Abstract
Social distancing measures (SDMs) are community-level interventions that aim to reduce person-to-person contacts in the community. SDMs were a major part of the responses first to contain, then to mitigate, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. Common SDMs included limiting the size of gatherings, closing schools and/or workplaces, implementing work-from-home arrangements, or more stringent restrictions such as lockdowns. This systematic review summarized the evidence for the effectiveness of nine SDMs. Almost all of the studies included were observational in nature, which meant that there were intrinsic risks of bias that could have been avoided were conditions randomly assigned to study participants. There were no instances where only one form of SDM had been in place in a particular setting during the study period, making it challenging to estimate the separate effect of each intervention. The more stringent SDMs such as stay-at-home orders, restrictions on mass gatherings and closures were estimated to be most effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Most studies included in this review suggested that combinations of SDMs successfully slowed or even stopped SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community. However, individual effects and optimal combinations of interventions, as well as the optimal timing for particular measures, require further investigation.
This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.
Keywords: transmission, social distancing, lockdown, SARS-CoV-2, schools, care homes
1. Introduction
Social distancing measures (SDMs) are interventions applied to individuals in the community that aim to reduce transmission by reducing person-to-person contacts or the chance of transmission when contact occurs, regardless of their infection or exposure status. The use of SDMs as a means to reduce community transmission of infectious diseases dates back to the 1918 influenza pandemic when school closures and restrictions on mass gatherings were implemented in the United States (US)—a policy decision that was later estimated to have saved thousands of lives [1,2]. School closures were also implemented during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. However, as infections were generally of mild-to-moderate severity and antiviral treatments and vaccines became quickly available, SDMs were implemented for less than a year. These SDMs were also less restrictive and measures to restrict human mobility more generally were not implemented. During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on mass gatherings, school closures, business closures and restrictions on human mobility (both within and across national borders) were implemented in most countries and in many cases for prolonged periods of time.
SDMs may be applied to specific community settings where there is thought to be a higher risk of disease transmission or a higher impact of outbreaks than the general community. With the help of rigorous contact tracing in some locations, it was identified early in the COVID-19 pandemic that clusters of cases were occurring in settings that involved close interpersonal interactions or industries that require their employees to work directly with clients or the public [3,4]. Social and dining activities that occur in restaurants, bars and weddings were associated with more secondary cases than households for individuals of the same age [5]. Many social settings and environments where personal care services are delivered with the removal of face masks may be at higher risk of disease transmission in those settings, especially when they occur in enclosed spaces. As such, SDMs that limited group sizes for dine-in restaurants, reduced the capacity of venues or limited opening hours were implemented. Outbreaks in long-term care facilities were particularly concerning because infections in frail older adults were often more severe than those in younger individuals. SDMs in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic generally took the form of cohorting residents and staff or restricting visitors, where sick or exposed residents were grouped together and/or dedicated staff were assigned to only work within those groups. This is challenging as care homes often rely on agencies to provide staff on an on-call basis due to well-documented pre-existing staffing challenges [6]. In 2009, it was estimated that up to 60% of nursing homes in the US relied on agency staff [7]. This reliance meant staff members would commonly work in multiple care homes, which contributed to the introduction of infections in some care homes during the pandemic. A study carried out in the US in 2020 found that the risk of infection in nursing homes increased ninefold if the homes hired staff through agencies [8].
Lockdowns, also known as stay-at-home orders, were the most restrictive SDM where the majority of the population were required to stay-at-home with exceptions granted only for exercise and essential shopping. The stringency of this measure varied across the world due to the need to balance preventing transmission that could lead to numerous hospitalizations and deaths while also avoiding large contractions of the economy or the breakdown of essential services. Therefore, some stay-at-home orders were targeted at some segments of the community rather than community-wide, for example, allowing construction sites or factories to remain open. Here, we focused on reviewing the effect of SDMs in community settings, including those applied in high-risk settings.
2. Methodology
Individual search terms and systematic literature searches were performed to obtain studies reporting the effectiveness of nine specific SDMs (school closures; school measures; workplace closures; workplace measures; catering, fitness and personal care service measures; care home measures; restrictions on mass gatherings; physical distancing and stay-at-home orders) on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the community (electronic supplementary material,appendix B).
