Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Interventions (NPHIs) have been used by different countries to control the spread of the COVID-19. Despite available evidence regarding the effectiveness of NPHSs, there is still no consensus about how policymakers can trust these results. Studies on the effectiveness of NPHSs are single studies conducted in specific communities. Therefore, they cannot individually prove if these interventions have been effective in reducing the spread of the infection and its adverse health outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to examine the effects of NPHIs on the COVID-19 case growth rate, death growth rate, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and reproduction number in countries, where NPHIs have been implemented. We searched relevant electronic databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, etc. from late December 2019 to February 1, 2021. The key terms were primarily drawn from Medical Subject Heading (MeSh and Emtree), literature review, and opinions of experts. Peer-reviewed quasi-experimental studies were included in the review. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020186855. Interventions were NPHIs categorized as lockdown, stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and other interventions (mask-wearing, contact tracing, and school closure). We used PRISMA 2020 guidance for abstracting the data and used Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Practice (EPOC) Risk of Bias Tool for quality appraisal of the studies. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model was performed. Main outcomes included COVID-19 case growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 mortality growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 ICU admission (percentage daily changes), and COVID-19 reproduction number changes. Our search strategies in major databases yielded 12,523 results, which decreased to 7,540 articles after eliminating duplicates. Finally, 35 articles qualified to be included in the systematic review among which 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Although studies were from both low-income and high-income countries, the majority of them were from the United States (13 studies) and China (five studies). Results of the meta-analysis showed that adoption of NPHIs has resulted in a 4.68% (95% CI, -6.94 to -2.78) decrease in daily case growth rates, 4.8% (95 CI, -8.34 to -1.40) decrease in daily death growth rates, 1.90 (95% CI, -2.23 to -1.58) decrease in the COVID-19 reproduction number, and 16.5% (95% CI, -19.68 to -13.32) decrease in COVID-19 daily ICU admission. A few studies showed that, early enforcement of lockdown, when the incidence rate is not high, contributed to a shorter duration of lockdown and a lower increase of the case growth rate in the post-lockdown era. The majority of NPHIs had positive effects on restraining the COVID-19 spread. With the problems that remain regarding universal access to vaccines and their effectiveness and considering the drastic impact of the nationwide lockdown and other harsh restrictions on the economy and people’s life, such interventions should be mitigated by adopting other NPHIs such as mass mask-wearing, patient/suspected case isolation strategies, and contact tracing. Studies need to address the impact of NPHIs on the population’s other health problems than COVID-19.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The initial purpose of healthcare systems around the world is to promote and maintain the health of the population. Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is a new approach by which a healthcare system can reach its goals. World Health Organization (WHO) emphasized maximum population coverage, health service coverage, and financial protection, as three dimensions of UHC. In progress for achieving UHC, recognizing the influential factors allows us to accelerate such progress. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the influential factors to achieve UHC in Iran. Methods This is a multi-method study was conducted in four phases: First, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify the factors in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest, Cochrane library, and Science Direct databases, and hand searching google scholar search engine. For recognizing the unmentioned factors, a qualitative study consisting of one session of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and five semi-structured interviews with experts was designed. The extracted factors were merged and categorized by round table discussion. Finally, the pre-categorized factors were refined and re-categorized under the health system’s control knobs framework during three expert panel sessions. Results Finally, 33 studies were included. Eight hundred two factors were extracted through systematic review and 96 factors through FGD and interviews (totally, 898). After refining them by the experts’ panel, 105 factors were categorized within the control knob framework (financing 19, payment system7, Organization 23, regulation and supervision 33, Behavior 11, and Others 12). The majority of the identified factors were related to the “regulation and supervision” dimension, whilst the “payment system” entailed the fewest. The political commitment during political turmoil, excessive attention to the treatment, referral system, paying out of pocket(OOP) and protection against high costs, economic growth, sanctions, conflict of interests, weakness of the information system, prioritization of services, health system fragmented, lack of managerial support and lack of standard benefits packages were identified as the leading factors on the way to UHC. Conclusion Considering the distinctive role of the context in policymaking, the identification of the factors affecting UHC accompanying by the countries’ experiences about UHC, can boost our speed toward it. Moreover, adopting a long-term plan toward UHC based on these factors and the robust implementation of it pave the way for Iran to achieve better outcomes comparing to their efforts.

Background Without any pharmaceutical intervention and vaccination, the only way to combat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is to slow down the spread of the disease by adopting nonpharmaceutical public health interventions (PHIs). Patient isolation, lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, changes in health care provision, and mass screening are the most common non-pharmaceutical PHIs to cope with the epidemic. However, there is neither systematic evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the COVID-19 nor on how these interventions work in different contexts. Therefore, in this study we will address two main objectives: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19 using a systematic review and meta-analyses; 2) to explore why, how, and for whom these interventions work using a realist review. Materials and methods This review study has two main phases. In the first phase of this study, we will extract data from two main types of studies including quasi-experimental studies (such as quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs)) and observational studies (such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies), written in the English language. We will explore effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs targeted either suppression or mitigation strategies (or a combination of both) in controlling the COVID-19 epidemics in the community level. Effectiveness will be considered as the changes in mortality rate, incidence rate, basic reproduction number rate, morbidity rate, rates of hospitalization, rates of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and other health This is a Registered Report and may have an associated publication; please check the article page on the journal site for any related articles.