Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJuneau, Carl-Etienne et al.
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-14T18:32:15Z
dc.date.available2020-07-14T18:32:15Z
dc.date.issued2020-06-15
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.20.20054726en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12663/2045
dc.description.abstractBackground: In an unparalleled global response, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 90 countries asked 3.9 billion people to stay home. Yet some countries avoided lockdowns and focused on other strategies, like contact tracing and case isolation. How effective and cost-effective are these strategies? We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on pandemic control, with a focus on cost-effectiveness. Methods: Following PRISMA systematic review guidelines, MEDLINE (1946 to April week 2, 2020) and Embase (1974 to April 17, 2020) were searched using a range of terms related to pandemic control. Articles reporting on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of at least one intervention were included and grouped into higher-quality evidence (randomized trials) and lower-quality evidence (other study designs). Results: We found 1,653 papers; 62 were included. Higher-quality evidence was only available to support the effectiveness of hand washing and face masks. Modelling studies indicated that these measures are highly cost-effective. For other interventions, lower-quality evidence suggested that: (1) the most cost-effective interventions are swift contact tracing and case isolation, surveillance networks, protective equipment for healthcare workers, and early vaccination (when available); (2) home quarantines and stockpiling antivirals are less cost-effective; (3) social distancing measures like workplace and school closures are effective but costly, making them the least cost-effective options; (4) combinations are more cost-effective than single interventions; (5) interventions are more cost-effective when adopted early and for severe viruses like SARS-CoV-2. For H1N1 influenza, contact tracing was estimated to be 4,363 times more cost-effective than school closures ($2,260 vs. $9,860,000 per death prevented). Conclusions: A cautious interpretation of the evidence suggests that for COVID-19: (1) social distancing is effective but costly, especially when adopted late and (2) adopting as early as possible a combination of interventions that includes hand washing, face masks, ample protective equipment for healthcare workers, and swift contact tracing and case isolation is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.subjectCOVID-19en_US
dc.subjectCoronavirus Infectionsen_US
dc.subjectSystematic Reviewen_US
dc.subjectEvidence-Based Practiceen_US
dc.subjectPandemicsen_US
dc.subjectBetacoronavirusen_US
dc.titleEvidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Reviewen_US
eihealth.countryGlobal (WHO/OMS)en_US
eihealth.categoryPublic Health Interventionsen_US
eihealth.typePublished Articleen_US
eihealth.maincategorySlow Spread / Reducir la Dispersiónen_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalmedRxiven_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record