Database searches were carried out in Web of Science and Scopus from 1 January 2020 to 1 December 2022. All study designs were considered for inclusion in this review. However, if there were more than 10 observational studies or studies of higher quality of evidence such as randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies, simulation studies (defined as modelled scenarios without fitting to any observed data) were excluded. Throughout this review, the term ‘ecological study’ refers to the investigation of an association using population-level rather than individual-level data, and may, therefore, be vulnerable to ecological fallacy [9]. Studies that use statistical or mathematical modelling methods that were fitted to observed data will be referred to in this review as ‘modelling studies’ while studies that only simulate hypothetical epidemics based on parameter estimates or assumptions will be referred to as ‘simulation studies’. Preprints were excluded from this review. Broad Google searches were also conducted to find any existing systematic reviews, and relevant studies included in these reviews were also included here.
We included in this review quantitative studies that estimated the effect of SDMs implemented in the community setting that were aimed at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission or disease severity by reducing person-to-person contacts or making such contacts safer. Community settings were defined as non-healthcare settings where medical care by health professionals is not usually delivered, including homes, schools, workplaces and long-term care facilities in the community. Interventions designed to reduce transmission in the community through other mechanisms, such as improved ventilation or face masks, are not considered in this review.
The titles, abstracts and full texts of search results were screened by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included studies, and the quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework—a tool for evaluating the evidence available for an intervention based on eight criteria, four of which are based on the risk of biased estimates due to study design or measurement errors [10,11]. In this framework, the certainty or quality of evidence is categorized into four levels: very low, low, moderate or high. The quality of evidence from randomized trials is initially rated as high, and evidence from observational studies is initially rated as low. This initial rating is then penalized when there are potential risks of bias (e.g. selection or misclassification bias), inconsistencies of findings with published literature, indirectness of reported outcomes compared with true outcomes (e.g. the use of non-specific outcomes), imprecise measurement of exposure or outcomes and the likelihood of publication bias; or upgraded if the reported effect size is large despite plausible residual confounding that may reduce or nullify the effect, and has an appreciable dose–response relationship between intervention and outcomes [11]. Thus, findings from well-conducted randomized controlled trials would generally be considered high-quality evidence with this tool. By contrast, observational studies are often classified as either low or very-low quality.
Data extraction and GRADE assessments were conducted using Microsoft Excel, and further analyses of extracted data were conducted using R v. 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
3. Results
The nine systematic reviews included 338 studies, among which 48 reported effectiveness estimates for more than one SDM (figure 1, electronic supplementary material, appendix A, Table S3) [12–59]. Most studies analysed population-level data and examined SARS-CoV-2 transmission and/or COVID-19 mortality and morbidity (including hospitalizations and deaths) in the presence or absence of the intervention. The main reasons studies were excluded were that the intervention was not evaluated in a community setting or the outcome was unrelated to the effect of the intervention on SARS-CoV-2 transmission (figure 1). As most of the evidence identified in this review came from observational studies, the quality or certainty of the evidence was mainly rated as low or very low for most studies (electronic supplementary material, appendix A) based on the GRADE framework, indicating that the true effect may differ from the estimated effect. However, with over 300 studies included in this study, patterns indicative of the effectiveness of SDMs have emerged. When modelling studies or simulation studies were included due to a lack of randomized or observational studies, their quality of evidence was not assessed because the GRADE framework was not designed for their assessment. In general, simulation studies that did not fit models to data would typically be considered to provide a lower quality of evidence than observational studies or modelling studies that did fit mathematical models to epidemic curves.
Figure 1.
Combined flow diagram for the review of nine social distancing measures: (1) school closures (SC); (2) school measures (SM); (3) workplace closures (WC); (4) workplace measures (WM); (5) catering, fitness and personal care service measures (CFP); (6) care home measures (CH); (7) restrictions on mass gatherings (RMG); (8) physical distancing (PD) and (9) stay-at-home orders (SAH).
Owing to the high volume of papers and concerns over the quality of evidence presented in some studies, we highlight here studies that were conducted more thoroughly (attempted estimating a causal relationship while adjusting for confounders and quantifying uncertainty) and examined whether other studies supported their findings. Details of the included studies are provided in electronic supplementary material, appendix A, and the visualization of their study period and reported effects are included in electronic supplementary material, appendix C.
(a) . Stay-at-home orders
During the COVID-19 pandemic, stay-at-home orders were also referred to as lockdowns, shelter-in-place, mandatory control orders or in some locations as circuit-breaking measures. Italy was the first European country to implement stay-at-home orders on 9 March 2020, lasting over 60 days. As infections spread, the UK also announced a lockdown on 23 March 2020 and began a phased reopening by mid-May that year. Here, we included 151 studies estimating the effectiveness of stay-at-home orders (electronic supplementary material, appendix A, Table S13), 119 of which found a substantial benefit resulting in a reduction of the reproduction number (Rt) [16,23,33,35,38,45,48,60–97], incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection [29,50,52,98–129] and mortality [107,116,130–143].
