Exit strategies from lockdowns due to COVID-19: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, countries have adopted various degrees of restrictive measures on people to reduce COVID-19 transmission. These measures have had significant social and economic costs. In the absence of therapeutics, and low vaccination coverage, strategies for a safe exit plan from a lockdown are required to mitigate the transmission and simultaneously re-open societies. Most countries have outlined or have implemented lockdown exit plans. The objective of this scoping review is to (a) identify and map the different strategies for exit from lockdowns, (b) document the effects of these exit strategies, and (c) discuss features of successful exit strategies based on the evidence. METHODS: A five-step approach was used in this scoping review: (a) identifying the research question and inclusion/exclusion criteria; (b) searching the literature using keywords within PubMed and WHO databases; (c) study selection; (d) data extraction; (e) collating results and qualitative synthesis of findings. RESULTS: Of the 406 unique studies found, 107 were kept for full-text review. Studies suggest the post-peak period as optimal timing for an exit, supplemented by other triggers such as sufficient health system capacity, and increased testing rate. A controlled and step-wise exit plan which is flexible and guided by information from surveillance systems is optimal. Studies recommend continued use of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as physical distancing, use of facemasks, and hygiene measures, in different combinations when exiting from a lockdown, even after optimal vaccination coverage has been attained. CONCLUSION: Reviewed studies have suggested adopting a multi-pronged strategy consisting of different approaches depending on the context. Among the different exit strategies reviewed (phase-wise exit, hard exit, and constant cyclic patterns of lockdown), phase-wise exit appears to be the optimal exit strategy.

Pandemic response in pluralistic health systems: a cross-sectional study of COVID-19 knowledge and practices among informal and formal primary care providers in Bihar, India.

OBJECTIVES: Responding to pandemics is challenging in pluralistic health systems. This study assesses COVID-19 knowledge and case management of informal providers (IPs), trained practitioners of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) and Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) medical doctors providing primary care services in rural Bihar, India. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of primary care providers conducted via telephone between 1 and 15 July 2020. SETTING: Primary care providers from 224 villages in 34 districts across Bihar, India. PARTICIPANTS: 452 IPs, 57 AYUSH practitioners and 38 doctors (including 23 government doctors) were interviewed from a census of 1138 primary care providers used by community members that could be reached by telephone. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Providers were interviewed using a structured questionnaire with choice-based answers to gather information on (1) change in patient care seeking, (2) source of COVID-19 information, (3) knowledge on COVID-19 spread, symptoms and methods for prevention and (4) clinical management of COVID-19. RESULTS: During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, 72% of providers reported a decrease in patient visits. Most IPs and other private primary care providers reported receiving no COVID-19 related engagement with government or civil society agencies. For them, the principal source of COVID-19 information was television and newspapers. IPs had reasonably good knowledge of typical COVID-19 symptoms and prevention, and at levels similar to doctors. However, there was low stated compliance among IPs (16%) and qualified primary care providers (15% of MBBS doctors and 12% of AYUSH practitioners) with all WHO recommended management practices for suspect COVID-19 cases. Nearly half of IPs and other providers intended to treat COVID-19 suspects without referral. CONCLUSIONS: Poor management practices of COVID-19 suspects by rural primary care providers weakens government pandemic control efforts. Government action of providing information to IPs, as well as engaging them in contact tracing or public health messaging can strengthen pandemic control efforts.

Health equity and COVID-19: global perspectives.

The COVID-19 is disproportionally affecting the poor, minorities and a broad range of vulnerable populations, due to its inequitable spread in areas of dense population and limited mitigation capacity due to high prevalence of chronic conditions or poor access to high quality public health and medical care. Moreover, the collateral effects of the pandemic due to the global economic downturn, and social isolation and movement restriction measures, are unequally affecting those in the lowest power strata of societies. To address the challenges to health equity and describe some of the approaches taken by governments and local organizations, we have compiled 13 country case studies from various regions around the world: China, Brazil, Thailand, Sub Saharan Africa, Nicaragua, Armenia, India, Guatemala, United States of America (USA), Israel, Australia, Colombia, and Belgium. This compilation is by no-means representative or all inclusive, and we encourage researchers to continue advancing global knowledge on COVID-19 health equity related issues, through rigorous research and generation of a strong evidence base of new empirical studies in this field.

The need for COVID-19 research in low- and middle-income countries.

In the early months of the pandemic, most reported cases and deaths due to COVID-19 occurred in high-income countries. However, insufficient testing could have led to an underestimation of true infections in many low- and middle-income countries. As confirmed cases increase, the ultimate impact of the pandemic on individuals and communities in low- and middle-income countries is uncertain. We therefore propose research in three broad areas as urgently needed to inform responses in low- and middle-income countries: transmission patterns of SARS-CoV-2, the clinical characteristics of the disease, and the impact of pandemic prevention and response measures. Answering these questions will require a multidisciplinary approach led by local investigators and in some cases additional resources. Targeted research activities should be done to help mitigate the potential burden of COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries without diverting the limited human resources, funding, or medical supplies from response activities.