Background In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) was recognized in Wuhan, China. It was characterised by rapid spread causing a pandemic. Multiple public health interventions have been implemented worldwide to decrease the transmission of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the implemented public health interventions to control the spread of the outbreak of COVID-19. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Science Direct and MedRxiv for relevant articles published in English up to March 16, 2021. We included quasi experimental studies, clinical trials, cohort studies, longitudinal studies, case-control studies and interrupted time series. We included the studies that investigated the effect of the implemented public health measures to prevent and control the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Results The database search using the predefined combinations of Mesh terms found 13,497 studies of which 3595 in PubMed, 7393 in Science Direct 2509 preprints in MedRxiv. After removal of the duplicates and the critical reading only 18 articles were included in this systematic review and processed for data extraction. Conclusions Public health interventions and non-pharmaceutical measurements were effective in decreasing the transmission of COVID-19. The included studies showed that travel restrictions, borders measures, quarantine of travellers arriving from affected countries, city lockdown, restrictions of mass gathering, isolation and quarantine of confirmed cases and close contacts, social distancing measures, compulsory mask wearing, contact tracing and testing, school closures and personal protective equipment use among health workers were effective in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.

Background The aim of our study was to determine through a systematic review and meta-analysis the incubation period of COVID-19. It was conducted based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Criteria for eligibility were all published population-based primary literature in PubMed interface and the Science Direct, dealing with incubation period of COVID-19, written in English, since December 2019 to December 2020. We estimated the mean of the incubation period using meta-analysis, taking into account between-study heterogeneity, and the analysis with moderator variables. Results This review included 42 studies done predominantly in China. The mean and median incubation period were of maximum 8 days and 12 days respectively. In various parametric models, the 95th percentiles were in the range 10.3–16 days. The highest 99th percentile would be as long as 20.4 days. Out of the 10 included studies in the meta-analysis, 8 were conducted in China, 1 in Singapore, and 1 in Argentina. The pooled mean incubation period was 6.2 (95% CI 5.4, 7.0) days. The heterogeneity (I2 77.1%; p < 0.001) was decreased when we included the study quality and the method of calculation used as moderator variables (I2 0%). The mean incubation period ranged from 5.2 (95% CI 4.4 to 5.9) to 6.65 days (95% CI 6.0 to 7.2). Conclusions This work provides additional evidence of incubation period for COVID-19 and showed that it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic.

No abstract

Background People's lives were seriously affected by the emergence and the spread of the COVID-19 disease. Several vaccines were developed in record time to overcome this pandemic. However, putting an end to this public health problem requires substantial vaccination coverage rate. This latter depends on the acceptance of these vaccines especially by health professionals; the leaders of the current war against COVID-19. In fact, they have a central role in promoting vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2. In the developed countries, hesitancy rates towards these vaccines among health professionals vary from 4.3% to 72%. In the developing countries, few studies focused on this issue. Objective To estimate the prevalence and the predictors of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy among the Tunisian health professionals. Methods A cross-sectional study was led online between the 7th and the 21th of January 2021 among Tunisian health professionals. At least 460 participants were required. Snowball sampling method served to recruit participants. Data were collected using a pre-established and pre-tested questionnaire recorded in a free Google form. The link of the questionnaire was disseminated online to be self-administered anonymously to the participants. The generated online Google Sheet was uploaded and exported to SPSS software for analysis. Results Of the 546 responses, 493 were retained. The mean age of participants was 37.4 (± 9.5) years. Females represented 70.2% of participants. Social media represented the most frequently used source of information about COVID-19. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy among participants was 51.9% (95% CI: 47.5–56.3)). Female sex, working far from the capital and having concerns about the vaccines components predicted more hesitancy among participants. In contrast, the use of the national COVID-19 information website predicted less hesitancy among them. Conclusions The current Tunisian communication plan about COVID-19 vaccines must be reinforced. Social media represent a cost effective communication channel that can serve to reassure Tunisian health professionals regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Special interest should be paid to females, paramedical professionals and those working far from the capital.

Background: Since the end of 2019, the world was seriously upset by the emergence of the “COVID-19 disease. Vaccines that were authorized for emergency use in a wide range of countries brought a glimmer of hope. However, sufficient vaccination coverage is conditioned by the people’s acceptance of these vaccines especially by health professionals. Indeed, they represent the leaders of the current war against COVID-19. Several studies focused on this issue in developed countries. However, few were reported from developing ones including Tunisia.Objective: The current study aimed to estimate the prevalence and the predictors of hesitancy towards the vaccination against the SARS-COV2 among the Tunisian health professionals.Methods: A cross-sectional study was led online between the 7th and the 21th of January 2021 among Tunisian health professionals. A number of at least 460 participants was required. Snowball sampling method served to recruit participants. Data were collected using a pre-established and pre-tested questionnaire recorded in a free Google form. The link of the questionnaire was disseminated online to be self-administered anonymously to the participants. The generated online Google Sheet was uploaded and exported to SPSS software. Responses of non eligible participants were deleted before analysis.Results: Of the 546 responses, 493 were retained. The mean age was 37.4 (±9.5) years. Females represented 70.2% of participants. Social media represented the most frequently used source of information about SARS-COV2 (reported by 66.9% of participants). Prevalence of hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination was 51.9% (95% CI: 47.5-56.3)). Fear of eventual harmful components in the upcoming vaccines, female gender and having its professional activity far from the capital predicted more hesitancy among participants. However, a history of previous infection by SARS-COV2 and the use of the official national site for information about COVID19 predicted less hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination.Conclusions: An effective national information campaign is required to reduce hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination among Tunisian Health professionals. More international solidarity would increase vaccine availability in developing countries such Tunisia and ensure therefore faster resolution of the current pandemic.