Suppr超能文献

非药物干预措施对 COVID-19 传播的影响:来自意大利、美国、英国和中国的证据快速审查。

Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission: rapid review of evidence from Italy, the United States, the United Kingdom, and China.

机构信息

RAND Corporation, Boston, MA, United States.

Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, United States.

出版信息

Front Public Health. 2024 Oct 17;12:1426992. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1426992. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Prior to the development of COVID-19 vaccines, policymakers instituted various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to limit transmission. Prior studies have attempted to examine the extent to which these NPIs achieved their goals of containment, suppression, or mitigation of disease transmission. Existing evidence syntheses have found that numerous factors limit comparability across studies, and the evidence on NPI effectiveness during COVID-19 pandemic remains sparse and inconsistent. This study documents the magnitude and variation in NPI effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 transmission (i.e., reduction in effective reproduction rate [R] and daily contact rate) in Italy, the United States, the United Kingdom, and China.

METHODS

Our rapid review and narrative synthesis of existing research identified 126 studies meeting our screening criteria. We selected four contexts with >5 articles to facilitate a meaningful synthesis. This step yielded an analytic sample of 61 articles that used data from China, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

RESULTS

We found wide variation and substantial uncertainty around the effectiveness of NPIs at reducing disease transmission. Studies of a single intervention or NPIs that are the least stringent had estimated Reff reductions in the 10-50% range; those that examined so-called "lockdowns" were associated with greater Reff reductions that ranged from 40 to 90%, with many in the 70-80% range. While many studies reported on multiple NPIs, only six of the 61 studies explicitly used the framing of "stringency" or "mild versus strict" or "tiers" of NPIs, concepts that are highly relevant for decisionmakers.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence suggests that NPIs reduce COVID-19 transmission by 40 to 90 percent. This paper documents the extent of the variation in NPI effectiveness estimates and highlights challenges presented by a lack of standardization in modeling approaches. Further research on NPI effectiveness at different stringency levels is needed to inform policy responses to future pandemics.

摘要

背景

在 COVID-19 疫苗开发之前,政策制定者实施了各种非药物干预措施(NPIs)以限制传播。先前的研究试图检查这些 NPIs 在多大程度上实现了遏制、抑制或减轻疾病传播的目标。现有证据综合表明,许多因素限制了研究之间的可比性,而 COVID-19 大流行期间 NPI 有效性的证据仍然很少且不一致。本研究记录了意大利、美国、英国和中国实施非药物干预措施减少 COVID-19 传播的效果(即有效繁殖率[R]和每日接触率的降低)的程度和变化。

方法

我们对现有研究进行了快速审查和叙述性综合,确定了符合我们筛选标准的 126 项研究。我们选择了四个有>5 篇文章的背景来促进有意义的综合。这一步得到了一个分析样本,其中包含 61 篇使用来自中国、意大利、英国和美国的数据的文章。

结果

我们发现,非药物干预措施在减少疾病传播方面的效果存在很大差异和很大的不确定性。对单一干预措施或最不严格的 NPIs 的研究估计 Reff 减少了 10-50%;那些研究所谓的“封锁”的研究与更大的 Reff 减少有关,范围从 40%到 90%,许多在 70-80%范围内。虽然许多研究报告了多种 NPIs,但只有 61 项研究中的 6 项明确使用了“严格程度”或“宽松与严格”或“层次”的 NPIs 框架,这些概念对决策者非常重要。

结论

现有证据表明,NPIs 可将 COVID-19 传播减少 40-90%。本文记录了 NPI 效果估计的变化程度,并强调了建模方法缺乏标准化带来的挑战。需要进一步研究不同严格程度的 NPI 效果,以为未来大流行的政策应对提供信息。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97cf/11524874/27a15e8a3fb3/fpubh-12-1426992-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验