Article

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: 2.32). 02/2007; 7:208. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-208
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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

Full-text

Available from: Jeffrey Wasserman, Jul 04, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
142 Views
  • Source
    [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 · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There remains substantial debate over the impact of school closure as a mitigation strategy during an influenza pandemic. The ongoing 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic has provided an unparalleled opportunity to test interventions with the most up-to-date simulations. To assist the Allegheny County Health Department during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, the University of Pittsburgh Models of Infectious Disease Agents Study group employed an agent-based computer simulation model (ABM) of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to explore the effects of various school closure strategies on mitigating influenza epidemics of different reproductive rates (R0). Entire school system closures were not more effective than individual school closures. Any type of school closure may need to be maintained throughout most of the epidemic (ie, at least 8 weeks) to have any significant effect on the overall serologic attack rate. In fact, relatively short school closures (ie, 2 weeks or less) may actually slightly increase the overall attack rate by returning susceptible students back into schools in the middle of the epidemic. Varying the illness threshold at which school closures are triggered did not seem to have substantial impact on the effectiveness of school closures, suggesting that short delays in closing schools should not cause concern. School closures alone may not be able to quell an epidemic but, when maintained for at least 8 weeks, could delay the epidemic peak for up to a week, providing additional time to implement a second more effective intervention such as vaccination.
    Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 01/2010; 16(3):252-61. DOI:10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181ce594e · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compared the impact of three household interventions-education, education with alcohol-based hand sanitizer, and education with hand sanitizer and face masks-on incidence and secondary transmission of upper respiratory infections (URIs) and influenza, knowledge of transmission of URIs, and vaccination rates. A total of 509 primarily Hispanic households participated. Participants reported symptoms twice weekly, and nasal swabs were collected from those with an influenza-like illness (ILI). Households were followed for up to 19 months and home visits were made at least every two months. We recorded 5034 URIs, of which 669 cases reported ILIs and 78 were laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza. Demographic factors significantly associated with infection rates included age, gender, birth location, education, and employment. The Hand Sanitizer group was significantly more likely to report that no household member had symptoms (p < 0.01), but there were no significant differences in rates of infection by intervention group in multivariate analyses. Knowledge improved significantly more in the Hand Sanitizer group (p < 0.0001). The proportion of households that reported > or = 50% of members receiving influenza vaccine increased during the study (p < 0.001). Despite the fact that compliance with mask wearing was poor, mask wearing as well as increased crowding, lower education levels of caretakers, and index cases 0-5 years of age (compared with adults) were associated with significantly lower secondary transmission rates (all p < 0.02). In this population, there was no detectable additional benefit of hand sanitizer or face masks over targeted education on overall rates of URIs, but mask wearing was associated with reduced secondary transmission and should be encouraged during outbreak situations. During the study period, community concern about methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was occurring, perhaps contributing to the use of hand sanitizer in the Education control group, and diluting the intervention's measurable impact.
    Public Health Reports 01/2010; 125(2):178-91. DOI:10.2307/41434769 · 1.64 Impact Factor