• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

两次新冠疫情期间六个国家的生态比较。

Ecological comparison of six countries in two waves of COVID-19.

机构信息

Department of Health Management, School of Health Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.

出版信息

Front Public Health. 2024 Feb 28;12:1277457. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1277457. eCollection 2024.

DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1277457
PMID:38481850
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10933017/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to provide experience and evidence support for countries to deal with similar public health emergencies such as COVID-19 by comparing and analyzing the measures taken by six countries in epidemic prevention and control.

METHODS

This study extracted public data on COVID-19 from the official website of various countries and used ecological comparative research methods to compare the specific situation of indicators such as daily tests per thousand people, stringency index, and total vaccinations per hundred people in countries.

RESULTS

The cumulative death toll in China, Germany and Australia was significantly lower than that in the United States, South Africa and Italy. Expanding the scale of testing has helped control the spread of the epidemic to some extent. When the epidemic situation is severe, the stringency index increases, and when the epidemic situation tends to ease, the stringency index decreases. Increased vaccination rates, while helping to build an immune barrier, still need to be used in conjunction with non-drug interventions.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of non-drug interventions and vaccine measures greatly affected the epidemic prevention and control effect. In responding to public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 epidemic, countries should draw on international experience, closely align with their national conditions, follow the laws of epidemiology, actively take non-drug intervention measures, and vigorously promote vaccine research and development and vaccination.

摘要

目的

通过比较和分析六个国家在疫情防控中采取的措施,为各国应对 COVID-19 等类似公共卫生突发事件提供经验和证据支持。

方法

本研究从各国官方网站提取 COVID-19 相关的公开数据,采用生态比较研究方法,比较各国每千人每日检测量、严格指数和每百人总接种量等指标的具体情况。

结果

中国、德国和澳大利亚的累计死亡人数明显低于美国、南非和意大利。扩大检测规模在一定程度上有助于控制疫情的传播。当疫情严重时,严格指数增加,当疫情趋于缓和时,严格指数降低。提高疫苗接种率虽然有助于建立免疫屏障,但仍需要与非药物干预措施结合使用。

结论

非药物干预和疫苗措施的实施对疫情防控效果影响较大。在应对 COVID-19 等公共卫生突发事件时,各国应借鉴国际经验,紧密结合国情,遵循流行病学规律,积极采取非药物干预措施,大力推进疫苗研发和接种。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65b1/10933017/0b6e9cee2a90/fpubh-12-1277457-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65b1/10933017/eeb552cd8591/fpubh-12-1277457-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65b1/10933017/b0412ef5052c/fpubh-12-1277457-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65b1/10933017/e9b6a6534f46/fpubh-12-1277457-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65b1/10933017/0b6e9cee2a90/fpubh-12-1277457-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65b1/10933017/eeb552cd8591/fpubh-12-1277457-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65b1/10933017/b0412ef5052c/fpubh-12-1277457-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65b1/10933017/e9b6a6534f46/fpubh-12-1277457-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/65b1/10933017/0b6e9cee2a90/fpubh-12-1277457-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Ecological comparison of six countries in two waves of COVID-19.两次新冠疫情期间六个国家的生态比较。
Front Public Health. 2024 Feb 28;12:1277457. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1277457. eCollection 2024.
2
Comparison Between China and Brazil in the Two Waves of COVID-19 Prevention and Control.中国和巴西在两次新冠疫情防控中的比较。
J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2022 Jun;12(2):168-181. doi: 10.1007/s44197-022-00036-6. Epub 2022 Mar 30.
3
Strategies comparison in response to the two waves of COVID-19 in the United States and India.美国和印度应对两次 COVID-19 浪潮的策略比较。
Int J Equity Health. 2022 Apr 29;21(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01666-9.
4
The stringency of the containment measures in response to COVID-19 inversely correlates with the overall disease occurrence over the epidemic wave.针对 COVID-19 的遏制措施的严格程度与疫情波期间的总疾病发生率呈反比。
Bratisl Lek Listy. 2022;123(9):601-617. doi: 10.4149/BLL_2022_098.
5
[Analysis of the development trend and severity of the COVID-19 panidemic in the global world].[全球新冠疫情的发展趋势与严重程度分析]
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2021 Jun 18;53(3):536-542. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.03.016.
6
Disparities and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine policies in three representative European countries.三个代表性欧洲国家的 COVID-19 疫苗政策的差异和效果。
Int J Equity Health. 2024 Jan 30;23(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12939-024-02110-w.
7
Evaluation of health system resilience in 60 countries based on their responses to COVID-19.基于各国对 COVID-19 的应对情况评估 60 个国家的卫生系统弹性。
Front Public Health. 2023 Jan 9;10:1081068. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1081068. eCollection 2022.
8
Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparison of Strategies in Six Countries.对新冠疫情的应对:六个国家的策略比较
Front Public Health. 2021 Sep 30;9:708496. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.708496. eCollection 2021.
9
Comparison of COVID-19 vaccine policies and their effectiveness in Korea, Japan, and Singapore.比较韩国、日本和新加坡的 COVID-19 疫苗政策及其效果。
Int J Equity Health. 2023 Oct 20;22(1):224. doi: 10.1186/s12939-023-02034-x.
10
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.