Among the studies that reported a relative reduction in Rt, most estimated substantial reductions of around 50%, although there was a wide range of effects (6–81%). These studies had different study designs, populations and definitions for stay-at-home orders. They were mainly carried out at a national scale within the first year of the pandemic (electronic supplementary material, appendix C). Definitions differed in stringency, where a stay-at-home order may include lockdown-type measures such as restricting internal travel and imposing limitations on gatherings versus the most stringent where individuals were unable to leave their homes for anything other than exercise or essential shopping. A modelling study that estimated the effects of 17 non-pharmaceutical interventions across two waves in seven European countries estimated that a lockdown (banning all gatherings and closing all non-essential businesses) reduced the Rt by 52% (95% CrI: 47%, 56%) [45]. Two studies in the US in 2020 found similar reductions, estimating a reduction of Rt by 51% (95% CI: 46%, 57%) after stay-at-home orders were implemented in some states [38,80]. However, another study carried out on a multi-national scale in early 2020 concluded that stay-at-home orders had a relatively small additional effect (on top of business closures, school closures and gathering restrictions that were already in place), reducing the Rt by 13% (95% prediction interval (PI): 5%, 31%) [16]. A study in Europe in 2020 also estimated a smaller additional effect of lockdowns when implemented on top of other measures [28].
Studies that estimated the impact of stay-at-home orders on COVID-19 incidence varied across settings. A study in Australia from 2020 to 2021 estimated that the lockdown in Victoria decreased the incidence of COVID-19 two weeks after its implementation (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.88; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.91) [113]. In comparison, a multi-national analysis that looked at 210 countries in early 2020 found that stay-at-home orders reduced the incidence of COVID-19 by 11.2% [52]. Three studies did not find a significant association between stay-at-home orders and COVID-19 cases [14,28,144]. However, the effectiveness of stay-at-home measures on reducing mortality was mixed, with 16 studies [107,116,130–141] reporting reductions, and nine studies reporting no significant associations [19,28,30,47,144–148]. Nevertheless, one study in Europe [28] and another in the US [144] concluded that social distancing behaviours had already changed substantially before stay-at-home orders were implemented in early 2020, and therefore little additional benefit was observed after the stay-at-home orders were issued.
(b) . School measures and closures
Historically, children have played an important role in influenza transmission due to their susceptibility to influenza virus infection and prolonged viral shedding, which facilitates transmission to family members and, by extension, the community. Based on this prior understanding, schools in many countries were proactively closed during the pandemic. In some locations, however, interventions to reduce within-school transmission were used as an alternative to complete closures of schools. These include rotating school schedules (e.g. children from different grades may be in school at different times), reducing the number of consecutive school days, physical distancing or limiting classroom capacities. Some classes were dismissed early to avoid having meals together or if a case was identified in that class.
Eighteen included studies estimated the effectiveness of school measures (not including closures) to reduce the impact of COVID-19. Six were observational studies [149–154] and 12 were simulation studies [155–166]. Most studies were carried out in 2020 at a sub-national scale (electronic supplementary material, appendix C). Seven of these studies estimated the effect of school measures in combination with the mandatory or recommended use of face masks [149,151–153,155,157,160].
Four of the six observational studies assessed individual schools between the end of 2020 and early 2021. Three did not quantify the effect but observed minimal transmission in schools with SDMs and universal masking interventions in place despite substantial community transmission [150,151,153]. The remaining study that examined the effect of multiple distancing measures in 36 schools in Italy (including limited capacity, distanced student desks and minimized crowding and entry and exits) observed that the overall secondary transmission rate was 3.8%, although there was no comparator without the interventions in place [152]. Two other observational studies had similar findings [150,154]. One that used data from 35 school outbreaks across 12 countries from 2020 to July 2021 [154] suggested that distancing and masking were both associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in schools (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.30, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.37) [154]. Another ecological study examining schools in North Carolina and Wisconsin, US, from 2020 to 2021 did not observe an increase in the secondary transmission rate in schools after distancing measures were relaxed, indicating they had no effect on transmission in these schools [149]. The remaining simulation studies found that school measures were associated with reductions in public health impacts of COVID-19, both in the schools [156–158,160,162–166] and the community [155,159,161].
