Search

Problem: At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, reliable, globally applicable recommendations for safe and continuous school operations were lacking., Approach: In October 2020, the German Association of Scientific Medical Societies' task force for COVID-19 guidelines and public health researchers at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München initiated the rapid development of a living evidence- and consensus-based guideline to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission in schools. To facilitate transparent, structured and comprehensive decision-making with a whole-of-society perspective, they applied the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework. This framework supported a broad, multisectoral composition of the guideline panel. The panel used newly synthesized evidence on nine school measures. Participating medical societies or the guideline secretariat completed evidence-to-decision tables. They also drafted recommendations for the guideline panel, who discussed and revised them during moderated consensus conferences., Local Setting: In Germany, each state is responsible for organizing schooling. The German Association of Scientific Medical Societies coordinates development of evidence- and consensus-based guidelines., Relevant Changes: The first version of the guideline was published in February 2021, and the guideline dissemination created much media attention. Of the 16 state education ministries, almost all knew about the guideline, nine recognized it as a relevant source of information and five used it to check existing directives., Lessons Learnt: The WHO-INTEGRATE framework facilitated a comprehensive assessment of school measures from the start of guideline development, considering the broad societal impact of the measures. Using the framework in rapid mode was feasible, but it fell short of its potential., ((c) 2024 The authors; licensee World Health Organization.)

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, decision-making on measures to reduce or prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools was rendered difficult by a rapidly evolving and uncertain evidence base regarding their effectiveness and unintended consequences. To support decision-makers, an interdisciplinary panel of scientific experts, public health and school authorities as well as those directly affected by school measures, was convened in an unprecedented effort to develop an evidence- and consensus-based public health guideline for German schools. This study sought to assess whether and how this guideline impacted decision-making processes., Methods: This study comprised three components: (1) we sent inquiries according to the Freedom of Information Acts of each Federal State to ministries of education, family, and health. (2) We conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in decision-making regarding school measures in two Federal States, and (3) we undertook semi-structured interviews with members of the guideline panel. The content of response letters in component 1 was analysed descriptively; data for components 2 and 3 were analysed using deductive-inductive thematic qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz., Results: Responses to the Freedom of Information Act inquiries showed that the guideline was recognised as a relevant source of information by ministries of education in nine out of 16 Federal States and used as a reference to check existing directives for school measures in five Federal States. All participants (20 interviews) emphasised the value of the guideline given its evidence- and consensus-based development process but also noted limitations in its usability and usefulness, e.g., lack of context-specificity. It was consulted by participants who advised policy-makers (5 interviews) alongside other sources of evidence. Overall, perceptions regarding the guideline's impact were mixed., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the guideline was relatively well-known in Federal States' decision-making bodies and that it was considered alongside other forms of evidence in some of these. We suggest that further research to evaluate the impact of public health guidelines on (political) decision-making is warranted. Guideline development processes may need to be adapted to account for the realities of decision-making during public health emergencies and beyond., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Different measures to prevent and control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 have been implemented in German schools. Decisions regarding such measures should be informed by evidence regarding their effectiveness, and their unintended consequences for health and society. A multi-stakeholder panel was convened to develop an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for school measures, using the novel WHO-INTEGRATE framework. Developing a guideline to inform decision-making outside of the clinical realm during a public health emergency was unprecedented in Germany. This study aims to identify lessons learnt for similar endeavours by addressing the following research question: What were the strengths and weaknesses of the guideline development process as perceived by the different groups involved?, Methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually. We recruited participants aiming to include the perspectives of all groups contributing to the guideline development, including both panel members (scientists, practitioners, school family and observers) and the guideline secretariat. For analysis, we carried out deductive-inductive thematic qualitative text analysis according to Kuckartz, structuring findings using a category system., Results: Due to time pressure, the guideline secretariat was heavily involved not only in synthesising the evidence but also in developing and drafting recommendations. Participants critically reflected on certain methods-related decisions, including the development of draft recommendations and application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework by scientists only. The full potential of the framework might not have been harnessed. Participants' understanding of relevant and valid evidence varied, and the available evidence base was limited. Participants represented different types of expertise, notably expertise informed by scientific evidence and expertise grounded in lived experience, influencing their involvement in the guideline development process and discussions during meetings., Conclusion: Developing an evidence- and consensus-based public health guideline in only three months was challenging, notably because of the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders and the use of a novel Evidence-to-Decision framework, both unprecedented in Germany. Learning from this process with a view to "institutionalising" the development of public health guidelines and refining methods can contribute to more evidence-informed public health decision-making in Germany and beyond, in general and during a public health emergency., Competing Interests: EAR, BS, and LMP are members of the guideline secretariat as well as initiators of this process evaluation, which represents a conflict of interest (see Methods and Discussion with regard to how this research sought to minimise any undue influence as a result of this conflict of interest). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wabnitz, Rueb, Pfadenhauer, Strahwald and Rehfuess.)