本文引用的文献

1
Key lessons from the COVID-19 public health response in Australia.澳大利亚应对新冠疫情公共卫生措施的关键经验教训。
Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2023 Jan;30:100616. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100616. Epub 2022 Oct 10.
2
Vulnerability of South African women workers in the COVID-19 pandemic.南非女性劳动者在新冠疫情中的脆弱性。
Front Public Health. 2022 Sep 9;10:964073. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.964073. eCollection 2022.
3
Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants and future pandemics.针对 SARS-CoV-2 变体和未来大流行的疫苗。
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2022 Oct;21(10):1363-1376. doi: 10.1080/14760584.2022.2110075. Epub 2022 Aug 12.
4
An Investigation on Chinese Public Acceptance of COVID-19 Prevention Measures.公众对新冠病毒肺炎预防措施的认可情况调查
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 22;19(9):5087. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095087.
5
A global picture: therapeutic perspectives for COVID-19.全球视角:COVID-19 的治疗展望。
Immunotherapy. 2022 Apr;14(5):351-371. doi: 10.2217/imt-2021-0168. Epub 2022 Feb 21.
6
The impact of health policies and vaccine rollout on the COVID-19 pandemic waves in Italy.卫生政策和疫苗接种推广对意大利新冠疫情浪潮的影响。
Health Policy Technol. 2022 Jun;11(2):100604. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100604. Epub 2022 Feb 15.
7
Policy design and state capacity in the COVID-19 emergency in Italy: if you are not prepared for the (un)expected, you can be only what you already are.意大利新冠疫情紧急状态下的政策设计与国家能力:如果你没有为(未)预料之事做好准备,那你就只能维持现状。
Policy Soc. 2020 Jun 25;39(3):326-344. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2020.1783790. eCollection 2020 Sep.
8
Policy style, consistency and the effectiveness of the policy mix in China's fight against COVID-19.中国抗击新冠疫情中的政策风格、一致性及政策组合的有效性
Policy Soc. 2020 Jun 30;39(3):309-325. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2020.1787627. eCollection 2020 Sep.
9
South Africa should be using all the COVID-19 vaccines available to it - urgently.南非应立即使用其可获得的所有新冠疫苗。
S Afr Med J. 2021 Mar 25;111(5):390-392. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i5.15716.
10
Aggressive containment, suppression, and mitigation of covid-19: lessons learnt from eight countries.积极管控、抑制和缓解 2019 冠状病毒病:八个国家的经验教训。
BMJ. 2021 Nov 28;375:e067508. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067508.