Systematic review of empiric studies on lockdowns, workplace closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in non-healthcare workplaces during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic : benefits and selected unintended consequences
© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply..
BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions within non-healthcare workplaces and community-level workplace closures and lockdowns on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, selected mental disorders, and employment outcomes in workers or the general population.
METHODS: The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The exclusion criteria included modeling studies. Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from January 1, 2020, through May 11, 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis and sign tests were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 60 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 40 studies on COVID-19 outcomes, 15 on anxiety and depression symptoms, and five on unemployment and labor force participation. There was a paucity of studies on physical distancing, physical barriers, and symptom and temperature screening within workplaces. The sign test indicated that lockdown reduced COVID-19 incidence or case growth rate (23 studies, p < 0.001), reproduction number (11 studies, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 mortality or death growth rate (seven studies, p < 0.05) in the general population. Lockdown did not have any effect on anxiety symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.02). Lockdown had a small effect on increasing depression symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.21), but publication bias could account for the observed effect. Lockdown increased unemployment (pooled mean difference = 4.48 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.79, 7.17) and decreased labor force participation (pooled mean difference = -2.46 percentage points, 95% CI: -3.16, -1.77). The risk of bias for most of the studies on COVID-19 or employment outcomes was moderate or serious. The risk of bias for the studies on anxiety or depression symptoms was serious or critical.
CONCLUSIONS: Empiric studies indicated that lockdown reduced the impact of COVID-19, but that it had notable unwanted effects. There is a pronounced paucity of studies on the effect of interventions within still-open workplaces. It is important for countries that implement lockdown in future pandemics to consider strategies to mitigate these unintended consequences.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182660.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:24 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
BMC public health - 24(2024), 1 vom: 22. März, Seite 884 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Ahmed, Faruque [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Anxiety |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 25.03.2024 Date Revised 26.03.2024 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s12889-024-18377-1 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM370094573 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM370094573 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240326235956.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240324s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12889-024-18377-1 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1349.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM370094573 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38519891 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Ahmed, Faruque |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Systematic review of empiric studies on lockdowns, workplace closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in non-healthcare workplaces during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic |b benefits and selected unintended consequences |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 25.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 26.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions within non-healthcare workplaces and community-level workplace closures and lockdowns on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, selected mental disorders, and employment outcomes in workers or the general population | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The exclusion criteria included modeling studies. Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from January 1, 2020, through May 11, 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis and sign tests were performed | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: A total of 60 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 40 studies on COVID-19 outcomes, 15 on anxiety and depression symptoms, and five on unemployment and labor force participation. There was a paucity of studies on physical distancing, physical barriers, and symptom and temperature screening within workplaces. The sign test indicated that lockdown reduced COVID-19 incidence or case growth rate (23 studies, p < 0.001), reproduction number (11 studies, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 mortality or death growth rate (seven studies, p < 0.05) in the general population. Lockdown did not have any effect on anxiety symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.02). Lockdown had a small effect on increasing depression symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.21), but publication bias could account for the observed effect. Lockdown increased unemployment (pooled mean difference = 4.48 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.79, 7.17) and decreased labor force participation (pooled mean difference = -2.46 percentage points, 95% CI: -3.16, -1.77). The risk of bias for most of the studies on COVID-19 or employment outcomes was moderate or serious. The risk of bias for the studies on anxiety or depression symptoms was serious or critical | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Empiric studies indicated that lockdown reduced the impact of COVID-19, but that it had notable unwanted effects. There is a pronounced paucity of studies on the effect of interventions within still-open workplaces. It is important for countries that implement lockdown in future pandemics to consider strategies to mitigate these unintended consequences | ||
| 520 | |a SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182660 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Anxiety | |
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Community mitigation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Depression | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Employment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Lockdown | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Non-pharmaceutical | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Novel coronavirus | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Social distancing | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Workplace | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shafer, Livvy |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Malla, Pallavi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hopkins, Roderick |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Moreland, Sarah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zviedrite, Nicole |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Uzicanin, Amra |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC public health |d 2001 |g 24(2024), 1 vom: 22. März, Seite 884 |w (DE-627)NLM111200962 |x 1471-2458 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:24 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g day:22 |g month:03 |g pages:884 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18377-1 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 24 |j 2024 |e 1 |b 22 |c 03 |h 884 | ||