Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35090570›Full record

ArticleInfectious diseases of poverty2022

Feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against infectious diseases among crisis-affected populations: a scoping review.

Jonathan A Polonsky, Sangeeta Bhatia, Keith Fraser, Arran Hamlet, Janetta Skarp, Isaac J Stopard, Stéphane Hugonnet, Laurent Kaiser, Christian Lengeler, Karl Blanchet and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious diseases of poverty, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jonathan A Polonsky *World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. polonskyj@who.int.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8634-4255
Sangeeta Bhatia *MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Keith Fraser *MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Arran Hamlet *MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Janetta Skarp *MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Isaac J Stopard *MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Stéphane HugonnetWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Laurent KaiserInstitute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Christian LengelerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Karl BlanchetGeneva Centre of Humanitarian Studies, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Paul SpiegelCenter for Humanitarian Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1Natural Environment Research Council NE/P012345/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 215163/Z/18/ZWellcome Trust 219415World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are a crucial suite of measures to prevent and control infectious disease outbreaks. Despite being particularly important for crisis-affected populations and those living in informal settlements, who typically reside in overcrowded and resource limited settings with inadequate access to healthcare, guidance on NPI implementation rarely takes the specific needs of such populations into account. We therefore conducted a systematic scoping review of the published evidence to describe the landscape of research and identify evidence gaps concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs among crisis-affected populations and informal settlements.

methodsWe systematically reviewed peer-reviewed articles published between 1970 and 2020 to collate available evidence on the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of NPIs in crisis-affected populations and informal settlements. We performed quality assessments of each study using a standardised questionnaire. We analysed the data to produce descriptive summaries according to a number of categories: date of publication; geographical region of intervention; typology of crisis, shelter, modes of transmission, NPI, research design; study design; and study quality.

resultsOur review included 158 studies published in 85 peer-reviewed articles. Most research used low quality study designs. The acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs was highly context dependent. In general, simple and cost-effective interventions such as community-level environmental cleaning and provision of water, sanitation and hygiene services, and distribution of items for personal protection such as insecticide-treated nets, were both highly feasible and acceptable. Logistical, financial, and human resource constraints affected both the implementation and sustainability of measures. Community engagement emerged as a strong factor contributing to the effectiveness of NPIs. Conversely, measures that involve potential restriction on personal liberty such as case isolation and patient care and burial restrictions were found to be less acceptable, despite apparent effectiveness.

conclusionsOverall, the evidence base was variable, with substantial knowledge gaps which varied between settings and pathogens. Based on the current landscape, robust evidence-based guidance is not possible, and a research agenda is urgently required that focusses on these specific vulnerable populations. Although implementation of NPIs presents unique practical challenges in these settings, it is critical that such an agenda is put in place, and that the lessons learned from historical and present experiences are documented to build a firm evidence base.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesDisease OutbreaksFeasibility StudiesHumansHygienePatient CareCommunicable disease controlDisastersDisease outbreaksPoverty areasPrevention & controlRelief workVulnerable populationsWarfare and armed conflicts

Identifiers

PMID35090570
PMCPMC8796190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.