Background: Public health and social measures (PHSM) intend to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases and to reduce the burden on health systems, economies and societies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, PHSM have been selected, combined and implemented in a variable manner and inconsistently categorized in policy trackers. This paper presents an initial conceptual framework depicting how PHSM operate in a complex system, enabling a wide-reaching description of these measures and their intended and unintended outcomes., Methods: In a multi-stage development process, we combined (i) a complexity perspective and systems thinking; (ii) literature on existing COVID-19 PHSM frameworks, taxonomies and policy trackers; (iii) expert input and (iv) application to school and international travel measures., Results: The initial framework reflects our current understanding of how PHSM are intended to achieve transmission-related outcomes in a complex system, offering visualizations, definitions and worked examples. First, PHSM operate through two basic mechanisms, that is, reducing contacts and/or making contacts safer. Second, PHSM are defined not only by the measures themselves but by their stringency and application to specific populations and settings. Third, PHSM are critically influenced by contextual factors. The framework provides a tool for structured thinking and further development, rather than a ready-to-use tool for practice., Conclusions: This conceptual framework seeks to facilitate coordinated, interdisciplinary research on PHSM effectiveness, impact and implementation; enable consistent, coherent PHSM monitoring and evaluation; and contribute to evidence-informed decision-making on PHSM implementation, adaptation and de-implementation. We expect this framework to be modified and refined over time., Competing Interests: AM, LMP, JB, EAR and BS report having received institutional funding from the German Ministry for Education and Research towards the COVID‐19 Evidence Ecosystem (CEOsys) project, which facilitated systematic review work on school measures and international travel measures. EAR additionally reports being a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Robert Koch Institute, which offered guidance on PHSM during the pandemic in Germany, and of the WHO Regional Office for Europe's Technical Advisory Group on Schooling during COVID‐19; she also reports being a member of the methods working group of the WHO PHSM Initiative. RL reports being involved with setting up and implementing the WHO PHSM Initiative. SM reports being a member of the methods working group of the WHO PHSM Initiative, having participated in the UK Government's Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies (SAGE) and in Independent SAGE, and being a member of the Lancet Covid‐19 Commission's Public Health Taskforce., (© 2023 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Public health and social measures (PHSM) have been central to the COVID-19 response. Consequently, there has been much pressure on decision-makers to make evidence-informed decisions and on researchers to synthesize the evidence regarding these measures. This article describes our experiences, responses and lessons learnt regarding key challenges when planning and conducting rapid reviews of PHSM during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholder consultations and scoping reviews to obtain an overview of the evidence inform the scope of reviews that are policy-relevant and feasible. Multiple complementary reviews serve to examine the benefits and harms of PHSM across different populations and contexts. Conceiving reviews of effectiveness as adaptable living reviews helps to respond to evolving evidence needs and an expanding evidence base. An appropriately skilled review team and good planning, coordination and communication ensures smooth and rigorous processes and efficient use of resources. Scientific rigor, the practical implications of PHSM-related complexity and likely time savings should be carefully weighed in deciding on methodological shortcuts. Making the best possible use of modeling studies represents a particular challenge, and methods should be carefully chosen, piloted and implemented. Our experience raises questions regarding the nature of rapid reviews and regarding how different types of evidence should be considered in making decisions about PHSM during a global pandemic. We highlight the need for readily available protocols for conducting studies on the effectiveness, unintended consequences and implementation of PHSM in a timely manner, as well as the need for rapid review standards tailored to "rapid" versus "emergency" mode reviewing., (© 2022 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background/objective: International travel measures to contain the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represent a relatively intrusive form of non-pharmaceutical intervention. To inform decision-making on the (re)implementation, adaptation, relaxation or suspension of such measures, it is essential to not only assess their effectiveness but also their unintended effects., Methods: This scoping review maps existing empirical studies on the unintended consequences, both predicted and unforeseen, and beneficial or harmful, of international travel measures. We searched multiple health, non-health and COVID-19-specific databases. The evidence was charted in a map in relation to the study design, intervention and outcome categories identified and discussed narratively., Results: Twenty-three studies met our inclusion criteria-nine quasi-experimental, two observational, two mathematical modelling, six qualitative and four mixed-methods studies. Studies addressed different population groups across various countries worldwide. Seven studies provided information on unintended consequences of the closure of national borders, six looked at international travel restrictions and three investigated mandatory quarantine of international travellers. No studies looked at entry and/or exit screening at national borders exclusively, however six studies considered this intervention in combination with other international travel measures. In total, 11 studies assessed various combinations of the aforementioned interventions. The outcomes were mostly referred to by the authors as harmful. Fifteen studies identified a variety of economic consequences, six reported on aspects related to quality of life, well-being, and mental health and five on social consequences. One study each provided information on equity, equality, and the fair distribution of benefits and burdens, environmental consequences and health system consequences., Conclusion: This scoping review represents the first step towards a systematic assessment of the unintended benefits and harms of international travel measures during COVID-19. The key research gaps identified might be filled with targeted primary research, as well as the additional consideration of gray literature and non-empirical studies., (© International Society of Travel Medicine 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)