Aims:To summarise the evidence on barriers to and facilitators of population adherence to prevention and control measures for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other respiratory infectious diseases.Methods:A qualitative synthesis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. We performed an electronic search on MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO from their inception to March 2023.Results:We included 71 studies regarding COVID-19, pneumonia, tuberculosis, influenza, pertussis and H1N1, representing 5966 participants. The measures reported were vaccinations, physical distancing, stay-at-home policy, quarantine, self-isolation, facemasks, hand hygiene, contact investigation, lockdown, infection prevention and control guidelines, and treatment. Tuberculosis-related measures were access to care, diagnosis and treatment completion. Analysis of the included studies yielded 37 barriers and 23 facilitators.Conclusions:This review suggests that financial and social support, assertive communication, trust in political authorities and greater regulation of social media enhance adherence to prevention and control measures for COVID-19 and infectious respiratory diseases. Designing and implementing effective educational public health interventions targeting the findings of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this review are key to reducing the impact of infectious respiratory diseases at the population level.

IntroductionThe current COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for populational adherence to measures for the prevention and control of respiratory infectious diseases. However, their effectiveness depends on the population’s preventive behaviour, which may be divergent from public policies. Therefore, this study aims to summarise and evaluate the evidence on barriers and facilitators to populational adherence to prevention and control measures in COVID-19 and other respiratory infectious diseases.Methods and analysisWe will search on MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies focusing on adults receiving protective behaviour recommendations to combat COVID-19 and other respiratory infectious diseases. The searches will be carried out from database’s inception to the present. We will include studies that use qualitative methods in their data collection and analysis and studies that use mixed methods if they include any qualitative methods of analysis. Studies published in English, Portuguese and Spanish will be included. Two review authors will independently screen the studies for inclusion and extract data. We will assess the quality of the included studies using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme tool. For the assessment of the confidence in the synthesised findings, we will use the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research. Data analysis will be conducted using the best-fit framework approach based on adapted dimensions from the Health Belief Model and the Behaviour Change Wheel.Ethics and disseminationThis study will be conducted on published evidence, and thus, no ethical approval is required. The findings of this rapid qualitative evidence synthesis will be disseminated to academic audiences, health policy-makers and the general population. We will publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, present our findings in conferences, and disseminate results via social media. We also aim to present the research findings in plain language and disseminate the knowledge to the general population to increase public interest.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020205750.

IntroductionChronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) have a high prevalence, morbidity and mortality worldwide. After the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients readmitted after hospital discharge increased. For some populations, early hospital discharge and home healthcare may reduce health costs in patients treated at home when compared with those hospitalised. This study aims to systematically review the effectiveness of home healthcare for patients with CRDs and post-COVID-19 syndrome.Methods and analysisWe will search on MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and PsycINFO. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT studies reported in full text and abstracts. No language restriction will be applied. We will include studies related to adults with a diagnosis of CRDs or post-COVID-19 syndrome that compared in-patient hospital care with any home healthcare. We will exclude studies with participants with neurological, mental diseases, cancer or pregnant women. Two review authors will screen abstracts and select the eligible studies. To investigate the risk of bias, we will use the Cochrane ‘Risk of Bias’ tool for RCT, and the Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions for non-RCT. We will use the five Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) considerations to assess the quality of the evidence. Patients and the public will be involved in the preparation, execution and implementation phases of the review.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required because only published data will be analysed. The publication of the results in peer-reviewed journals and at relevant conferences will guide the direction of future research in the field and healthcare practice. The results will also be disseminated in plain language on social media to disseminate the knowledge to society and the public interested in the topic.

No abstract

No abstract