Four billion people worldwide have experienced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) confinement. Such unprecedented extent of mobility restriction to curb the COVID-19 pandemic may have profound impacts on how individuals live, travel and retain well-being. This systematic review aims to identify (i) the social consequences of mass quarantine—community-wide movement restrictions—during previous and current infectious disease outbreaks and (ii) recommended strategies to mitigate the negative social implications of COVID-19 lockdowns. Considering social determinants of health, we conducted a systematic review by searching five databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and the World Health Organization COVID-19 database) for publications from inception to 9 April 2020. No limitation was set on language, location or study type. Studies that (i) contained peer-reviewed original empirical evidence and (ii) focussed on non-epidemiological implications of mass quarantine were included. We thematically synthesized and reported data due to heterogeneous disease and country context. Of 3067 publications found, 15 original peer-reviewed articles were selected for full-text extraction. Psychological distress, heightened communication inequalities, food insecurity, economic challenges, diminished access to health care, alternative delivery of education and gender-based violence were identified as negative social consequences of community-based quarantine in six infectious disease epidemics, including the current COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, altruistic attitudes were identified as a positive consequence during previous quarantines. Diverse psychological and social consequences of mass quarantine in previous and current epidemics were evident, but individual country policies had been highly varied in how well they addressed the needs of affected individuals, especially those who are socially marginalized. Policymakers should balance the pros and cons of movement restrictions, facilitate multisectoral action to tackle social inequalities, provide clear and coherent guidance to the public and undertake time-bound policy evaluations to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19 lockdowns and to establish preparedness strategies for future epidemics.

Background: Pharmacy First (PF) launched in England in 2024 with the main goal of reducing demand on primary care. Under PF, people can receive treatment for seven common ailments in community pharmacies. This study is a component of a 36-month mixed-methods evaluation of PF. Aim: To explore GPs’ perspectives on PF implementation in England. Method: A qualitative study, involving one-to-one semi-structured interviews, was conducted between March and August 2025. Eligible study participants were purposively sampled GPs in England. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were managed in NVivo12 and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-four GPs participated, from six NHS regions. Key themes from the data include: 1) the importance of GP relationships with community pharmacists (CPs) and patients; 2) perceptions about CPs’ level of training; 3) considerations about continuity of care within the NHS and GPs’ perceived responsibility for the patient journey; 4) patient safety concerns and the potential for misdiagnosis by CPs; and 5) potential influences on antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial use. These findings exist against a backdrop of funding issues in general practice and GPs’ concerns about professional boundaries. Conclusion: This study has implications for PF’s implementation and contextualises findings arising from other components of the evaluation, including a decreasing proportion of PF consultations resulting from GP referrals. Overall findings from the evaluation will provide a comprehensive picture of the factors influencing PF implementation and the expected resultant relief on primary care.