Проведение мероприятий во время пандемии COVID-19: краткий аналитический обзор ВОЗ (2 августа 2021 г.)

Мероприятия – это события, для которых характерна концентрация людей в определенном месте с конкретной целью в течение установленного периода времени (1).Мероприятия могут быть общественными или частными, запланированными или спонтанными, периодическими или разовыми, различного масштаба и продолжительности. Они также могут носить различный характер и включают в себя, среди прочего, социальные, спортивные, религиозные, культурные, развлекательные, политические и деловые события, а также кампании по охране здоровья.Мероприятия с большим числом участников обычно называют «массовыми мероприятиями». К массовым мероприятия также относятся такие важные события, как Олимпийские игры, хадж, Всемирная выставка; они часто подразумевают осуществление международных пассажирских перевозок, наличие нескольких площадок, длительный срок проведения, широкое освещение в СМИ, а также существенные последствия для репутации, политической, социальной и экономической жизни общества

"It was close enough, but it wasn't close enough": A qualitative exploration of the impact of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion on access to abortion care.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how obtaining a medication abortion by mail with telemedicine counseling versus traditional in-clinic care impacted participants' access to care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who completed a medication abortion by mail through the TelAbortion study. We asked participants how they learned about telemedicine abortion, reasons for choosing it, what their alternative would have been, and about their experience. We transcribed, coded, and performed qualitative content analysis of the interviews and are presenting a subset of themes related to access to care when the restrictions on clinic dispensing of mifepristone are removed. RESULTS: We interviewed 45 people from January to July 2020. Direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion was more convenient and accessible than in-clinic abortion care when considering the burdens of travel, clinic availability, logistics, and cost that were associated with in-clinic abortion. Stigma led to a prioritization of privacy, and by going to a clinic, participants feared a loss of privacy whereas obtaining a medication abortion by mail made it easier to maintain confidentiality. Faced with these barriers, 13% of participants stated they would have continued their pregnancy if TelAbortion had not been an option. Participants found direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion to be acceptable and recommended it to others. Benefits of telemedicine were amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns around infection exposure with in-clinic care. CONCLUSION: Going to a clinic was a burden for participants, to the point where some would not have otherwise been able to get an abortion. Medication abortion by mail with telemedicine counseling was a highly acceptable alternative. IMPLICATIONS: Medication abortion by mail can increase access to abortion with the added benefits of increased perceived privacy and decreased logistical burdens. Removing the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would allow direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion to be implemented outside of a research setting without compromising the patient experience.

Federal, state, and institutional barriers to the expansion of medication and telemedicine abortion services in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the combined impact of federal, state, and institutional policies on barriers to expanding medication and telemedicine abortion care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic in the abortion-restrictive states of Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed 4 state policies, 2 COVID-related state executive orders, and clinic-level survey data on medication abortion provision from fourteen abortion facilities in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia from December 2019 to December 2020. We calculated the percent of medication abortions provided at these facilities during the study period by state, to assess changes in medication abortion use during the pandemic. RESULTS: We ascertained that COVID-19-executive orders in Ohio and West Virginia that limited procedural abortion in Spring 2020 coincided with an increase in the overall number and proportion of medication abortions in this region, peaking at 1613 medication abortions (70%) in April 2020. Ohio and West Virginia, which had executive orders limiting procedural abortion, saw relatively greater increases in April compared to Kentucky. Despite temporary lifting of the mifepristone REMS, prepandemic regulations banning telemedicine abortion in Kentucky and West Virginia and requiring in-person clinic visits for medication abortion distribution in Ohio limited clinics' ability to adapt to offer medication abortion by mail. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate how restrictive medication and telemedicine abortion policies in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia created additional obstacles for patients seeking medication abortion during the pandemic. Permanently lifting federal regulations on in-clinic distribution of mifepristone would only advantage abortion seekers in states without restrictive telehealth and medication abortion policies. State policies that limit access to comprehensive abortion services should be central in larger efforts toward dismantling barriers that impinge upon reproductive autonomy. IMPLICATION STATEMENT: We find that abolishing the REMS on mifepristone would not be enough to expand access to patients in abortion-restrictive states with telemedicine and medication abortion laws. While the REMS is a barrier, it represents one of several hindrances to the expansion of telemedicine abortion distribution across the United States.

Abortion exceptionalism and the mifepristone REMS.

