SARS-CoV-2 infections in migrant populations in Germany: results from the COVID-19 snapshot monitoring survey.

OBJECTIVES: Research shows that there is an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in migrants and ethnic minorities. However, increasing evidence indicates that socio-economic factors, such as employment, education and income, contribute to the association between migrant status and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study aimed to examine the association between migrant status and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Germany and to discuss potential explanations for these associations. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Data from the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring online survey were analysed, and hierarchical multiple linear regression models were used to calculate the probabilities of self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. Predictor variables were integrated in a stepwise method as follows: (1) migrant status (defined by own or parental country of birth other than Germany); (2) gender, age and education; (3) household size; (4) household language; and (5) occupation in the health sector, including an interaction term of migrant status (yes) and occupation in the health sector (yes). RESULTS: Of 45,858 participants, 3.5% reported a SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 16% were migrants. Migrants, participants in large households, those speaking a language other than German in their household and those working in the health sector were more likely to report SARS-CoV-2 infection. The probability of reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection was 3.95 percentage points higher for migrants than non-migrants; this probability decreased when integrating further predictor variables. The strongest association of reporting a SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed for migrants working in the health sector. CONCLUSIONS: Migrants and health sector employees, and especially migrant health workers, are at an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results show that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is determined by living and working conditions rather than migrant status.

SARS-CoV-2 infections in migrant populations in Germany: results from the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring Survey

Objectives Research shows that there is an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in migrants and ethnic minorities. However, increasing evidence indicates that socio-economic factors, such as employment, education and income, contribute to the association between migrant status and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study aimed to examine the association between migrant status and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Germany, and to discuss potential explanations for these associations. Study design Cross-sectional study. Methods Data from the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring online survey were analysed and hierarchical multiple linear regression models were used to calculate the probabilities of self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. Predictor variables were integrated in a stepwise method as follows: (1) migrant status (defined by own or parental country of birth other than Germany);(2) gender, age and education;(3) household size;(4) household language;and (5) occupation in the health sector, including an interaction term of migrant status (yes) and occupation in the health sector (yes). Results Of 45,858 participants, 3.5% reported a SARS-CoV-2 infection and 16% were migrants. Migrants, participants in large households, those speaking a language other than German in their household and those working in the health sector were more likely to report SARS-CoV-2 infection. The probability of reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection was 3.95 percentage points higher for migrants than non-migrants;this probability decreased when integrating further predictor variables. The strongest association of SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed for migrants working in the health sector. Conclusions Migrants and health sector employees, especially migrant health workers, are at an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results show that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is determined by living and working conditions rather than migrant status.

Comparative effectiveness of contact tracing interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

Contact tracing is a non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) widely used in the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Its effectiveness may depend on a number of factors including the proportion of contacts traced, delays in tracing, the mode of contact tracing (e.g. forward, backward or bidirectional contact training), the types of contacts who are traced (e.g. contacts of index cases or contacts of contacts of index cases), or the setting where contacts are traced (e.g. the household or the workplace). We performed a systematic review of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of contact tracing interventions. 78 studies were included in the review, 12 observational (ten ecological studies, one retrospective cohort study and one pre-post study with two patient cohorts) and 66 mathematical modelling studies. Based on the results from six of the 12 observational studies, contact tracing can be effective at controlling COVID-19. Two high quality ecological studies showed the incremental effectiveness of adding digital contact tracing to manual contact tracing. One ecological study of intermediate quality showed that increases in contact tracing were associated with a drop in COVID-19 mortality, and a pre-post study of acceptable quality showed that prompt contact tracing of contacts of COVID-19 case clusters / symptomatic individuals led to a reduction in the reproduction number R. Within the seven observational studies exploring the effectiveness of contact tracing in the context of the implementation of other non-pharmaceutical interventions, contact tracing was found to have an effect on COVID-19 epidemic control in two studies and not in the remaining five studies. However, a limitation in many of these studies is the lack of description of the extent of implementation of contact tracing interventions. Based on the results from the mathematical modelling studies, we identified the following highly effective policies: (1) manual contact tracing with high tracing coverage and either medium-term immunity, highly efficacious isolation/quarantine and/ or physical distancing (2) hybrid manual and digital contact tracing with high app adoption with highly effective isolation/ quarantine and social distancing, (3) secondary contact tracing, (4) eliminating contact tracing delays, (5) bidirectional contact tracing, (6) contact tracing with high coverage in reopening educational institutions. We also highlighted the role of social distancing to enhance the effectiveness of some of these interventions in the context of 2020 lockdown reopening. While limited, the evidence from observational studies shows a role for manual and digital contact tracing in controlling the COVID-19 epidemic. More empirical studies accounting for the extent of contact tracing implementation are required.