For the review of school closures, 104 studies were included. All the studies were observational; about 89% estimated the impact of proactive school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. The remaining 11% estimated the impact of reopening of schools. Forty-eight studies were conducted on a national scale, and 35 were on a multi-national scale. Over half of these studies showed strong evidence for the effectiveness of this intervention. Compared with the other individual interventions, school closures were examined for longer into the pandemic, with 29 studies assessing their effectiveness in 2021 (electronic supplementary material, appendix C).
Thirty-two studies estimated the effects of school closures on a country's community epidemics [13,17,19,23–26,28,31,34,36,38,39,41,42,44,46,51–54,56,58,167–175] and 26 studies estimated the impact of closures on students, staff or specific age groups in the population [40,176–200]. Ten studies estimated the relative reduction of Rt in the population [23,26,34,38,39,42,51,53, 170,171] with school closures implemented alone or in combination with other interventions. One study that attempted to discern the individual effect of school closures estimated they were responsible for reducing the Rt of SARS-CoV-2 in the US in the first half of 2020 by 37% (95% CI: 33%, 40%). This was followed by daycare closures (31%, 95% CI: 26%, 35%) [95]. In comparison, another study in the US carried out from January to May 2020 found school closures were associated with a 10% reduction in the daily Rt [38].
Several studies estimated the effect of proactive school closures internationally and estimated reductions in the incidence [13,25,28,34,54,58] and transmission [31,39,41,42,44] of SARS-CoV-2, and their associated hospitalization [46] and mortality [19,172–174]. The impact of school closures varied potentially due to differences in study populations, study period and the timing of implementation of school closures across settings. A study that estimated the independent contribution of school closures across 30 European countries from January to April 2020 reported that the IRRs for COVID-19 cases were estimated at 52% 22–28 days after school closures compared with a pre-intervention baseline). This estimate was 14% after more than 36 days of school closures [28], which indicated negative associations between school closures and the IRR for COVID-19 cases. These associations were unclear in six studies conducted on a multi-national scale in 2020 [17,24,36,52,56,175]. One study that looked at the general population across 90 countries did not observe statistically significant effects of school closures on daily confirmed COVID-19 cases during the first global wave of the pandemic but estimated significant reductions in the second and third waves [175].
Twelve studies examined the impact of reopening schools [21,201–211]. Nine showed an increasing trend in the number of daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases, growth rate or Rt of COVID-19. One study in South Carolina, US, estimated the Rt increased by 12.3% (95% CrI: 10.1%, 14.4%) after schools reopened at the end of August 2020 [21]. However, one study found that the reopening of schools did not immediately impact SARS-CoV-2 incidence, and an increase in incidence was not observed until 13 weeks after reopening [203]. The remaining four studies observed that reopening schools did not generate a substantial increase in transmission within the community when other interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission were in place, including staff wearing masks, hand sanitation and limiting the in-person capacity in schools [198,208–210].
Sixteen studies also examined different school closure strategies [12,20,37,47,48,55,59,212–220]. For instance, two studies estimated that the delay of school closures in March 2020 was associated with more deaths across 50 states in the US [212,213]. Similarly, two more studies estimated the impact of the timing of the implementation of school closures [55,214]. One study in the US estimated that every additional day of delay from a county's first case until implementation of school closures, was associated with 1.5–2.4% higher cumulative COVID-19 deaths per capita (980–1972 deaths) for a county with median population and deaths per capita [214]. In Pakistan, a city that implemented complete school closures for 10 days saw a greater decline in incidence for the overall city population compared with a city that partially closed schools [217]. In the remaining 18 studies [22,27,36,45,49,50,221–232], the effects of school closures were estimated alongside other interventions, making it challenging to isolate the individual effect of school closure strategies.
(c) . Workplace measures and closures
Twelve observational studies were included in the review for workplace measures [17,21,41,55,233–240]. These were carried out at a national and sub-national scale, with nine studies conducted within the first year of the pandemic (electronic supplementary material, appendix C). Ten studies examined the effectiveness of workplace measures using population-level data [17,21,55,234,236–238,240–243]. Six studies assessed workplace mobility to explain the variation in the COVID-19 growth rate, case numbers or Rt [17,55,234,236,237,240] consistently showed that reduced workplace mobility was significantly associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 incidence or transmission [234,236,237,240]. Some analyses were based on data from a single country [17,55], and others considered data from different countries [41,235].
