A scoping review of strategies to support public health recovery in the transition to a "new normal" in the age of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health workforce has experienced re-deployment from core functions such as health promotion, disease prevention, and health protection, to preventing and tracking the spread of COVID-19. With continued pandemic deployment coupled with the exacerbation of existing health disparities due to the pandemic, public health systems need to re-start the delivery of core public health programming alongside COVID-19 activities. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify strategies that support the re-integration of core public health programming alongside ongoing pandemic or emergency response. METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews was used to guide this study. A comprehensive search was conducted using: a) online databases, b) grey literature, c) content experts to identify additional references, and d) searching reference lists of pertinent studies. All references were screened by two team members. References were included that met the following criteria: a) involved public health organizations (local, regional, national, and international); b) provided descriptions of strategies to support adaptation or delivery of routine public health measures alongside disaster response; and c) quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive designs. No restrictions were placed on language, publication status, publication date, or outcomes. Data on study characteristics, intervention/strategy, and key findings were independently extracted by two team members. Emergent themes were established through independent inductive analysis by two team members. RESULTS: Of 44,087 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review. Study designs of included studies varied: descriptive (n = 8); qualitative (n = 4); mixed-methods (n = 2); cross-sectional (n = 1); case report (n = 1); single-group pretest/post-test design (n = 1). Included studies were from North America (n = 10), Africa (n = 4), and Asia (n = 3) and addressed various public health disasters including natural disasters (n = 9), infectious disease epidemics (n = 5), armed conflict (n = 2) and hazardous material disasters (n = 1). Five emergent themes were identified on strategies to support the re-integration of core public health services: a) community engagement, b) community assessment, c) collaborative partnerships and coordination, d) workforce capacity development and allocation, and e) funding/resource enhancement. CONCLUSION: Emergent themes from this study can be used by public health organizations as a beginning understanding of strategies that can support the re-introduction of essential public health services and programs in COVID-19 recovery.

Methods to support evidence-informed decision-making in the midst of COVID-19: creation and evolution of a rapid review service from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 public health crisis has produced an immense and quickly evolving body of evidence. This research speed and volume, along with variability in quality, could overwhelm public health decision-makers striving to make timely decisions based on the best available evidence. In response to this challenge, the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools developed a Rapid Evidence Service, building on internationally accepted rapid review methodologies, to address priority COVID-19 public health questions. RESULTS: Each week, the Rapid Evidence Service team receives requests from public health decision-makers, prioritizes questions received, and frames the prioritized topics into searchable questions. We develop and conduct a comprehensive search strategy and critically appraise all relevant evidence using validated tools. We synthesize the findings into a final report that includes key messages, with a rating of the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, as well as an overview of evidence and remaining knowledge gaps. Rapid reviews are typically completed and disseminated within two weeks. From May 2020 to July 21, 2021, we have answered more than 31 distinct questions and completed 32 updates as new evidence emerged. Reviews receive an average of 213 downloads per week, with some reaching over 7700. To date reviews have been accessed and cited around the world, and a more fulsome evaluation of impact on decision-making is planned. CONCLUSIONS: The development, evolution, and lessons learned from our process, presented here, provides a real-world example of how review-level evidence can be made available - rapidly and rigorously, and in response to decision-makers' needs - during an unprecedented public health crisis.

Assessing the Electronic Evidence System Needs of Canadian Public Health Professionals: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: True evidence-informed decision-making in public health relies on incorporating evidence from a number of sources in addition to traditional scientific evidence. Lack of access to these types of data as well as ease of use and interpretability of scientific evidence contribute to limited uptake of evidence-informed decision-making in practice. An electronic evidence system that includes multiple sources of evidence and potentially novel computational processing approaches or artificial intelligence holds promise as a solution to overcoming barriers to evidence-informed decision-making in public health. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the needs and preferences for an electronic evidence system among public health professionals in Canada. METHODS: An invitation to participate in an anonymous web-based survey was distributed via listservs of 2 Canadian public health organizations in February 2019. Eligible participants were English- or French-speaking individuals currently working in public health. The survey contained both multiple-choice and open-ended questions about the needs and preferences relevant to an electronic evidence system. Quantitative responses were analyzed to explore differences by public health role. Inductive and deductive analysis methods were used to code and interpret the qualitative data. Ethics review was not required by the host institution. RESULTS: Respondents (N=371) were heterogeneous, spanning organizations, positions, and areas of practice within public health. Nearly all (364/371, 98.1%) respondents indicated that an electronic evidence system would support their work. Respondents had high preferences for local contextual data, research and intervention evidence, and information about human and financial resources. Qualitative analyses identified several concerns, needs, and suggestions for the development of such a system. Concerns ranged from the personal use of such a system to the ability of their organization to use such a system. Recognized needs spanned the different sources of evidence, including local context, research and intervention evidence, and resources and tools. Additional suggestions were identified to improve system usability. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian public health professionals have positive perceptions toward an electronic evidence system that would bring together evidence from the local context, scientific research, and resources. Elements were also identified to increase the usability of an electronic evidence system.

Impact of disasters, including pandemics, on cardiometabolic outcomes across the life-course: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Disasters are events that disrupt the daily functioning of a community or society, and may increase long-term risk of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the impact of disasters, including pandemics, on cardiometabolic outcomes across the life-course. DESIGN: A systematic search was conducted in May 2020 using two electronic databases, EMBASE and Medline. All studies were screened in duplicate at title and abstract, and full-text level. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed the association between a population-level or community disaster and cardiometabolic outcomes ≥1 month following the disaster. There were no restrictions on age, year of publication, country or population. Data were extracted on study characteristics, exposure (eg, type of disaster, region, year), cardiometabolic outcomes and measures of effect. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. RESULTS: A total of 58 studies were included, with 24 studies reporting the effects of exposure to disaster during pregnancy/childhood and 34 studies reporting the effects of exposure during adulthood. Studies included exposure to natural (n=35; 60%) and human-made (n=23; 40%) disasters, with only three (5%) of these studies evaluating previous pandemics. Most studies reported increased cardiometabolic risk, including increased cardiovascular disease incidence or mortality, diabetes and obesity, but not all. Few studies evaluated the biological mechanisms or high-risk subgroups that may be at a greater risk of negative health outcomes following disasters. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that the burden of disasters extend beyond the known direct harm, and attention is needed on the detrimental indirect long-term effects on cardiometabolic health. Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, these findings may inform public health prevention strategies to mitigate the impact of future cardiometabolic risk. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020186074.