To evaluate which non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been more and less effective in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed a systematic review of published and unpublished empirical studies, either observational or interventional, analysing the comparative effectiveness of NPIs against the COVID-19 pandemic.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. 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. 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.

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.

Introduction: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), the leading cause of death globally, are estimated to overtake communicable diseases in sub-Sahara Africa, where healthcare workers (HCWs) play a crucial role in prevention and treatment, but are in extreme shortage, thereby increasing the burden of NCDs among this specific population. To provide evidence for policy-making, we assessed the NCD burden, associated factors and treatment among HCWs in four sub-Saharan African countries.Materials and methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study across four sub-Saharan African countries [Côte d'Ivoire (CIV), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Madagascar (MDG), and Nigeria (NIG)] between February and December 2022. In a standardized questionnaire, sociodemographic, chronic disease and treatment data were self-reported. We estimated the prevalence of (1) at least one chronic disease, (2) hypertension, and used backward elimination logistic regression model to identify risk factors.Results: We recruited a total of 6,848 HCWs. The prevalence of at least one chronic disease ranged between 9.7% in NIG and 20.6% in MDG, the prevalence of hypertension between 5.4% in CIV and 11.3% in MDG. At most, reported treatment rates reached 36.5%. The odds of each of both outcomes increased with age (at least one chronic disease adjusted odds ratio: CIV: 1.04; DRC: 1.09; MDG: 1.06; NIG: 1.10; hypertension: CIV: 1.10; DRC: 1.31; MDG: 1.11; NIG: 1.11) and with BMI (at least one chronic disease: CIV: 1.10; DRC: 1.07; MDG: 1.06; NIG: 1.08; hypertension: CIV: 1.10; DRC: 1.66; MDG: 1.13; NIG: 1.07). Odds of both outcomes were lower among males, except in CIV. In NIG, the odds of both outcomes were higher among medical doctors and odds of hypertension were higher among those working in secondary care. In MDG, working in secondary care increased and working as auxiliary staff decreased the odds of at least one chronic disease.Conclusion: The prevalence of self-reported chronic disease varied across the four sub-Saharan countries with potentially very low treatment rates. We identified several individual (age, sex, and BMI) and occupational (profession, level of healthcare) factors that influence the odds of NCDs. These factors should be taken into account when developing interventions addressing the burden and management of NCDs among HCWs.

Background: Malaria is a leading cause of death and reduced life span in Guinea and Sierra Leone, where plans for rolling out the malaria vaccine for children are being made. There is little evidence about caregiver acceptance rates to guide roll-out policies. To inform future vaccine implementation planning, this analysis aimed to assess potential malaria vaccine acceptance by caregivers and identify factors associated with acceptance in Guinea and Sierra Leone. Methods: A cross-sectional household survey using lot quality assurance sampling was conducted in three regions per country between May 2022 and August 2022. The first survey respondent in each household provided sociodemographic information. A household member responsible for childcare shared their likelihood of accepting a malaria vaccine for their children under 5 years and details about children’s health. The prevalence of caregiver vaccine acceptance was calculated and associated factors were explored using multivariable logistic regression modelling calculating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Caregivers in 76% of 702 sampled households in Guinea and 81% of 575 households in Sierra Leone were accepting of a potential vaccine for their children. In both countries, acceptance was lower in remote areas than in urban areas (Guinea: aOR 0.22 [95%CI 0.09–0.50], Sierra Leone: 0.17 [0.06–0.47]). In Guinea, acceptance was lower among caregivers living in the richest households compared to the poorest households (0.10 [0.04–0.24]), among those whose children were tested for malaria when febrile (0.54 [0.34–0.85]) and in households adopting more preventative measures against malaria (0.39 [0.25–0.62]). Better knowledge of the cause of malaria infection was associated with increased acceptance (3.46 [1.01–11.87]). In Sierra Leone, vaccine acceptance was higher among caregivers living in households where the first respondent had higher levels of education as compared to lower levels (2.32 [1.05–5.11]). Conclusion: In both countries, malaria vaccine acceptance seems promising for future vaccine roll-out programmes. Policy makers might consider regional differences, sociodemographic factors, and levels of knowledge about malaria for optimization of implementation strategies. Raising awareness about the benefits of comprehensive malaria control efforts, including vaccination and other preventive measures, requires attention in upcoming campaigns.