There were two retrospective cohort studies that estimated the effectiveness of individual measures instead of a combination of measures at a population level [233,239]. Seven companies in Spain implemented a digital application in May 2020 that monitored workers in real-time to enable the quick identification and isolation of workers. Over a seven-month period, the proportion of symptomatic employees continuously decreased [233]. Another study on temperature screening implemented by 20 multi-national companies in February 2021 [239] found that the detection of COVID-19 cases using this measure alone was very rare, and approximately 2000 workers who were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period were not identified [239].
Thirty-seven studies were included in the review for workplace closures, 90% of which estimated effects in 2020. It is, therefore, unclear whether the levels of effectiveness would be similar for newer SARS-CoV-2 variants. All the included studies were observational, and they estimated the effect of workplace closures at a population level alongside other interventions. Most studies (92%) observed a beneficial effect of workplace closures alone or in combination with other interventions to reduce incidence [15,24,25,27,29,32,46,52,244–250] of COVID-19 and transmission [18,23,24,33,35,38,39,43,48,49,251] of SARS-CoV-2. A study that reported the examined effect of workplace closures alone estimated that non-essential workplace closures across 13 countries in Europe from March to May 2020 were estimated to reduce the change in deaths by 4% points (95% CI: 0.5, 7.4 pp). Another study based on county-level data in the US in early 2020, estimated that had SDMs such as non-essential business closures and stay-at-home orders been implemented a day earlier, the COVID-19 death rate could have been lowered by 1.9% [252]. However, a study using data from 10 countries (England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the US) that compared more stringent SDMs (mandatory business closures and stay-at-home orders) in England with less stringent policies in Sweden and South Korea in early 2020 did not observe additional effects with more stringent measures on the growth rate of cases in any country [14].
(d) . Catering, fitness and personal care service measures
Nine studies estimated the effectiveness of measures in catering, fitness and personal care service settings, including one randomized controlled trial [253], one cross-sectional study [254], three ecological studies [57,255,256] and four simulation studies [257–260]. One study examined fitness centres [253], and another looked at the reopening of theatres [260], while the remaining 10 studies estimated the effectiveness of SDMs in restaurants and bars. Six studies were conducted on a national or sub-national scale, while three simulation studies had an unclear setting or study period [258–260].
Catering measures appeared to be effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection and Rt, although the effect varied by specific distancing measures. A study in Spain estimated that shortened bar and restaurant business hours and restricted outdoor seating capacity from August 2020 to January 2021 were associated with significant reductions in Rt of 0.14 and 0.11 respectively [57]. Similarly, in Norway, SARS-CoV-2 infection among bartenders and waiters had been reduced by 60% from 2.8 (95% CI: 2.0, 3.6) per 1000 workers to 1.1 (95% CI: 0.5, 1.6) per 1000 workers) four weeks after the implementation of a ban on serving alcohol in late 2020 to early 2021. The partial ban decreased infections among bartenders and waiters by 50% from 2.5 (95% CI: 1.5, 3.5) per 1000 workers to 1.3 (95% CI: 0.4, 2.2) per 1000 workers [254]. However, this was not supported by two observational studies that were both carried out in 2020 in Hong Kong and Tokyo, Japan [255,256]. The ban on dine-in services after 18.00 in restaurants in Hong Kong may not have influenced Rt after capacity reductions had already been considered [255]. Similarly, the randomized controlled trial carried out in Norway in 2020 suggested that there was no significant difference in laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between the intervention (access to a fitness centre implementing prevention control measures) and control (no access to fitness centres) groups after 14 days. However, there were concerns in several aspects of the trial, such as the low incidence of COVID-19 during the trial period and the risk of transmission by exercising in groups, whether in a fitness centre or not [261].
(e) . Care home measures
Sixteen studies, including 11 epidemiological studies [53,262–271] and five simulation studies [272–276] examined the effect of SDMs on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in care homes or the effect of care home SDMs on population-level transmission. Nine of the 16 studies were carried out at a sub-national scale (electronic supplementary material, appendix C).
