Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada.
Pandemics and Borders Project, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada.
Global Health. 2024 Aug 1;20(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12992-024-01064-6.
Assessment of the effective use of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic has focused on public health goals, namely limiting virus introduction and onward transmission. However, risk-based approaches includes the weighing of public health goals against potential social, economic and other secondary impacts. Advancing risk-based approaches thus requires fuller understanding of available evidence on such impacts.
We conducted a scoping review of existing studies of the social impacts of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying a standardized typology of travel measures, and five categories of social impact, we searched 9 databases across multiple disciplines spanning public health and the social sciences. We identified 26 studies for inclusion and reviewed their scope, methods, type of travel measure, and social impacts analysed.
The studies cover a diverse range of national settings with a strong focus on high-income countries. A broad range of populations are studied, hindered in their outbound or inbound travel. Most studies focus on 2020 when travel restrictions were widely introduced, but limited attention is given to the broader effects of their prolonged use. Studies primarily used qualitative or mixed methods, with adaptations to comply with public health measures. Most studies focused on travel restrictions, as one type of travel measure, often combined with domestic public health measures, making it difficult to determine their specific social impacts. All five categories of social impacts were observed although there was a strong emphasis on negative social impacts including family separation, decreased work opportunities, reduced quality of life, and inability to meet cultural needs. A small number of countries identified positive social impacts such as restored work-life balance and an increase in perceptions of safety and security.
While international travel measures were among the most controversial interventions applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, given their prolonged use and widespread impacts on individuals and populations, there remains limited study of their secondary impacts. If risk-based approaches are to be advanced, involving informed choices between public health and other policy goals, there is a need to better understand such impacts, including their differential impacts across diverse populations and settings.
对 COVID-19 大流行期间国际旅行措施的有效利用的评估侧重于公共卫生目标，即限制病毒的传入和传播。然而，基于风险的方法包括权衡公共卫生目标与潜在的社会、经济和其他次要影响。因此，推进基于风险的方法需要更全面地了解有关这些影响的现有证据。
我们对 COVID-19 大流行期间国际旅行措施的社会影响的现有研究进行了范围界定审查。我们应用旅行措施的标准化分类法和社会影响的五个类别，在多个学科的 9 个数据库中进行了搜索，涵盖了公共卫生和社会科学。我们确定了 26 项符合条件的研究，并审查了它们的范围、方法、旅行措施类型以及分析的社会影响。
这些研究涵盖了具有高度关注高收入国家的各种不同国家背景。研究对象包括了受到出入境旅行限制的广泛人群。大多数研究都集中在 2020 年旅行限制广泛实施的时候，但对其长期使用的更广泛影响关注有限。研究主要使用定性或混合方法，并根据公共卫生措施进行了调整。大多数研究侧重于旅行限制作为一种旅行措施，通常与国内公共卫生措施相结合，因此难以确定其具体的社会影响。观察到了所有五类社会影响，但重点是负面的社会影响，包括家庭分离、工作机会减少、生活质量下降以及无法满足文化需求。少数国家确定了积极的社会影响，例如恢复工作与生活的平衡以及对安全和保障的看法增加。
虽然国际旅行措施是 COVID-19 大流行期间实施的最具争议的干预措施之一，鉴于其长期使用和对个人和人群的广泛影响，但对其次要影响的研究仍然有限。如果要推进基于风险的方法，即在公共卫生和其他政策目标之间进行明智的选择，就需要更好地了解这些影响，包括它们在不同人群和环境中的差异影响。
