ArticlePloS one2020
Effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical public health interventions against COVID-19; a protocol of a systematic review and realist review.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for controlling communicable diseases in Afghanistan: a realist review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of KAP toward COVID-19 in Chinese residents.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence of hypertension and associated risks in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis of meta-analyses with 1468 studies and 1,281,510 patients.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions against COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- COVID-19 transmission between the community and meat processing plants in Ireland: A retrospective modelling study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- A pandemic momentum index to manage the spread of COVID-19.Technological forecasting and social change · 2023Article
- Relationship between health literacy and COVID-19 knowledge: A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Can the Content of Social Networks Explain Epidemic Outbreaks?Population research and policy review · 2023Article
- Non-Pharmacologic Interventions in COVID-19 Pandemic Management; a Systematic Review.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2023Review
- Lifestyle and preventive behaviors among adults during the early phase of the COVID-19 movement control order (MCO) in Malaysia.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- COVID-19 isolation/quarantine rules in home care patients.Epidemiology and infection · 2022Article
- The race Against Time to Save Human Lives During the COVID-19 With Vaccines: Global Evidence.Evaluation review · 2022Article
- Prevalence and Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in South East Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1,166,275 Respondents.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Review
- Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol of randomised trials.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Dual-Gendered Leadership: Gender-Inclusive Scientific-Political Public Health Communication Supporting Government COVID-19 Responses in Atlantic Canada.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Reporting at Least One Adverse Effect Post-COVID-19 Vaccination From Primary Health Care in Muscat.Cureus · 2021Article
- The Impact of Health Literacy on Knowledge and Attitudes towards Preventive Strategies against COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The short-term impacts of coronavirus quarantine in São Paulo: The health-economy trade-offs.PloS one · 2021Article
- Grappling with COVID-19 by imposing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions in Sri Lanka: A modeling perspective.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2021Article
- Responding to a Pandemic Through Social and Behavior Change Communication: Nigeria's Experience.Health securityArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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. DISCUSSION: The 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 REGISTRATION: CRD42020186855.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.