Two studies were chosen to discuss in depth as they both reported the effect of cohorting of staff and/or residents while taking confounding factors into consideration. One study on long-term care facilities in the south-west of France in early 2020 estimated that if staff were organized into smaller groups to work in different areas of the facility with no physical connection to other groups, there was a reduced risk of infection (odds ratio (OR): 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.48) [268]. This was not the case if residents were similarly compartmentalized (OR: 3.01, 95% CI: 0.51, 18.51) or if they were restricted to their rooms (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 0.49, 5.76) [268]. However, the 95% confidence intervals for compartmentalizing residents were very wide owing to the small sample that reported they implemented this intervention (less than 20% of the 124 long-term care facilities examined). A second study carried out in the UK during mid-2020 reported that both the risk of infection in residents (aOR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.23, 1.37) and staff (aOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.29) were significantly higher in long-term care facilities in which staff often or always cared for both infected or uninfected residents compared with those that always cohorted staff [269].
Rigorous modelling, fitted to surveillance data in England, examined a different care home measure: restricting the number of visitors per nursing home resident [265]. It estimated the impact of reducing the contact rate between care home residents and the general population by 50% in 2020. However, compared with a baseline scenario with no reduction in contacts, the study did not find a substantial difference in care home deaths [265]. It was suggested that this may have been due to other routes of transmission into care homes at the time, such as patients being discharged from the hospital to care homes without being tested, indicating the importance of understanding the routes of transmission to increase the effectiveness of interventions and reduce the impact of COVID-19. This was supported by another simulation study in English nursing care homes [275].
Two population-based studies [264,266] ranked the US state-level restrictions by the stringency of their measures and compared COVID-19 incidence across states. Using data from just over 6800 nursing homes, one study estimated that the states with more stringent measures had an 11% reduction in the new cases in residents (IRR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.97) compared with states with less stringent restrictions [266]. Similarly, the risk of infection for those residing in assisted living communities was lower in states with more stringent measures [264]. In the first half of 2020, the US implemented a ban on visits to nursing homes to reduce contact with the community when the prevalence was high. This was estimated to reduce the weekly effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 across 3035 US counties by 26% (95% CI: 23%, 29%) [53].
Other than cohorting and restricting visitors, staff working in multiple care homes was considered a large source of SARS-CoV-2 introductions and subsequent outbreaks [277]. The role of these connections in spreading COVID-19 cases was examined among nursing homes in the US in 2020 by analysing smartphone location data from 50 million smartphones over an 11-week period. Results indicated that if a nursing home adds one neighbour (a home with at least one shared contact) the expected number of COVID-19 cases increases by 15.2% and further suggests that 49% of cases in nursing home residents were attributed to staff transmitting SARS-CoV-2 across numerous homes [262].
(f) . Physical distancing and restriction of mass gatherings
Physical distancing is a measure taken by individuals to stay a recommended distance between one another (usually a minimum of 1 m) to limit transmission [278]. However, distancing oneself from others is also the key to many of our community-wide measures, and therefore, the term physical distancing also encapsulates measures including restrictions on mass gatherings, working from home, staying at home or adaptations to schools and workplaces [278]. Thirty-four studies were identified in the review of physical distancing (electronic supplementary material, appendix A) [13,18,26,29,32,33,42,45,51,56,279–302], 19 of which were observational studies. Most studies were carried out in 2020 and at a national scale, and 33 studies found physical distancing effective (electronic supplementary material, appendix C).
A rigorous modelling study that examined the individual effects of interventions in seven European countries from 2020 to 2021 found business closures were particularly effective with a 35% (95% CI: 29%, 41%) reduction in Rt while gastronomy and nightclubs were estimated to reduce the Rt by 12% (95% CI: 8%, 17%) each, and the closure of leisure centres, entertainment venues, zoos and museums had minimal effects. Considered collectively, banning all gatherings, including one-to-one meetings, had a large effect with a 26% (95% CI: 18%, 32%) reduction in Rt [45]. Seven other studies [26,29,33,42,56,283,286] attempted to estimate individual effects. The remaining studies examined the combined effects of different packages of measures due to the differing interventions included in the term physical distancing. For example, another study across 50 states in the US during the first five months of 2020 estimated social distancing was associated with a 15.4% daily reduction in COVID-19 cases where the SDMs included limits on the size of group gatherings, closures of public schools and non-essential business and stay-at-home orders [32]. Only one study assessed physical distancing at an individual level between students in schools. The study compared public schools in Massachusetts, US, that implemented greater than or equal to 6-feet distancing to those with greater than or equal to 3-feet distancing between students. However, likely due to a small sample size, it did not capture any additional effects that distancing by 6 feet may have [301].