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts.

Background: Emergency risk communication (ERC) is key to achieving compliance with public health measures during pandemics. Yet, the factors that facilitated ERC during COVID-19 have not been analyzed. We compare ERC in the early stages of the pandemic across four socio-economic settings to identify how risk communication can be improved in public health emergencies (PHE). Methods: To map and assess the content, process, actors, and context of ERC in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore, we performed a qualitative document review, and thematically analyzed semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in ERC at national and sub-national levels. We applied Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle as a framework to structure the results. Results: We identified distinct ERC strategies in each of the four countries. Various actors, including governmental leads, experts, and organizations with close contact to the public, collaborated closely to implement ERC strategies. Early integration of ERC into preparedness and response plans, lessons from previous experiences, existing structures and networks, and clear leadership were identified as crucial for ensuring message clarity, consistency, relevance, and an efficient use of resources. Areas of improvement primarily included two-way communication, community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Countries with recurrent experiences of pandemics appeared to be more prepared and equipped to implement ERC strategies. Conclusion: We found that considerable potential exists for countries to improve communication during public health emergencies, particularly in the areas of bilateral communication and community engagement as well as monitoring and evaluation. Building adaptive structures and maintaining long-term relationships with at-risk communities reportedly facilitated suitable communication. The findings suggest considerable potential and transferable learning opportunities exist between countries in the global north and countries in the global south with experience of managing outbreaks.

De-escalation strategies for non-pharmaceutical interventions following infectious disease outbreaks: a rapid review and a proposed dynamic de-escalation framework.

BACKGROUND: The severity of COVID-19, as well as the speed and scale of its spread, has posed a global challenge. Countries around the world have implemented stringent non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) to control transmission and prevent health systems from being overwhelmed. These NPI have had profound negative social and economic impacts. With the timeline to worldwide vaccine roll-out being uncertain, governments need to consider to what extent they need to implement and how to de-escalate these NPI. This rapid review collates de-escalation criteria reported in the literature to provide a guide to criteria that could be used as part of de-escalation strategies globally. METHODS: We reviewed literature published since 2000 relating to pandemics and infectious disease outbreaks. The searches included Embase.com (includes Embase and Medline), LitCovid, grey literature searching, reference harvesting and citation tracking. Over 1,700 documents were reviewed, with 39 documents reporting de-escalation criteria included in the final analysis. Concepts retrieved through a thematic analysis of the included documents were interlinked to build a conceptual dynamic de-escalation framework. RESULTS: We identified 52 de-escalation criteria, the most common of which were clustered under surveillance (cited by 43 documents, 10 criteria e.g. ability to actively monitor confirmed cases and contact tracing), health system capacity (cited by 30 documents, 11 criteria, e.g. ability to treat all patients within normal capacity) and epidemiology (cited by 28 documents, 7 criteria, e.g. number or changes in case numbers). De-escalation is a gradual and bi-directional process, and resurgence of infections or emergence of variants of concerns can lead to partial or full re-escalation(s) of response and control measures in place. Hence, it is crucial to rely on a robust public health surveillance system. CONCLUSIONS: This rapid review focusing on de-escalation within the context of COVID-19 provides a conceptual framework and a guide to criteria that countries can use to formulate de-escalation plans.

