Themes Surrounding COVID-19 and Its Infodemic: Qualitative Analysis of the COVID-19 Discussion on the Multidisciplinary Healthcare Information for All Health Forum.

Background: Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) is a multidisciplinary global campaign consisting of more than 20,000 members worldwide committed to improving the availability and use of health care information in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). During the COVID-19 pandemic, online HIFA forums saw a tremendous amount of discussion regarding the lack of information about COVID-19, the spread of misinformation, and the pandemic's impact on different communities. Objective: This study aims to analyze the themes and perspectives shared in the COVID-19 discussion on English HIFA forums. Methods: Over a period of 8 months, a qualitative thematic content analysis of the COVID-19 discussion on English HIFA forums was conducted. In total, 865 posts between January 24 and October 31, 2020, from 246 unique study participants were included and analyzed. Results: In total, 6 major themes were identified: infodemic, health system, digital health literacy, economic consequences, marginalized peoples, and mental health. The geographical distribution of study participants involved in the discussion spanned across 46 different countries in every continent except Antarctica. Study participants' professions included public health workers, health care providers, and researchers, among others. Study participants' affiliation included nongovernment organizations (NGOs), commercial organizations, academic institutions, the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), and others. Conclusions: The themes that emerged from this analysis highlight personal recounts, reflections, suggestions, and evidence around addressing COVID-19 related misinformation and might also help to understand the timeline of information evolution, focus, and needs surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Compact cities and the Covid-19 pandemic: Systematic review of the associations between transmission of Covid-19 or other respiratory viruses and population density or other features of neighbourhood design.

Living in compact neighbourhoods that are walkable, well connected, with accessible green space can benefit physical and mental health. However, the pandemic raises concern up to what extent features of compact neighbourhood design affect transmission of viral respiratory infections. We conducted a systematic review to identify, appraise and synthesise evidence reporting associations between transmission of respiratory viruses, including Covid-19, and dwelling or population density or other features of neighbourhood design. Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies used different measures of neighbourhood design, contributing to inconsistent findings. Whereas no convincing conclusion can be drawn here, the outcome of this review indicates that robust, global evidence is warranted to inform future policies and legislation concerned with compact neighbourhood design and transmission of respiratory and viral infection.

Clinical features of COVID-19 for integration of COVID-19 into influenza surveillance: A systematic review.

Background: In November 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) created interim guidance on how to integrate testing for SARS-CoV-2 into existing influenza surveillance systems. Influenza-like illness (ILI) and severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) case definitions have been used to specify the case definition of COVID-19 for surveillance purposes. This review aims to assess whether the common clinical features of COVID-19 have changed to the point that the criteria used to identify both COVID-19 and influenza in surveillance programs needs to be altered. Methods: A systematic review of reviews following PRISMA-P guidelines was conducted using the "COVID-19 evidence review" database from August 19, 2020, to August 19, 2021. Reviews providing pooled estimates of the prevalence of clinical features of COVID-19 within the general population, diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction or rapid diagnostic test, were included. These were critically appraised and sensitivity analysis was undertaken to examine potential causes of bias. Results: Fourteen reviews were identified, including three on adults only and three on children only. For all reviews, combined fever (median prevalence = 73.0%, IQR = 58.3-78.7) and cough (45.1%, IQR = 28.9-54.0) were the most common features. These were followed by loss of taste or smell (45.1%, IQR = 28.9-54.0), hypoxemia (33%, one review), fatigue (26.4%, IQR = 9.0-39.4) and expectoration (23.9%, IQR = 23.3-25.5). Fever and cough continued to be the most prevalent features for adults and children, with subsequent symptoms being similar for adults only. However, the pattern differed for children, with headache (34.3%, IQR = 18-50.7) and nasal congestion (20%, one review) being the third and fourth commonest symptoms. Conclusions: The prevalent features found in this recent review were the same as the ones identified at the beginning of the pandemic. Therefore, the current approach of using the ILI and SARI criteria which incorporate fever and cough will identify COVID-19 cases in addition to influenza. Interestingly, children may present with different features, as headaches and nasal congestion were more common in this group. Future research could examine this further and investigate whether symptomology changes with new variants of COVID-19.

Which factors influence the extent of indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2? A rapid evidence review.

BACKGROUND: This rapid evidence review identifies and integrates evidence from epidemiology, microbiology and fluid dynamics on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor environments. METHODS: Searches were conducted in May 2020 in PubMed, medRxiv, arXiv, Scopus, WHO COVID-19 database, Compendex & Inspec. We included studies reporting data on any indoor setting except schools, any indoor activities and any potential means of transmission. Articles were screened by a single reviewer, with rejections assessed by a second reviewer. We used Joanna Briggs Institute and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools for evaluating epidemiological studies and developed bespoke tools for the evaluation of study types not covered by these instruments. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by a single reviewer. We conducted a meta-analysis of secondary attack rates in household transmission. Otherwise, data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: We identified 1573 unique articles. After screening and quality assessment, fifty-eight articles were retained for analysis. Experimental evidence from fluid mechanics and microbiological studies demonstrates that aerosolised transmission is theoretically possible; however, we found no conclusive epidemiological evidence of this occurring. The evidence suggests that ventilation systems have the potential to decrease virus transmission near the source through dilution but to increase transmission further away from the source through dispersal. We found no evidence for faecal-oral transmission. Laboratory studies suggest that the virus survives for longer on smooth surfaces and at lower temperatures. Environmental sampling studies have recovered small amounts of viral RNA from a wide range of frequently touched objects and surfaces; however, epidemiological studies are inconclusive on the extent of fomite transmission. We found many examples of transmission in settings characterised by close and prolonged indoor contact. We estimate a pooled secondary attack rate within households of 11% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 9, 13). There were insufficient data to evaluate the transmission risks associated with specific activities. Workplace challenges related to poverty warrant further investigation as potential risk factors for workplace transmission. Fluid mechanics evidence on the physical properties of droplets generated by coughing, speaking and breathing reinforce the importance of maintaining 2 m social distance to reduce droplet transmission. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a snap-shot of evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor environments from the early months of the pandemic. The overall quality of the evidence was low. As the quality and quantity of available evidence grows, it will be possible to reach firmer conclusions on the risk factors for and mechanisms of indoor transmission.