Reconstruction of the Infection Curve for SARS Epidemic in Beijing, China Using a Back-Projection Method

Containment measures for emerging and re-emerging vector-borne and other infectious diseases of poverty in urban settings: a scoping review

“…Healthcare provision measures included: health infrastructure improvements, such as the construction of new clinics, treatment centres, or hospitals [20, 24, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39, 45, 48] ( n =  9, 29%); improved case management [21, 27, 30, 33, 34, 36, 41] ( n =  7, 23%); appointment of public health officers and reorientation of specialists [19, 22, 24, 28, 36, 48] ( n =  6, 19%); training of doctors, community health workers, and other professionals [22, 28, 38, 39] ( n =  4, 13%); provision of pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis [21, 30, 37] ( n =  3, 10%); reactive vaccination campaigns [29, 41, 47] ( n =  3, 10%); introduction of treatment beds [24, 46] ( n =  2, 6%); use of new technology for diagnosis and treatment [24, 27] ( n =  2, 6%); timely hospital admission and effective triage of patients [40] ( n =  1, 3%), and safe transfer of identified cases [40] ( n =  1, 3%). Psychosocial support was also provided in one study [25] ( n =  1, 3%).…”

“…Other types of measures included: decontamination of the environment [21, 23, 37, 38] ( n =  4, 13%); safe burial practices [34, 36, 45] ( n =  3, 10%); closing of public and entertainment facilities [39, 48] ( n =  2, 6%); and water purification [24, 30] ( n =  2, 6%). Campus quarantine was also used in one case [43] ( n =  1, 3%).…”

“…Environmental and sanitary measures focused mainly on the isolation or quarantine of symptomatic individuals or close contacts [ 25 , 26 , 29 , 34 – 36 , 38 – 40 , 43 , 48 ] ( n = 11, 35%) and vector source reduction and chemical vector control measures in the case of vector-borne diseases [ 23 , 24 , 27 , 31 – 33 , 42 , 44 ] ( n = 8, 26%). Other types of measures included: decontamination of the environment [ 21 , 23 , 37 , 38 ] ( n = 4, 13%); safe burial practices [ 34 , 36 , 45 ] ( n = 3, 10%); closing of public and entertainment facilities [ 39 , 48 ] ( n = 2, 6%); and water purification [ 24 , 30 ] ( n = 2, 6%). Campus quarantine was also used in one case [ 43 ] ( n = 1, 3%).…”

“…The different aspects related to the implementation process were minimally described in the majority of studies. The capacities of the providers and project leaders were only assessed in ten studies [ 19 , 20 , 24 , 27 , 33 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 48 , 49 ], and among the nine articles that reported on financial resources, five mentioned a lack of funding [ 19 , 20 , 25 , 28 , 45 ]. In one study, the intervention was stopped after 14 weeks due to budget constraints [ 20 ].…”

“…While most of the articles (24 out of 31) reported overall positive results, such as a reduction in disease burden or spread, seven studies reported neutral or negative results [ 23 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 44 ]. Outcomes used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions varied largely among articles and included: number of cases [ 23 , 24 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 43 – 45 , 47 , 48 ]; case fatality rates [ 21 , 23 , 24 , 29 , 36 , 38 , 45 ]; entomological indices such as the House index and Breteau index [ 23 , 31 – 33 , 42 ]; delay in disease detection [ 36 , 38 ] or time between illness onset and hospitalization [ 39 , 40 ]; proportion of contacts among new cases [ 30 ]; development of resistant strains [ 30 ]; changes in the reproduction number [ 26 ]; and number of cases averted [ 46 ]. Four studies did not provide clear outcome measures [ 19 , 22 , 25 , 26 ] while two studies controlled for measured confounders [ 41 , 42 ], and seven used mathematical modeling approaches [ 26 , 43 – 48 ].…”