The effects of public health and social measures (PHSM) implemented during the COVID‐19 pandemic: An overview of systematic reviews
Fadlallah, Racha; El-Jardali, Fadi; Karroum, Lama Bou; Kalach, Nour; Hoteit, Reem; Aoun, Andrew; Al‐Hakim, Lara; Verdugo‐Paiva, Francisca; Rada, Gabriel; Fretheim, Atle; Lewin, Simon Arnold; Ludolph, Ramona; Akl, Elie A.
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Published version
View/ Open
Date
2024Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Abstract
Introduction: To systematically review the effectiveness and unintended health and
socioeconomic consequences of public health and social measures (PHSM) aimed at
reducing the scale and risk of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19).
Methods: This review followed guidance about overviews of reviews in the Cochrane
handbook for systematic reviews of interventions and used the Epistemonikos
database's COVID‐19 Living Overview of Evidence repository as a primary search
source. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess
Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) checklist.
Results: A total of 94 reviews were included, of which eight (9%) had “moderate” to
“high” confidence ratings on the AMSTAR 2. Of 16 reviews (17%) reporting applying
the GRADE framework, none found high certainty evidence for any of our outcomes
of interest. Across the 94 reviews, the most frequently examined PHSM were
personal protection (n = 18, 19%). Within multicomponent interventions, so‐called
“lockdown” was the most frequently examined component (n = 39, 41%). The most
frequently reported outcome category was non‐COVID‐19‐related health outcomes
(n = 58, 62%). Only five (5%) reviews reported on socioeconomic outcomes. Findings
from the eight reviews with moderate or high confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2 are
narratively summarized. There is low‐certainty evidence that multicomponent
interventions may reduce the transmission of COVID‐19 in different settings. For
active surveillance and response measures, low‐certainty evidence suggests that
routine testing of residents and staff in long‐term care facilities may reduce the
number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents. We found very
low‐certainty evidence about the effectiveness of personal protection measures, travel‐related control measures, and environmental measures. Unintended conse-
quences were rarely examined by those eight reviews.
Conclusion: We found predominantly low‐ to very low‐certainty evidence regarding
the effectiveness and unintended consequences of PHSM in controlling the risk and
scale of COVID‐19 transmission. There is a need to improve the conduct and
reporting of systematic reviews.