Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: An evaluation of the evidence base

RAND Center for Domestic and International Health Security, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, California, USA.
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.26). 02/2007; 7(1):208. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-208
Source: PubMed


In an influenza pandemic, the benefit of vaccines and antiviral medications will be constrained by limitations on supplies and effectiveness. Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions will therefore be vital in curtailing disease spread. However, the most comprehensive assessments of the literature to date recognize the generally poor quality of evidence on which to base non-pharmaceutical pandemic planning decisions. In light of the need to prepare for a possible pandemic despite concerns about the poor quality of the literature, combining available evidence with expert opinion about the relative merits of non-pharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza may lead to a more informed and widely accepted set of recommendations. We evaluated the evidence base for non-pharmaceutical public health interventions. Then, based on the collective evidence, we identified a set of recommendations for and against interventions that are specific to both the setting in which an intervention may be used and the pandemic phase, and which can be used by policymakers to prepare for a pandemic until scientific evidence can definitively respond to planners' needs.
Building on reviews of past pandemics and recent historical inquiries, we evaluated the relative merits of non-pharmaceutical interventions by combining available evidence from the literature with qualitative and quantitative expert opinion. Specifically, we reviewed the recent scientific literature regarding the prevention of human-to-human transmission of pandemic influenza, convened a meeting of experts from multiple disciplines, and elicited expert recommendation about the use of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions in a variety of settings (healthcare facilities; community-based institutions; private households) and pandemic phases (no pandemic; no US pandemic; early localized US pandemic; advanced US pandemic).
The literature contained a dearth of evidence on the efficacy or effectiveness of most non-pharmaceutical interventions for influenza. In an effort to inform decision-making in the absence of strong scientific evidence, the experts ultimately endorsed hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette, surveillance and case reporting, and rapid viral diagnosis in all settings and during all pandemic phases. They also encouraged patient and provider use of masks and other personal protective equipment as well as voluntary self-isolation of patients during all pandemic phases. Other non-pharmaceutical interventions including mask-use and other personal protective equipment for the general public, school and workplace closures early in an epidemic, and mandatory travel restrictions were rejected as likely to be ineffective, infeasible, or unacceptable to the public.
The demand for scientific evidence on non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for influenza is pervasive, and present policy recommendations must rely heavily on expert judgment. In the absence of a definitive science base, our assessment of the evidence identified areas for further investigation as well as non-pharmaceutical public health interventions that experts believe are likely to be beneficial, feasible and widely acceptable in an influenza pandemic.

