There has been much discussion recently about the importance of implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to protect the public from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Different governments across the world have adopted NPIs (e.g., social distancing, quarantine, isolation, lockdowns, curfews, travel restrictions, closures of schools and colleges). Two fundamental strategies, namely a strict containment strategy—also called suppression strategy—and a mitigation strategy have been adopted in different countries, mainly to reduce the reproduction number (R0) to below one and hence to reduce case numbers to low levels or eliminate human-to-human transmission, as well as to use NPIs to interrupt transmission completely and to reduce the health impact of epidemics, respectively. However, the adoption of these NPI strategies is varied and the factors impacting NPI are inconsistent and unclear. This study, therefore, aimed to review the factors associated with the implementation of NPIs (social distancing, social isolation and quarantine) for reducing COVID-19. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched for published and unpublished studies, undertaking a systematic search of: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research, WHO database on COVID-19, and Google Scholar. Thirty-three studies were included in the study. Seven descriptive themes emerged on enablers and barriers to NPIs: the positive impact of NPIs, effective public health interventions, positive change in people’s behaviour and concerns about COVID-19, the role of mass media, physical and psychological impacts, and ethnicity/age associated with COVID-19. This study has highlighted that the effectiveness of NPIs in isolation is likely to be limited, therefore, a combination of multiple measures e.g., SD, isolation and quarantine, and workplace distancing appeared more effective in reducing COVID-19. Studies suggest that targeted approaches alongside social distancing might be the way forward, and more acceptable. Further research to promote country- and context-specific adoption of NPIs to deliver public health measures is needed. Studies comparing the effectiveness of interventions and strategies will help provide more evidence for future pandemics.

Objectives The level of detail included when describing nailfold videocapillaroscopy (NVC) methods varies among research studies, making interpretation and comparison of results challenging. The overarching objective of the present study was to seek consensus on the reporting standards in NVC methodology for clinical research in rheumatic diseases and to propose a pragmatic reporting checklist. Methods Based on the items derived from a systematic review focused on this topic, a three-step web-based Delphi consensus on minimum reporting standards in NVC was performed among members of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) Study Group on Microcirculation in Rheumatic Diseases and the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium. Results A total of 319 articles were selected by the systematic review, and 46 items were proposed in the Delphi process. This Delphi exercise was completed by 80 participants from 31 countries, including Australia and countries within Asia, Europe, North America and South America. Agreement was reached on items covering three main areas: patient preparation before NVC (15 items), device description (5 items) and examination details (13 items). Conclusion Based on the available evidence, the description of NVC methods was highly heterogeneous in the identified studies and differed markedly on several items. A reporting checklist of 33 items, based on practical suggestions made (using a Delphi process) by international participants, has been developed to provide guidance to improve and standardize the NVC methodology to be applied in future clinical research studies.

IntroductionImplementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) protect the public from COVID-19. However, the impact of NPIs has been inconsistent and remains unclear. This study, therefore, aims to measure the impact of major NPIs (social distancing, social isolation and quarantine) on reducing COVID-19 transmission.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis research of both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. We will undertake a systematic search of: MEDLINE, Embase, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research, WHO database on COVID-19, ClinicalTrails.Gov for clinical trials on COVID-19, Cochrane Resources on Coronavirus (COVID-19), Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service and Google Scholar for published and unpublished literatures on COVID-19 including preprint engines such as medRxiv, bioRxiv, Litcovid and SSRN for unpublished studies on COVID-19 and will be reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Outcomes of interest for impact analysis will include the reduction of COVID-19 transmission, avoiding crowds and restricting movement, isolating ill and psychological impacts. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. For quality of included studies, we will use the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will grade the certainty of the evidence for all outcome measures across studies. Random-effects model for meta-analysis will measure the effect size of NPIs or the strengths of relationships. For quantitative data, risk ratio or OR, absolute risk difference (for dichotomous outcome data), or mean difference or standardised mean difference (for continuous data) and their 95% CIs will be calculated. Where statistical pooling is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted for the included studies. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects will be evaluated to provide the true effects in the analysis.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval from an institutional review board or research ethics committee is not required as primary data will not be collected. The final results of this study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences or workshops. We will also share important information with public health authorities as well as with the WHO. In addition, we may post the submitted manuscript under review to medRxiv, or other relevant preprint servers.Trial registration numberCRD42020207338.

Introduction: Social distancing measures (SDMs) protect public health from the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the impact of SDMs has been inconsistent and unclear. This study aims to assess the effects of SDMs (e.g. isolation, quarantine) for reducing the transmission of COVID-19. Methods and analysis: We will conduct a systematic review meta-analysis research of both randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research and WHO database on COVID-19 for primary studies assessing the enablers and barriers associated with SDMs, and will be reported in accordance with PRISMA statement. The PRISMA-P checklist will be used while preparing this protocol. We will use Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines (JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists) to assess the methodological qualities and synthesised performing thematic analysis. Two reviewers will independently screen the papers and extracted data. If sufficient data are available, the random-effects model for meta-analysis will be performed to measure the effect size of SDMs or the strengths of relationships. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects (Q-value, with degrees of freedom) will be used to provide the true effects in the analysis. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval and consent will not be required for this systematic review of the literature as it does not involve human participation. We will be able to disseminate the study findings using the following strategies: we will be publishing at least one paper in peer-reviewed journals, and an abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences or workshops. We will also share important information with public health authorities as well as with the World Health Organization.

Background: Social distancing measures (SDMs) protect the health of the public from coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, the impact of SDMs has been inconsistent and unclear. This study aims to review the factors impacting SDMs (e.g. isolation, quarantine) for reducing the transmission of COVID-19.Methods: A systematic review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research and WHO database on COVID-19 for primary studies assessing the enablers and barriers associated with SDMs, and reported in accordance with PRISMA statement. We used JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for the cross-sectional survey and Qualitative Research to assess the methodological qualities and synthesised performing thematic analysis. Two reviewers independently screened the papers and extracted data.Results: A total of 1235 citations were identified, of which 16 were found to be relevant. The studies reported in two broad categories, under seven separate themes: positive impact of SDMs, effective public health interventions, positive change in people’s behaviour, worries and concerns about COVID-19, roles of mass media, physical and psychological impacts, and ethnicity/age associated with COVID-19.Conclusion: The identified evidence signals that SDMs are generally effective for preventing or reducing transmission. There is a scope and need to find the best methods and approaches at the primary healthcare level in terms of developing objective measures and interventions to establish the link between different factors and SDMs and reducing transmission of COVID-19 trend effectively, efficiently and equitably.