A systematic review of the international evidence on the effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation measures in communal rough sleeping accommodation.

Autor:	Haworth S; Addictions and Inclusion Directorate, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London SW1H 0EU, UK.; Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Essex CO4 3SQ, UK., Cranshaw O; Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Essex CO4 3SQ, UK., Xerri M; Addictions and Inclusion Directorate, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London SW1H 0EU, UK., Stannard J; Addictions and Inclusion Directorate, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London SW1H 0EU, UK., Clark R; Policy, Systems and Innovations Directorate, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London SW1H 0EU, UK., Pacey E; Addictions and Inclusion Directorate, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London SW1H 0EU, UK., Leng G; Addictions and Inclusion Directorate, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London SW1H 0EU, UK., Campos-Matos I; Addictions and Inclusion Directorate, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London SW1H 0EU, UK.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of public health (Oxford, England) [J Public Health (Oxf)] 2023 Nov 29; Vol. 45 (4), pp. 804-815.
DOI:	10.1093/pubmed/fdad114
Abstrakt:	Background: Accommodations with shared washing facilities increase the risks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for people experiencing rough sleeping and evidence on what interventions are effective in reducing these risks needs to be understood. Methods: Systematic review, search date 6 December 2022 with methods published a priori. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Database and supplemented with grey literature searches, hand searches of reference lists and publication lists of known experts. Observational, interventional and modelling studies were included; screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate and narrative analyses were conducted. Results: Fourteen studies from five countries (USA, England, France, Singapore and Canada) were included. Ten studies were surveillance reports, one was an uncontrolled pilot intervention, and three were modelling studies. Only two studies were longitudinal. All studies described the effectiveness of different individual or packages of mitigation measures. Conclusions: Despite a weak evidence base, the research suggests that combined mitigation measures can help to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission but are unlikely to prevent outbreaks entirely. Evidence suggests that community prevalence may modify the effectiveness of mitigation measures. More longitudinal research is needed. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021292803. (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu