection stages of the asymptomatic and symptomatic infected individuals, the asymptomatic infected individuals were further disaggregated into three infection stages: (a) latent (b) infectious and (c) non-infectious; while the symptomatic infected were disaggregated into two stages: (a) infectious and (b) non-infectious. The simulation result shows that by the end of the current epidemic cycle without considering the possibility of a second wave, under the containment intervention implemented in Singapore, the confirmed number of Singaporeans infected with COVID-19 (diagnosed asymptomatic and symptomatic cases) is projected to be 52,053 (with 95% confidence range of 49,370-54,735) representing 0.87% (0.83%-0.92%) of the total population; while the actual number of Singaporeans infected with COVID-19 (diagnosed and undiagnosed asymptomatic and symptomatic infected cases) is projected to be 86,041 (81,097-90,986), which is 1.65 times the confirmed cases and represents 1.45% (1.36%-1.53%) of the total population. A peak in infected cases is projected to have occurred on around day 125 (27/05/2020) for the confirmed infected cases and around day 115 (17/05/2020) for the actual infected cases. The number of deaths is estimated to be 37 (34-39) among those infected with COVID-19 by the end of the epidemic cycle; consequently, the perceived case fatality rate is projected to be 0.07%, while the actual case fatality rate is estimated to be 0.043%. Importantly, our simulation model results suggest that there about 65% more COVID-19 infection cases in Singapore that have not been captured in the official reported numbers which could be uncovered via a serological study. Compared to the containment intervention, a mitigation intervention would have resulted in early peak infection, and increase both the cumulative confirmed and actual infection cases and deaths.ConclusionEarly public health measures in the context of targeted, aggressive containment including swift and effective contact tracing and quarantine, was likely responsible for suppressing the number of COVID-19 infections in Singapore.
| S-EPMC8009429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly affected the well-being of individuals worldwide. We herein describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 in the Republic of Cyprus during the first epidemic wave (9 March-3 May 2020). We analyzed surveillance data from laboratory-confirmed cases, including targeted testing and population screening. Statistical analyses included logistic regression. During the surveillance period, 64,136 tests (7322.3 per 100,000) were performed, 873 COVID-19 cases were diagnosed, and 20 deaths were reported (2.3%). Health-care workers (HCWs) represented 21.4% of cases. Overall, 19.1% of cases received hospital care and 3.7% required admission to Intensive Care Units. Male sex (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 3.04; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.97-4.69), increasing age (aOR: 1.56; 95%CI: 1.36-1.79), symptoms at diagnosis (aOR: 6.05; 95%CI: 3.18-11.50), and underlying health conditions (aOR: 2.08; 95%CI: 1.31-3.31) were associated with hospitalization. For recovered cases, the median time from first to last second negative test was 21 days. Overall, 119 primary cases reported 616 close contacts, yielding a pooled secondary attack rate of 12% (95%CI: 9.6-14.8%). Three population-based screening projects, and two projects targeting employees and HCWs, involving 25,496 people, revealed 60 positive individuals (0.2%). Early implementation of interventions with targeted and expanded testing facilitated prompt outbreak control on the island.
| S-EPMC7695263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Interventions (NPHIs) have been used by different countries to control the spread of the COVID-19. Despite available evidence regarding the effectiveness of NPHSs, there is still no consensus about how policymakers can trust these results. Studies on the effectiveness of NPHSs are single studies conducted in specific communities. Therefore, they cannot individually prove if these interventions have been effective in reducing the spread of the infection and its adverse health outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to examine the effects of NPHIs on the COVID-19 case growth rate, death growth rate, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and reproduction number in countries, where NPHIs have been implemented. We searched relevant electronic databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, etc. from late December 2019 to February 1, 2021. The key terms were primarily drawn from Medical Subject Heading (MeSh and Emtree), literature review, and opinions of experts. Peer-reviewed quasi-experimental studies were included in the review. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020186855. Interventions were NPHIs categorized as lockdown, stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and other interventions (mask-wearing, contact tracing, and school closure). We used PRISMA 2020 guidance for abstracting the data and used Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Practice (EPOC) Risk of Bias Tool for quality appraisal of the studies. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model was performed. Main outcomes included COVID-19 case growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 mortality growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 ICU admission (percentage daily changes), and COVID-19 reproduction number changes. Our search strategies in major databases yielded 12,523 results, which decreased to 7,540 articles after eliminating duplicates. Finally, 35 articles qualified to be included in the systematic review among which 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Although studies were from both low-income and high-income countries, the majority of them were from the United States (13 studies) and China (five studies). Results of the meta-analysis showed that adoption of NPHIs has resulted in a 4.68% (95% CI, -6.94 to -2.78) decrease in daily case growth rates, 4.8% (95 CI, -8.34 to -1.40) decrease in daily death growth rates, 1.90 (95% CI, -2.23 to -1.58) decrease in the COVID-19 reproduction number, and 16.5% (95% CI, -19.68 to -13.32) decrease in COVID-19 daily ICU admission. A few studies showed that, early enforcement of lockdown, when the incidence rate is not high, contributed to a shorter duration of lockdown and a lower increase of the case growth rate in the post-lockdown era. The majority of NPHIs had positive effects on restraining the COVID-19 spread. With the problems that remain regarding universal access to vaccines and their effectiveness and considering the drastic impact of the nationwide lockdown and other harsh restrictions on the economy and people's life, such interventions should be mitigated by adopting other NPHIs such as mass mask-wearing, patient/suspected case isolation strategies, and contact tracing. Studies need to address the impact of NPHIs on the population's other health problems than COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8610259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked unprecedented public health and social measures (PHSM) by national and local governments, including border restrictions, school closures, mandatory facemask use and stay at home orders. Quantifying the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing disease transmission is key to rational policy making in response to the current and future pandemics. In order to estimate the effectiveness of these interventions, detailed descriptions of their timelines, scale and scope are needed. The Health Intervention Tracking for COVID-19 (HIT-COVID) is a curated and standardized global database that catalogues the implementation and relaxation of COVID-19 related PHSM. With a team of over 200 volunteer contributors, we assembled policy timelines for a range of key PHSM aimed at reducing COVID-19 risk for the national and first administrative levels (e.g. provinces and states) globally, including details such as the degree of implementation and targeted populations. We continue to maintain and adapt this database to the changing COVID-19 landscape so it can serve as a resource for researchers and policymakers alike.
