Patiño-Lugo Daniel F, Vélez Marcela, Velásquez Salazar Pamela, Vera-Giraldo Claudia Yaneth, Vélez Viviana, Marín Isabel Cristina, Ramírez Paola Andrea, Quintero Sebastián Pemberthy, Castrillón Martínez Esteban, Pineda Higuita Daniel Andrés, Henandez Gilma
Universidad de Antioquia, Unidad de Evidencia y Deliberación para la toma de Decisiones-UNED, Facultad de Medicina, Medellin Colombia.
Colomb Med (Cali). 2020 Jun 30;51(2):e4266. doi: 10.25100/cm.v51i2.4266.
The best scientific evidence is required to design effective Non-pharmaceutical interventions to help policymakers to contain COVID-19.
To describe which Non-pharmaceutical interventions used different countries and a when they use them. It also explores how Non-pharmaceutical interventions impact the number of cases, the mortality, and the capacity of health systems.
We consulted eight web pages of transnational organizations, 17 of international media, 99 of government institutions in the 19 countries included, and besides, we included nine studies (out of 34 identified) that met inclusion criteria.
Some countries are focused on establishing travel restrictions, isolation of identified cases, and high-risk people. Others have a combination of mandatory quarantine and other drastic social distancing measures. The timing to implement the interventions varied from the first fifteen days after detecting the first case to more than 30 days. The effectiveness of isolated non-pharmaceutical interventions may be limited, but combined interventions have shown to be effective in reducing the transmissibility of the disease, the collapse of health care services, and mortality. When the number of new cases has been controlled, it is necessary to maintain social distancing measures, self-isolation, and contact tracing for several months. The policy decision-making in this time should be aimed to optimize the opportunities of saving lives, reducing the collapse of health services, and minimizing the economic and social impact over the general population, but principally over the most vulnerable. The timing of implementing and lifting interventions could have a substantial effect on those objectives.
设计有效的非药物干预措施需要最佳科学证据,以帮助政策制定者控制新冠疫情。
描述不同国家使用了哪些非药物干预措施以及何时使用。还探讨非药物干预措施如何影响病例数、死亡率和卫生系统的能力。
我们查阅了19个国家的8个跨国组织网页、17个国际媒体网页、99个政府机构网页,此外,我们纳入了符合纳入标准的9项研究(在34项已识别研究中)。
一些国家专注于实施旅行限制、隔离确诊病例和高风险人群。其他国家则采取了强制隔离和其他严格的社交距离措施相结合的方式。实施干预措施的时间从发现首例病例后的前15天到超过30天不等。单独的非药物干预措施的效果可能有限,但联合干预措施已显示出在降低疾病传播性、医疗服务崩溃和死亡率方面是有效的。当新增病例数得到控制后,有必要在几个月内维持社交距离措施、自我隔离和接触者追踪。此时的政策决策应旨在优化拯救生命的机会、减少医疗服务崩溃,并将对普通民众,尤其是最弱势群体的经济和社会影响降至最低。实施和解除干预措施的时机可能对这些目标产生重大影响。