If physical distancing measures had been implemented earlier many infections and deaths could have been avoided, two studies suggested [279,296]. One study in New York, US, estimated that if the interventions were implemented a week earlier, the total number of COVID-19 cases would have reduced by nearly 162 000 as of 31 May 2020. If there was a one-week delay, the total number of cases could have increased from 203 261 to 1 407 600 [279]. Cases and deaths were also estimated to reduce by 35.2% and 30.8% in Iran from January to September 2020 if physical distancing interventions (including school and border closures) and self-isolation were implemented a week earlier [296].
The effectiveness of restricting mass gatherings for reducing the impact of COVID-19 was examined in 28 studies [12,16,18,19,23,28,33–35,38,39,41,43–45,52,57,59,303–312], and 26 reported a substantial reduction in the impact of COVID-19. The most common outcome was the Rt [16,18,23,33,35,38,39,43,45,57,307–310] of SARS-CoV-2. Only two studies did not find statistically significant effects of the restriction on mass gathering on SARS-CoV-2 transmission [19,23]. The majority of studies were carried out in 2020 on a multi-national scale (electronic supplementary material, appendix C). Half of the studies (14) made use of the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker [16,18,19,33–35,39,44,59,303–305].
A comprehensive modelling study, using data from 41 countries, estimated the effects of different levels of stringency for restrictions on gatherings in the first half of 2020 [16]. The associated reduction in Rt for restricting gatherings to 1000 people or fewer was 23% (95% PI: 0%, 40%); limiting gatherings to 100 people or fewer was 34% (95% PI: 12%, 52%) and limiting gatherings to 10 people or fewer was 42% (95% PI: 17%, 60%) [16]. That the effectiveness of restricting mass gatherings increased as the stringency increased was supported by six other studies [16,38,44,52,59,305] across the world (e.g. 37 OECD countries, 30 Asian countries and 50 states in the US) during varying periods in 2020. Five studies only found a significant impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission when the mass gathering restrictions reached the maximum limit of 10 people or fewer [16,35,45,310,311]. The effectiveness of restrictions on mass gatherings also seemed to increase over time. For instance, one study estimated that the restriction of public gatherings of more than 10 people was associated with a reduction in Rt by 6% on day 7, 13% on day 14 and 29% on day 28 across 131 countries in the first half of 2020 [35].A similar pattern of effect on daily cases was also found in two other studies [28,34]. However, the period of assessment was short (the first half of 2020) and therefore did not consider the long-term implementation of such restrictions, where adherence could have waned in subsequent waves.
4. Discussion
This review identified 338 studies that assessed the impact of SDMs on reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community settings. Nearly half of the studies included in this review estimated the effectiveness of stay-at-home orders, 79% of which were found to substantially reduce transmission. The main response variable assessed was the Rt of SARS-CoV-2 in national and multi-national settings. As the effectiveness of interventions differed across populations and across demographics within a population, as well as potentially over time, examining the experiences in multiple countries was beneficial to understand the average effect and variations across the world. Further research could examine the drivers of policy impact, such as the degree to which human behaviour changed, especially across time, as most studies for the stay-at-home orders review were carried out in 2020. The potential for interactions with individual protective measures is also worthy of further study. Logically, as contacts are reduced, the Rt of SARS-CoV-2 becomes smaller, which should result in a decline in transmission and, by extension, a decline in COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality. While in the minority, nine studies found no significant associations between stay-at-home orders and morbidity and mortality, suggesting that other voluntary behavioural changes had occurred before more stringent interventions were implemented. This highlights one of the key considerations for SDM policies, namely that a policy will only have an effect if it changes the behaviours or actions of individuals in the community. While we reviewed the impact of various SDMs, most studies did not have quantitative data on the degree to which behavioural changes occurred in response to the SDMs.
Estimating the effects of individual interventions proved challenging. By 30 May 2020, five SDMs (closures of schools, workplaces and public transport, restrictions on mass gatherings and public events and restrictions on movement) were already implemented in 118 countries out of 149 countries examined [29]. Therefore, a common difficulty for the studies included in this review was disentangling the effects of any one of the SDMs from other interventions applied at the same time or further understanding the incremental benefit of each. High-quality randomized controlled trials are also infeasible for many SDMs and as such observational evidence and modelling studies guided decision makers on appropriate measures. With that said, studies have made use of different statistical models to reliably estimate the effects of individual measures indicating that the more stringent interventions such as stay-at-home orders followed by restrictions on mass gatherings and school closures were likely to be the most effective at reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the combined effects of numerous SDMs, including school closures, workplace closures and restricting mass gatherings were highly successful at reducing transmission in the community. This was also evident by the lack of other respiratory viruses circulating during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent increase in influenza and respiratory syncytial virus transmission upon relaxation of all non-pharmaceutical interventions [170,313–315].