| S-EPMC7453020 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8385050 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the rigorous investigation of the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy and refusal during the COVID-19 pandemic, the socioeconomic determinants of this phenomenon remain poorly investigated on a global scale. Following proportional quota sampling, we conducted a population-based cross-sectional study. We recruited participants on-site and online from different settings, regions, and socioeconomic strata in two Eastern Mediterranean populations, Greece and Cyprus. Our approach provided a nationwide sample (n = 576) approaching the adult population structure of the two countries, with a slight underrepresentation of men and older people. Our results indicate clear socioeconomic differences in vaccine hesitancy and vaccination coverage, consistent with wider social inequalities in health. In particular, we reveal a clear socioeconomic gradient characterized by lower vaccine hesitancy and higher vaccination coverage, with increasing educational attainment and income. Additionally, participants residing in semi-urban areas show higher vaccine hesitancy and have lower vaccination coverage than those residing in urban and rural areas. Our results could inform Public Health approaches aiming to tackle the alarming phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy by enabling the targeting of population groups who are particularly vaccine-hesitant, rendering such approaches more targeted and effective while at the same time reducing inequalities in the control and prevention of infectious diseases.
| S-EPMC10459981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreaks on board cruise ships early in the pandemic highlighted gaps worldwide in public health emergency contingency plans (PHECPs) for responding to unknown threats. To restart cruise operations in 2021 and respond to potential COVID-19 outbreaks, a major tourist-based Greek island port (Port A) developed a COVID-19 PHECP. We assessed plan effectiveness by reviewing epidemiological data and monitoring outcomes, followed by an intra-action review (IAR) analyzing three event responses. From May to December 2021, 118 calls from 23 cruise ships with 119,930 passengers were recorded, with 29 COVID-19 cases in 11 cruises on board 7 ships. No outbreak was recorded during the study period. Strengths of the introduced PHECP included commitment of senior management; a core multi-disciplinary team of local authorities/ship agents involved in design and execution; interoperability agreements for port and ships' PHECPs; cruise industry commitment to compliance; and pre-existing scenarios considering capacity needs. Central government coordination for preparedness planning at local ports is essential for successful responses. Monitoring local and country level response capacities is critical to inform planning, risk assessment, and decision-making. Immediately recording ports' response actions provides the basis to capture lessons and improve contingency plans. To facilitate communication and common response protocols between European and non-European ports, IARs should be conducted between countries.
| S-EPMC9603745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWithout 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.Materials and methodsThis 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.DiscussionThe 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.Systematic review registrationCRD42020186855.
| S-EPMC7523985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented global public health challenge. In the United States (US), state governments have implemented various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as physical distance closure (lockdown), stay-at-home order, mandatory facial mask in public in response to the rapid spread of COVID-19. To evaluate the effectiveness of these NPIs, we propose a nested case-control design with propensity score weighting under the quasi-experiment framework to estimate the average intervention effect on disease transmission across states. We further develop a method to test for factors that moderate intervention effect to assist precision public health intervention. Our method takes account of the underlying dynamics of disease transmission and balance state-level pre-intervention characteristics. We prove that our estimator provides causal intervention effect under assumptions. We apply this method to analyze US COVID-19 incidence cases to estimate the effects of six interventions. We show that lockdown has the largest effect on reducing transmission and reopening bars significantly increase transmission. States with a higher percentage of non-white population are at greater risk of increased $R_t$ associated with reopening bars.
| S-EPMC8312897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented global public health challenge. In the United States (US), state governments have implemented various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as physical distance closure (lockdown), stay-at-home order, mandatory facial mask in public in response to the rapid spread of COVID-19. To evaluate the effectiveness of these NPIs, we propose a nested case-control design with propensity score weighting under the quasi-experiment framework to estimate the average intervention effect on disease transmission across states. We further develop a method to test for factors that moderate intervention effect to assist precision public health intervention. Our method takes account of the underlying dynamics of disease transmission and balance state-level pre-intervention characteristics. We prove that our estimator provides causal intervention effect under assumptions. We apply this method to analyze US COVID-19 incidence cases to estimate the effects of six interventions. We show that lockdown has the largest effect on reducing transmission and reopening bars significantly increase transmission. States with a higher percentage of non-White population are at greater risk of increased Rt$$ {R}_t $$ associated with reopening bars.
| S-EPMC9308645 | biostudies-literature