Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 20(7)2023 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2301151

ABSTRACT

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, governments around the world have adopted an array of measures intended to control the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, using both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). NPIs are public health interventions that do not rely on vaccines or medicines and include policies such as lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, school closures, and travel restrictions. Although the intention was to slow viral transmission, emerging research indicates that these NPIs have also had unintended consequences for other aspects of public health. Hence, we conducted a narrative review of studies investigating these unintended consequences of NPIs, with a particular emphasis on mental health and on lifestyle risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCD): physical activity (PA), overweight and obesity, alcohol consumption, and tobacco smoking. We reviewed the scientific literature using combinations of search terms such as 'COVID-19', 'pandemic', 'lockdowns', 'mental health', 'physical activity', and 'obesity'. NPIs were found to have considerable adverse consequences for mental health, physical activity, and overweight and obesity. The impacts on alcohol and tobacco consumption varied greatly within and between studies. The variability in consequences for different groups implies increased health inequalities by age, sex/gender, socioeconomic status, pre-existing lifestyle, and place of residence. In conclusion, a proper assessment of the use of NPIs in attempts to control the spread of the pandemic should be weighed against the potential adverse impacts on other aspects of public health. Our findings should also be of relevance for future pandemic preparedness and pandemic response teams.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Communicable Disease Control , Overweight/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Obesity/epidemiology
2.
PLoS One ; 16(7): e0255254, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1332004

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To constrain propagation and mitigate the burden of COVID-19, most countries initiated and continue to implement several non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including national and regional lockdowns. In the Republic of Ireland, the first national lockdown was decreed on 23rd of March 2020, followed by a succession of restriction increases and decreases (phases) over the following year. To date, the effects of these interventions remain unclear, and particularly within differing population subsets. The current study sought to assess the impact of individual NPI phases on COVID-19 transmission patterns within delineated population subgroups in the Republic of Ireland. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Confirmed, anonymised COVID-19 cases occurring between the 29th of February 2020 and 30th November 2020 (n = 72,654) were obtained. Segmented modelling via breakpoint regression with multiple turning points was employed to identify structural breaks across sub-populations, including primary/secondary infections, age deciles, urban/commuter/rural areas, patients with underlying health conditions, and socio-demographic profiles. These were subsequently compared with initiation dates of eight overarching NPI phases. Five distinct breakpoints were identified. The first breakpoint, associated with a decrease in the daily COVID-19 incidence, was reported within 14 days of the first set of restrictions in mid-March 2020 for most population sub-groups. Results suggest that moderately strict NPIs were more effective than the strictest Phase 5 (National Lockdown). Divergences were observed across population sub-groups; lagged response times were observed among populations >80 years, residents of rural/ commuter regions, and cases associated with a below-median deprivation score. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest that many NPIs have been successful in decreasing COVID-19 incidence rates, however the strictest Phase 5 NPI was not. Moreover, NPIs were not equally successful across all sub-populations, with differing response times noted. Future strategies and interventions may need to be increasingly bespoke, based on sub-population profiles and required responses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Adult , Female , Humans , Incidence , Ireland/epidemiology , Male , Physical Distancing
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL