COVID-19 isolation/quarantine rules in home care patients

Gasperini, Beatrice; Sarti, Donatella; Rondina, Tommaso; Moretti, Margherita; Pelusi, Gilda; Peconi, Chiara; Prospero, Emilia

doi:10.1017/s0950268822001844

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[41] One study reported two prevalence estimates. [76] Twenty prevalence estimates were at very high risk of bias, [21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31–37, 40, 47, 69–72, 74, 76–78] 14 were at high risk, [21, 22, 27, 38, 44–46, 73, 79, 81–83, 85] ten had some concerns, [25, 26, 30, 39, 42, 43, 48–68, 80, 84] and one was at low risk. [75] Full details for each study are reported in Supplement S6.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[23, 29, 30, 34–43, 45–68, 73, 75–78, 81–83] Of these, 24 were assessed using the ROBINS-E. Analyses of associations from seven studies were at very high risk of bias, [30, 34, 37, 38, 73, 77, 78, 83], 15 were at high risk of bias, [23, 29, 35, 36, 40–43, 47–68, 75, 76, 81, 82] and two had some concerns (Supplement S6). [39, 45] One study was assessed using the ROBINS-I and was rated as very high risk of bias.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study used an in-person survey conducted by a nurse, the self-isolation adherence measure was "the general opinion of the home care nurses about the adherence to isolation/quarantine rules". [40] Another study reported that data were collected by health care workers using an online survey platform. [80] Only one study reported psychometric characteristics of the adherence measure (Cronbach's α; Table 3).…”

Section: Measures Of Self-isolationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring and increasing rates of self-isolation in the context of infectious diseases: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

Smith,

Martin,

Brooks

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSelf-isolation was used to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and will likely be used in future infectious disease outbreaks.MethodWe conducted a systematic review following PRISMA and SWiM guidelines. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, PsyArXiv, medRxiv, and grey literature sources were searched (1 January 2020 to 13 December 2022) using terms related to COVID-19, isolation, and adherence. Studies were included if they contained original, quantitative data of self-isolation adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. We extracted definitions of self-isolation, measures used to quantify adherence, adherence rates, and factors associated with adherence. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022377820).FindingsWe included 45 studies. Self-isolation was inconsistently defined. Only four studies did not use self-report to measure adherence. Of 41 studies using self-report measures, only one reported reliability; another gave indirect evidence for a lack of validity of the measure. Rates of adherence to self-isolation ranged from 0% to 100%. There was little evidence that self-isolation adherence was associated with socio-demographic or psychological factors.InterpretationThere was no consensus in defining, operationalising, or measuring self-isolation. Only one study presented evidence of the psychometric properties of the measure highlighting the significant risk of bias in included studies. This, and the dearth of scientifically rigorous studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to increase self-isolation adherence, is a fundamental gap in the literature.FundingThis study was funded by Research England Policy Support Fund 2022-23; authors were supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response.

show abstract