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, Aug 17, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
150 Views
  • 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 · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Public health responses in mitigating influenza pandemics include enhanced surveillance, quarantine, patient management, and social distancing. This manuscript summarizes non-pharmaceutical public health responses in Japan and identifies 10 lessons learned from pandemic (H1N1) 2009. Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 can be classified into five phases: I) prepandemic; II) overseas, when swine influenza A (H1N1) was identified in Mexico and the United States; III) early localized, when domestic clusters of patients were identified in Japan; IV) smoldering; and V) widespread. Ten lessons were learned and identified: in the prepandemic phase, 1) the initiatives of high-level decision-making bodies must be enforced effectively and comprehensively, and 2) planning must be flexible and based on a range of scenarios. In the overseas phase, 3) difficulties in decision-making and require the public's trust, 4) human rights must be protected, especially for infected individuals, and 5) efficient response operations are essential because of limited resources. In the early localized phase, 6) acceptance of local governments' initiatives, 7) assumption of the identification of the first domestic patients without overseas travel, 8) strategic public communication for minimizing anxiety, and 9) timely resource allocations with termination of unnecessary responses are necessary. In the widespread phase, 10) criteria for school closures are essential. The implementation of these measures could create greater efficiency in public health responses in the face of another epidemic.
    The Open Public Health Journal 01/2010; 3(1). DOI:10.2174/1874944501003010013
  • Source
    Public Health Reports 01/2011; 126(4):591-6. DOI:10.2307/41639402 · 1.64 Impact Factor
Show more