Seroprevalence and risk factors of COVID-19 in healthcare workers from 11 African countries: a scoping review and appraisal of existing evidence.

A better understanding of serological data and risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) is especially important in African countries where human resources and health services are more constrained. We reviewed and appraised the evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence and its risk factors in HCWs in Africa to inform response and preparedness strategies during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines in this scoping review. Databases including PubMed, Embase and preprint servers were searched accordingly from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to 19 April 2021. Our search yielded 12 peer-reviewed and four pre-print articles comprising data on 9223 HCWs from 11 countries in Africa. Seroprevalence varied widely and ranged from 0% to 45.1%. Seropositivity was associated with older age, lower education, working as a nurse/non-clinical HCW or in gynaecology, emergency, outpatient or surgery departments. Asymptomatic rates were high and half of the studies recommended routine testing of HCWs. This scoping review found a varying but often high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCWs in 11 African countries and identified certain risk factors. COVID-19 public health strategies for policy and planning should consider these risk factors and the potential for high seroprevalence among HCWs when prioritizing infection prevention and control measures and vaccine deployment.

Health care workers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has challenged health systems worldwide, especially the health workforce, a pillar crucial for health systems resilience. Therefore, strengthening health system resilience can be informed by analyzing health care workers' (HCWs) experiences and needs during pandemics. This review synthesizes qualitative studies published during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify factors affecting HCWs' experiences and their support needs during the pandemic. This review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic search on PubMed was applied using controlled vocabularies. Only original studies presenting primary qualitative data were included. RESULTS: 161 papers that were published from the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic up until 28th March 2021 were included in the review. Findings were presented using the socio-ecological model as an analytical framework. At the individual level, the impact of the pandemic manifested on HCWs' well-being, daily routine, professional and personal identity. At the interpersonal level, HCWs' personal and professional relationships were identified as crucial. At the institutional level, decision-making processes, organizational aspects and availability of support emerged as important factors affecting HCWs' experiences. At community level, community morale, norms, and public knowledge were of importance. Finally, at policy level, governmental support and response measures shaped HCWs' experiences. The review identified a lack of studies which investigate other HCWs than doctors and nurses, HCWs in non-hospital settings, and HCWs in low- and lower middle income countries. DISCUSSION: This review shows that the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged HCWs, with multiple contextual factors impacting their experiences and needs. To better understand HCWs' experiences, comparative investigations are needed which analyze differences across as well as within countries, including differences at institutional, community, interpersonal and individual levels. Similarly, interventions aimed at supporting HCWs prior to, during and after pandemics need to consider HCWs' circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Following a context-sensitive approach to empowering HCWs that accounts for the multitude of aspects which influence their experiences could contribute to building a sustainable health workforce and strengthening health systems for future pandemics.

Classification Schemes of COVID-19 High Risk Areas and Resulting Policies: A Rapid Review.

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant global health threat since January 2020. Policies to reduce human mobility have been recognized to effectively control the spread of COVID-19; although the relationship between mobility, policy implementation, and virus spread remains contentious, with no clear pattern for how countries classify each other, and determine the destinations to- and from which to restrict travel. In this rapid review, we identified country classification schemes for high-risk COVID-19 areas and associated policies which mirrored the dynamic situation in 2020, with the aim of identifying any patterns that could indicate the effectiveness of such policies. We searched academic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and EMBASE. We also consulted web pages of the relevant government institutions in all countries. This rapid review's searches were conducted between October 2020 and December 2021. Web scraping of policy documents yielded additional 43 country reports on high-risk area classification schemes. In 43 countries from which relevant reports were identified, six issued domestic classification schemes. International classification schemes were issued by the remaining 38 countries, and these mainly used case incidence per 100,000 inhabitants as key indicator. The case incidence cut-off also varied across the countries, ranging from 20 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 7 days to more than 100 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 28 days. The criteria used for defining high-risk areas varied across countries, including case count, positivity rate, composite risk scores, community transmission and satisfactory laboratory testing. Countries either used case incidence in the past 7, 14 or 28 days. The resulting policies included restrictions on internal movement and international travel. The quarantine policies can be summarized into three categories: (1) 14 days self-isolation, (2) 10 days self-isolation and (3) 14 days compulsory isolation.

