↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, November 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 57,497)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
280 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
British Medical Journal, November 2021
DOI 10.1136/bmj-2021-068302
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stella Talic, Shivangi Shah, Holly Wild, Danijela Gasevic, Ashika Maharaj, Zanfina Ademi, Xue Li, Wei Xu, Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray, Jasmin Rostron, Evropi Theodoratou, Xiaomeng Zhang, Ashmika Motee, Danny Liew, Dragan Ilic, Talic, Stella, Shah, Shivangi, Wild, Holly, Gasevic, Danijela, Maharaj, Ashika, Ademi, Zanfina, Li, Xue, Xu, Wei, Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ines, Rostron, Jasmin, Theodoratou, Evropi, Zhang, Xiaomeng, Motee, Ashmika, Liew, Danny, Ilic, Dragan, Stella Talic, Ines Mesa Eguiagaray

Abstract

To review the evidence on the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis, Joanna Briggs, Global Health, and World Health Organization COVID-19 database (preprints). Observational and interventional studies that assessed the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality. The main outcome measure was incidence of covid-19. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 transmission and covid-19 mortality. DerSimonian Laird random effects meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of mask wearing, handwashing, and physical distancing measures on incidence of covid-19. Pooled effect estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were computed, and heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I2 metrics, with two tailed P values. 72 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 35 evaluated individual public health measures and 37 assessed multiple public health measures as a "package of interventions." Eight of 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated a reduction in incidence of covid-19 associated with handwashing (relative risk 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.12, I2=12%), mask wearing (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75, I2=84%), and physical distancing (0.75, 0.59 to 0.95, I2=87%). Owing to heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of quarantine and isolation, universal lockdowns, and closures of borders, schools, and workplaces. The effects of these interventions were synthesised descriptively. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that several personal protective and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are associated with reductions in the incidence covid-19. Public health efforts to implement public health measures should consider community health and sociocultural needs, and future research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of public health measures in the context of covid-19 vaccination. PROSPERO CRD42020178692.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9,118 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 280 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 13%
Student > Master 26 9%
Student > Bachelor 26 9%
Unspecified 20 7%
Other 19 7%
Other 55 20%
Unknown 98 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 8%
Unspecified 22 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 4%
Other 57 20%
Unknown 110 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7569. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 May 2022.
All research outputs
#294
of 21,200,018 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#8
of 57,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26
of 458,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#2
of 676 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,200,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 57,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 458,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 676 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.