Since its initial approval, mifepristone has been regulated with a strictness out of proportion to its risks. This paper explores how the regulation of mifepristone, specifically the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) requirements, are a manifestation of abortion exceptionalism-the phenomenon of abortion being treated differently under the law than other comparable health care. The weight of medical and public health evidence demonstrates that mifepristone is extremely safe and the REMS are unnecessary. In fact, the mifepristone REMS is neither justified by the absolute risk of the medication itself, nor comprehensible as a logical response to the risks actually posed by mifepristone. Nevertheless, the REMS remain in place. From July 2020 through January 2021, enforcement of the REMS elements requiring in-person distribution of mifepristone were enjoined by court order due the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, COVID-19 created a context so exceptional as to temporarily outweigh abortion exceptionalism. However, the reprieve did not last-in January 2021, the Supreme Court ruled to dissolve the injunction, allowing FDA to resume enforcement of the in-person requirements. In response, advocates called on the incoming Biden administration to direct FDA to suspend enforcement once more. This regulatory whiplash is itself further evidence that the REMS flow from political, rather than scientific, concerns. Abortion exceptionalism is apparent in the specific requirements of the REMS, and it is also apparent in the precarity of the regulatory scheme itself.

The future of abortion is now: Mifepristone by mail and in-clinic abortion access in the United States.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care delivery in all aspects of medicine, including abortion care. For 6 months, the mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) was temporarily blocked, allowing for the remote provision of medication abortion. Remote medication abortion may become a dominant model of care in the future, either through the formal health system or through self-sourced, self-managed abortion. Clinics already face pressure from falling abortion rates and excessive regulation and with a transition to remote abortion, may not be able to sustain services. Although remote medication abortion improves access for many, those who need or want in-clinic care such as people later in pregnancy, people for whom abortion at home is not safe or feasible, or people who are not eligible for medication abortion, will need comprehensive support to access safe and appropriate care. To understand how we may adapt to remote abortion without leaving people behind, we can look outside of the U.S. to become familiar with emerging and alternative models of abortion care.

The spatio-temporal distribution of COVID-19 infection in England between January and June 2020.

The spatio-temporal dynamics of an outbreak provide important insights to help direct public health resources intended to control transmission. They also provide a focus for detailed epidemiological studies and allow the timing and impact of interventions to be assessed.A common approach is to aggregate case data to administrative regions. Whilst providing a good visual impression of change over space, this method masks spatial variation and assumes that disease risk is constant across space. Risk factors for COVID-19 (e.g. population density, deprivation and ethnicity) vary from place to place across England so it follows that risk will also vary spatially. Kernel density estimation compares the spatial distribution of cases relative to the underlying population, unfettered by arbitrary geographical boundaries, to produce a continuous estimate of spatially varying risk.Using test results from healthcare settings in England (Pillar 1 of the UK Government testing strategy) and freely available methods and software, we estimated the spatial and spatio-temporal risk of COVID-19 infection across England for the first 6 months of 2020. Widespread transmission was underway when partial lockdown measures were introduced on 23 March 2020 and the greatest risk erred towards large urban areas. The rapid growth phase of the outbreak coincided with multiple introductions to England from the European mainland. The spatio-temporal risk was highly labile throughout.In terms of controlling transmission, the most important practical application of our results is the accurate identification of areas within regions that may require tailored intervention strategies. We recommend that this approach is absorbed into routine surveillance outputs in England. Further risk characterisation using widespread community testing (Pillar 2) data is needed as is the increased use of predictive spatial models at fine spatial scales.

Communicating risk in human-wildlife interactions: How stories and images move minds.

Effectively communicating risk is critical to reducing conflict in human-wildlife interactions. Using a survey experiment fielded in the midst of contentious public debate over flying fox management in urban and suburban areas of Australia, we find that stories with characters (i.e., narratives) are more effective than descriptive information at mobilizing support for different forms of bat management, including legal protection, relocation, and habitat restoration. We use conditional process analysis to show that narratives, particularly with accompanying images, are effective because they cause emotional reactions that influence risk perception, which in turn drives public opinion about strategies for risk mitigation. We find that prior attitudes towards bats matter in how narrative messages are received, in particular in how strongly they generate shifts in affective response, risk perception, and public opinion. Our results suggest that those with warm prior attitudes towards bats report greater support for bat dispersal when they perceive impacts from bats to be more likely, while those with cool priors report greater support for bat protection when they perceive impacts from bats to be more positive, revealing 1) potential opportunities for targeted messaging to boost public buy-in of proposals to manage risks associated with human-wildlife interactions, and 2) potential vulnerabilities to disinformation regarding risk.