Impact of the Salud Mesoamerica Initiative on delivery care choices in Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

BACKGROUND: The Salud Mesoamérica Initiative (SMI) is a public-private collaboration aimed to improve maternal and child health conditions in the poorest populations of Mesoamerica through a results-based aid mechanism. We assess the impact of SMI on the staffing and availability of equipment and supplies for delivery care, the proportion of institutional deliveries, and the proportion of women who choose a facility other than the one closest to their locality of residence for delivery. METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental design, including baseline and follow-up measurements between 2013 and 2018 in intervention and comparison areas of Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras. We collected information on 8754 births linked to the health facility closest to the mother's locality of residence and the facility where the delivery took place (if attended in a health facility). We fit difference-in-difference models, adjusting for women's characteristics (age, parity, education), household characteristics, exposure to health promotion interventions, health facility level, and country. RESULTS: Equipment, inputs, and staffing of facilities improved after the Initiative in both intervention and comparison areas. After adjustment for covariates, institutional delivery increased between baseline and follow-up by 3.1 percentage points (ß = 0.031, 95% CI -0.03, 0.09) more in intervention areas than in comparison areas. The proportion of women in intervention areas who chose a facility other than their closest one to attend the delivery decreased between baseline and follow-up by 13 percentage points (ß = - 0.130, 95% CI -0.23, - 0.03) more than in the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that women in intervention areas of SMI are more likely to go to their closest facility to attend delivery after the Initiative has improved facilities' capacity, suggesting that results-based aid initiatives targeting poor populations, like SMI, can increase the use of facilities closest to the place of residence for delivery care services. This should be considered in the design of interventions after the COVID-19 pandemic may have changed health and social conditions.

Recurrent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their potential risk to public health - a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To inform quarantine and contact-tracing policies concerning re-positive cases-cases testing positive among those recovered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically reviewed and appraised relevant literature from PubMed and Embase for the extent of re-positive cases and their epidemiological characteristics. RESULTS: In 90 case reports/series, a total of 276 re-positive cases were found. Among confirmed reinfections, 50% occurred within 90 days from recovery. Four reports related onward transmission. In thirty-five observational studies, rate of re-positives ranged from zero to 50% with no onward transmissions reported. In eight reviews, pooled recurrence rate ranged from 12% to 17.7%. Probability of re-positive increased with several factors. CONCLUSION: Recurrence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test is commonly reported within the first weeks following recovery from a first infection.

Public health effects of travel-related policies on the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed-methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors. DESIGN: Policy mapping and systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies. CONCLUSION: Most countries adopted full or partial border closure in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Evidence suggests positive effects on controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for border closure (particularly when implemented early), as well as quarantine of travelers (particularly with higher levels of compliance). While these positive effects are enhanced when implemented in combination with other public health measures, they are associated with concerns by the public regarding some unintended effects.

Systematic review of empirical studies comparing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been more and less effective in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of published and unpublished empirical studies, either observational or interventional, analysing the comparative effectiveness of NPIs against the COVID-19 pandemic. We searched Embase/Medline and medRxiv to identify the relevant literature. RESULTS: We identified 34 studies. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, school closing was the most effective NPI, followed by workplace closing, business and venue closing and public event bans. Public information campaigns and mask wearing requirements were also effective in controlling the pandemic while being less disruptive for the population than other NPIs. There was no evidence on the effectiveness of public transport closure, testing and contact tracing strategies and quarantining or isolation of individuals. Early implementation was associated with a higher effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 cases and deaths, while general stringency of the NPIs was not. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we found that school closing, followed by workplace closing, business and venue closing and public event bans were the most effective NPIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19. An early response and a combination of specific social distancing measures are effective at reducing COVID-19 cases and deaths. Continuous monitoring of NPIs effectiveness is needed in order to adapt decision making.