Objective: To undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis of a Community-based Hypertension Improvement Project (ComHIP) compared with standard hypertension care in Ghana.Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model.Setting: Lower Manya Krobo, Eastern Region, Ghana.Intervention: We evaluated ComHIP, an intervention with multiple components, including: community-based education on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and healthy lifestyles; community-based screening and monitoring of blood pressure by licensed chemical sellers and CVD nurses; community-based diagnosis, treatment, counselling, follow-up and referral of hypertension patients by CVD nurses; telemedicine consultation by CVD nurses and referral of patients with severe hypertension and/or organ damage to a physician; information and communication technologies messages for healthy lifestyles, treatment adherence support and treatment refill reminders for hypertension patients; Commcare, a cloud-based health records system linked to short-message service (SMS)/voice messaging for treatment adherence, reminders and health messaging. ComHIP was evaluated under two scale-up scenarios: (1) ComHIP as currently implemented with support from international partners and (2) ComHIP under full local implementation.Main outcome measures: Incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from a societal perspective over a time horizon of 10 years.Results: ComHIP is unlikely to be a cost-effective intervention, with current ComHIP implementation and ComHIP under full local implementation costing on average US$12 189 and US$6530 per DALY averted, respectively. Results were robust to uncertainty analyses around model parameters.Conclusions: High overhead costs and high patient costs in ComHIP suggest that the societal costs of ensuring appropriate hypertension care are high and may not produce sufficient impact to achieve cost-effective implementation. However, these results are limited by the evidence quality of the effectiveness estimates, which comes from observational data rather than from randomised controlled study design.

Background: The question of the utility of face masks in preventing acute respiratory infections has received renewed attention during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, given the inconclusive evidence from existing randomized controlled trials, evidence based on real-world data with high external validity is missing. Objective: To add real-world evidence, this study aims to examine whether mask mandates in 51 countries and mask recommendations in 10 countries increased self-reported face mask use and reduced SARS-CoV-2 reproduction numbers and COVID-19 case growth rates. Methods: We applied an event study approach to data pooled from four sources: (1) country-level information on self-reported mask use was obtained from the COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey, (2) data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker provided information on face mask mandates and recommendations and any other nonpharmacological interventions implemented, (3) mobility indicators from Google’s Community Mobility Reports were also included, and (4) SARS-CoV-2 reproduction numbers and COVID-19 case growth rates were retrieved from the Our World in Data—COVID-19 data set. Results: Mandates increased mask use by 8.81 percentage points (P=.006) on average, and SARS-CoV-2 reproduction numbers declined on average by −0.31 units (P=.008). Although no significant average effect of mask mandates was observed for growth rates of COVID-19 cases (−0.98 percentage points; P=.56), the results indicate incremental effects on days 26 (−1.76 percentage points; P=.04), 27 (−1.89 percentage points; P=.05), 29 (−1.78 percentage points; P=.04), and 30 (−2.14 percentage points; P=.02) after mandate implementation. For self-reported face mask use and reproduction numbers, incremental effects are seen 6 and 13 days after mandate implementation. Both incremental effects persist for >30 days. Furthermore, mask recommendations increased self-reported mask use on average (5.84 percentage points; P<.001). However, there were no effects of recommendations on SARS-CoV-2 reproduction numbers or COVID-19 case growth rates (−0.06 units; P=.70 and −2.45 percentage points; P=.59). Single incremental effects on self-reported mask use were observed on days 11 (3.96 percentage points; P=.04), 13 (3.77 percentage points; P=.04) and 25 to 27 (4.20 percentage points; P=.048 and 5.91 percentage points; P=.01) after recommendation. Recommendations also affected reproduction numbers on days 0 (−0.07 units; P=.03) and 1 (−0.07 units; P=.03) and between days 21 (−0.09 units; P=.04) and 28 (−0.11 units; P=.05) and case growth rates between days 1 and 4 (−1.60 percentage points; P=.03 and −2.19 percentage points; P=.03) and on day 23 (−2.83 percentage points; P=.05) after publication. Conclusions: Contrary to recommendations, mask mandates can be used as an effective measure to reduce SARS-CoV-2 reproduction numbers. However, mandates alone are not sufficient to reduce growth rates of COVID-19 cases. Our study adds external validity to the existing randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2.