ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: In the late 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was identified as the cause of an outbreak of acute respiratory illness known as the COVID-19, which began to spread in the world very quickly. Preventive measures have been a significant issue in preventing the spread of COVID-19. This rapid review study was conducted to summarize selected countries' preventive policies and strategies in the East and Southeast Asia, including China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Singapore, during the COVID-19 epidemic. Methods: In this rapid review study, the Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched. The keywords applied in the search strategy were primary health care, public health, prevent* and plan, policy, program, initiative, intervention, measure, and COVID-19 in addition to the name of each country. Furthermore, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) websites to retrieve more key sources as grey literature. The relevant data were extracted from the final studies and categorized. Results: After screening, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Dominant measures implemented in these countries were categorized into different categories including communication and information, physical distancing, quarantine, monitoring, and testing axes. Conclusion: Education and information, extensive testing and screening, contact tracing, isolation of infected and suspected cases, and observance of physical distancing has been very effective in reducing Covid-19 transmission and its mortality. © 2021, Iranian Epidemiological Association. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is a global health crisis of our time. The mental health and wellbeing of whole societies have been severely impacted by this crisis and are a priority to be addressed urgently. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted or halted critical mental health services in many countries worldwide. One way to overcome this situation is to use Telemental health services and people can take advantage of these services to meet their mental health needs. However, there are some barriers to provide Telemental health services, which should be considered by policymakers before the crisis. © 2021 The Author(s).
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of remdesivir in adult patients with COVID-19. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and medRxiv databases were searched using a search strategy tailored to each database. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) checklists were used for the studies' qualitative assessment. The outcomes studied were mortality, all adverse events, serious adverse events, and clinical improvement. The quantitative synthesis was conducted using fixed and random effects models in the CMA 2.2. Heterogeneity was tested using the I-squared (I-2) measure. Results: In general, six studies, including five randomized controlled trials and one cohort study were found eligible. Comparison of the findings related to both groups receiving remdesivir (10-day remdesivir group) and placebo/control group showed that remdesivir treatment had no significant effect on mortality at day 14 of the treatment (RR=0.769;95% CI: 0.563-1.050;p=0.098), and all adverse events (RR= 1.078;95% CI: 0.908-1.279;p= 0.392). However, remdesivir had a significant effect on clinical improvement at day 14 compared to placebo/control (OR= 1.447;95% CI: 1.005-2.085;p= 0.047) and reduced serious adverse events (RR= 0.736;95% CI: 0.611-0.887;p= 0.001). Conclusion: Remdesivir has positive effects on clinical improvement, and reduction of the risk of serious adverse events. However, it does not influence the mortality at day 14 of treatment.
ABSTRACT
The outbreak of emerging and acute infectious diseases is one of the threats to global health. Another such event is the latest global pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) COVID-19. The right policymaking and management of this pandemic require the use of scientific capabilities and evidence obtained from different experiences. However, as far as COVID-19 is a wicked problem, informed decision making for COVID-19 differs from policymaking in normal circumstances and faces difficulties. In general, we grouped these difficulties into three categories, including uncertainties, heterogeneous policymaking, and weaknesses of the history approach. Uncertainties of coronavirus can be resolved by the development of an integrated system for tracking deaths and mortality estimates, monitoring of the key characteristics of dead coronavirus patients and patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), as well as more work to assess the incidence and characteristics of coronavirus infections across the population. In order to minimize the harm caused by heterogeneous policies, it would be easier to clarify, interpret, and apply the macro-strategies of the World Health Organization (WHO) consistent with the local requirements of the country instead of not embracing and refusing them altogether. Furthermore, in order to make good use of the history-as lessons- approach of the epidemics in COVID-19 policy, the experiences of previous epidemics must be adequately clarified and logically interpreted and implemented in accordance with the temporal, environmental, and political circumstances of the COVID-19 epidemic.