The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 epidemic growth in the 37 OECD member states.

We estimated the impact of a comprehensive set of non-pharmeceutical interventions on the COVID-19 epidemic growth rate across the 37 member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and between October and December 2020. For this task, we conducted a data-driven, longitudinal analysis using a multilevel modelling approach with both maximum likelihood and Bayesian estimation. We found that during the early phase of the epidemic: implementing restrictions on gatherings of more than 100 people, between 11 and 100 people, and 10 people or less was associated with a respective average reduction of 2.58%, 2.78% and 2.81% in the daily growth rate in weekly confirmed cases; requiring closing for some sectors or for all but essential workplaces with an average reduction of 1.51% and 1.78%; requiring closing of some school levels or all school levels with an average reduction of 1.12% or 1.65%; recommending mask wearing with an average reduction of 0.45%, requiring mask wearing country-wide in specific public spaces or in specific geographical areas within the country with an average reduction of 0.44%, requiring mask-wearing country-wide in all public places or all public places where social distancing is not possible with an average reduction of 0.96%; and number of tests per thousand population with an average reduction of 0.02% per unit increase. Between October and December 2020 work closing requirements and testing policy were significant predictors of the epidemic growth rate. These findings provide evidence to support policy decision-making regarding which NPIs to implement to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Risk communication in the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic: challenges and promising approaches]. / Risikokommunikation bei der Eindämmung der COVID-19-Pandemie: Herausforderungen und Erfolg versprechende Ansätze.

Risk communication plays a central role in public health emergencies: it must enable informed decisions, promote protective or life-sustaining behaviour, and maintain trust in public institutions. In addition, uncertainties in knowledge must be named transparently; irrational fears and rumours must be refuted. Success factors for risk communication are the participation of citizens as well as the continuous recording of risk perception and risk competence in population groups. The current COVID-19 (corona virus disease 2019) pandemic poses specific challenges for risk communication.The state of knowledge on many important aspects concerning COVID-19 was and is often uncertain or preliminary, e.g. on transmission, symptoms, long-term effects and immunity. Communication is characterised by scientific language and an array of figures and statistics, which can render the content difficult to understand. Alongside the official announcements and statements by experts, COVID-19 is widely communicated on social media, spreading misinformation and speculation; this "infodemic" can complicate risk communication.Various national and international scientific projects will help tailor risk communication on COVID-19 to target groups and thereby render it more effective. These projects include explorative studies on how people deal with COVID-19-related information; the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) project, a regularly conducted online survey on risk perception and protective behaviour; and an interdisciplinary qualitative study that compares the design, implementation and effectiveness of risk communication strategies in four countries.

Assessing COVID-19 through the lens of health systems' preparedness: time for a change.

The last months have left no-one in doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is exerting enormous pressure on health systems around the world, bringing to light the sub-optimal resilience of even those classified as high-performing. This makes us re-think the extent to which we are using the appropriate metrics in evaluating health systems which, in the case of this pandemic, might have masked how unprepared some countries were. It also makes us reflect on the strength of our solidarity as a global community, as we observe that global health protection remains, as this pandemic shows, focused on protecting high income countries from public health threats originating in low and middle income countries. To change this course, and in times like this, all nations should come together under one umbrella to respond to the pandemic by sharing intellectual, human, and material resources. In order to work towards stronger and better prepared health systems, improved and resilience-relevant metrics are needed. Further, a new model of development assistance for health, one that is focused on stronger and more resilient health systems, should be the world's top priority.