Download full-text


Available from: Jeffrey Wasserman,
  • Source
    • "The mitigating effect of the weekend on influenza transmission has been widely reported [37,38]. For example, the study by Hens et al. in eight European countries estimated a 10 ~ 20% reduction in influenza infections during weekend when compared to weekdays [37]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background States’ pandemic influenza plans and school closure statutes are intended to guide state and local officials, but most faced a great deal of uncertainty during the 2009 influenza H1N1 epidemic. Questions remained about whether, when, and for how long to close schools and about which agencies and officials had legal authority over school closures. Methods This study began with analysis of states’ school-closure statutes and pandemic influenza plans to identify the variations among them. An agent-based model of one state was used to represent as constants a population’s demographics, commuting patterns, work and school attendance, and community mixing patterns while repeated simulations explored the effects of variations in school closure authority, duration, closure thresholds, and reopening criteria. Results The results show no basis on which to justify statewide rather than school-specific or community-specific authority for school closures. Nor do these simulations offer evidence to require school closures promptly at the earliest stage of an epidemic. More important are criteria based on monitoring of local case incidence and on authority to sustain closure periods sufficiently to achieve epidemic mitigation. Conclusions This agent-based simulation suggests several ways to improve statutes and influenza plans. First, school closure should remain available to state and local authorities as an influenza mitigation strategy. Second, influenza plans need not necessarily specify the threshold for school closures but should clearly define provisions for early and ongoing local monitoring. Finally, school closure authority may be exercised at the statewide or local level, so long as decisions are informed by monitoring incidence in local communities and schools.
    BMC Public Health 11/2012; 12(1):977. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-977 · 2.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In the face of pH1N1, prevention strategies including vaccination, wearing face masks when having influenzalike symptoms, and frequent handwashing have been recommended by Taiwan officials (Taiwan CDC 2009). Among them, handwashing is more readily accepted and less constrained by limitations on supplies and effectiveness (Aiello et al. 2010; Aledort et al. 2007). Handwashing is also effective in impeding the spread of influenza virus in household and school settings (Cowling et al. 2009; Jefferson et al. 2009), as it can significantly reduce *These authors contributed equally to this work. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective  To investigate increased hand hygiene practice in response to the pandemic influenza A/H1N1 (pH1N1) and its associated psychosocial factors in the Taiwanese general population. Methods  A national telephone survey using random digit dialing was conducted on October 28-30, 2009 in Taiwan, resulting in a final sample of 1079 participants aged 15 or older. Results  Seventy-seven per cent reported that they increased hand hygiene practice during the pH1N1 epidemic. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that increased hand hygiene practice was associated with health beliefs that pH1N1 was more transmissible than avian influenza (OR = 1.42); that pH1N1 was slightly more severe in Taiwan compared with other countries (OR = 1.59); that handwashing was very effective in preventing pH1N1 (OR = 3.12), and that handwashing after contact with possibly pH1N1-contaminated objects/surfaces was not very difficult (OR = 2.14) or not difficult at all (OR = 2.49). Conclusions  These findings suggest that future campaigns to promote preventive health behaviour in the public should consider communicating evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness of the recommended preventive behaviour, comparing the emerging epidemic with prior local outbreaks, and not overplaying the seriousness of the disease with fear tactics.
    Tropical Medicine & International Health 03/2012; 17(5):604-12. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2012.02966.x · 2.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Since we have based our analysis on the winter wave of the pandemic and we have excluded the ILI or ARI rates observed during the summer wave, when the consultation rates were most likely to be affected by media bias or panic [42], we expect less influence on health seeking behavior during the winter wave of the pandemic. On the other hand, a variety of prevention measures had been undertaken by countries during the pandemic influenza season, including vaccination, social distancing, school closures, antiviral treatment and prophylaxis that might have reduced the attack rates [43-45], and subsequently the outpatient consultation rates due to ILI or ARI. If these measures had not been undertaken, we might have observed a greater difference between pandemic and seasonal ILI/ARI rates in the countries of the Region. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The world has recently experienced the first influenza pandemic of the 21st century that lasted 14 months from June 2009 to August 2010. This study aimed to compare the timing, geographic spread and community impact during the winter wave of influenza pandemic A (H1N1) 2009 to historical influenza seasons in countries of the WHO European region. We assessed the timing of pandemic by comparing the median peak of influenza activity in countries of the region during the last seven influenza seasons. The peaks of influenza activity were selected by two independent researchers using predefined rules. The geographic spread was assessed by correlating the peak week of influenza activity in included countries against the longitude and latitude of the central point in each country. To assess the community impact of pandemic influenza, we constructed linear regression models to compare the total and age-specific influenza-like-illness (ILI) or acute respiratory infection (ARI) rates reported by the countries in the pandemic season to those observed in the previous six influenza seasons. We found that the influenza activity reached its peak during the pandemic, on average, 10.5 weeks (95% CI 6.4-14.2) earlier than during the previous 6 seasons in the Region, and there was a west to east spread of pandemic A(H1N1) influenza virus in the western part of the Region. A regression analysis showed that the total ILI or ARI rates were not higher than historical rates in 19 of the 28 countries. However, in countries with age-specific data, there were significantly higher consultation rates in the 0-4 and/or 5-14 age groups in 11 of the 20 countries. Using routine influenza surveillance data, we found that pandemic influenza had several differential features compared to historical seasons in the region. It arrived earlier, caused significantly higher number of outpatient consultations in children in most countries and followed west to east spread that was previously observed during some influenza seasons with dominant A (H3N2) ifluenza viruses. The results of this study help to understand the epidemiology of 2009 influenza pandemic and can be used for pandemic preparedness planning.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 02/2012; 12(1):36. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-12-36 · 2.61 Impact Factor
Show more