Human mobility became a common indicator for estimating the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Mobility data can arise from public transportation data or aggregated mobile device data to estimate the movements and mixing of a population. When SDMs are implemented, we would expect to see corresponding reductions in mobility and, therefore, contacts. Eighteen studies [13,17,18,27,30,36,55,188,198,210,219,234,237,240,245,246,248,283] included in this review used human mobility as a proxy for estimating the effect of interventions, although we did not explicitly include human mobility in the search terms of our review. Searching all abstracts that were reviewed for the term ‘mobility’ yielded 267 results. While some may not have been relevant to our outcomes, because mobility was not included as a search term, it is likely that many have been missed. Sixteen of the eighteen studies used Google mobility data (mobile phone devices), which has been shown to accurately explain the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [316–319]. Mobility data could also be used to assess the level of adherence to interventions in place. Adherence, or changes in a population's behaviour, can impact the effectiveness of SDMs. Unintended changes in mobility and population behaviour can be prompted by the initial measures put in place. For example, when schools close, some parents may require work-from-home arrangements, reducing the potential for transmission in the workplace.
Stringent community-wide measures come at a high cost to society. However, studies that examined unintended consequences of non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as mental health, were not included in the scope of this review. Nonetheless, we recognize that due to unintended consequences of school and workplace closures, measures to reduce person-to-person contact and thereby reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within both settings may be preferred to substantially limit viral transmission while limiting the adverse educational and socioeconomic effects. More evidence is needed to identify the optimal combination of measures to be implemented in these settings. Most studies in this review were population-based studies. While observational evidence has its limitations, it will remain an important source of information to guide decision-making in future epidemics or pandemics. Subgroup analyses were not frequently assessed and may be a focus for future research. Overall, countries adopted different approaches to managing COVID-19, and many of the SDMs were implemented together. Even though different SDMs may have varied acceptability and feasibility in different socioeconomic and cultural settings, the studies included in this review suggested that the combination of measures was successful in slowing or even stopping the spread of COVID-19, even though some individual effects and optimal combinations are unclear. When considering SDMs in future pandemics, the potential effectiveness of individual or combination of SDMs needs to be assessed in the context of pathogen transmission dynamics and balanced against the socioeconomic impacts of such interventions.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Ian Boyd, Charles Godfray, Mark Walport and two anonymous reviewers, for helpful feedback on an earlier draft. The authors thank Julie Au, Matthew Barnbrook and Kyle Bennett for technical support.
Data accessibility
The data are provided in the electronic supplementary material [320].
Authors' contributions
C.Mu.: data curation, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; W.W.L.: writing—review and editing; C.Mi.: visualization, writing—review and editing; J.Y.W.: methodology, supervision, writing—review and editing; D.C.: investigation; Y.X.: investigation; M.L.: investigation; S.G.: investigation; H.X.: investigation; J.K.C.: investigation; S.B.: writing—review and editing; B.J.C.: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing—review and editing; C.A.D.: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing—review and editing.
All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.
Conflict of interest declaration
We declare we have no competing interests.
Funding
This study was financially supported by a grant from the Royal Society. C.Mi. is supported by a studentship from the UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. B.J.C. is supported by the Theme-based Research Scheme (Project no. T11-705/21-N) of the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR Government and the Collaborative Research Scheme (Project no. C7123-20G) of the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR Government. C.A.D. is supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), Grant Number: HPRU200907.
References
- 1.Markel H, Lipman HB, Navarro JA, Sloan A, Michalsen JR, Stern AM, Cetron MS. 2007. Nonpharmaceutical interventions implemented by US cities during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 298, 644-654. ( 10.1001/jama.298.6.644) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M. 2007. Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 7582-7587. ( 10.1073/pnas.0610941104) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Pung R et al. 2020. Investigation of three clusters of COVID-19 in Singapore: implications for surveillance and response measures. Lancet 395, 1039-1046. ( 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30528-6) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. 2020. COVID-19 clusters and outbreaks in occupational settings in the EU/EEA and the UK. See https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-in-occupational-settings.pdf.
- 5.Adam DC, Wu P, Wong JY, Lau EHY, Tsang TK, Cauchemez S, Leung GM, Cowling BJ. 2020. Clustering and superspreading potential of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Hong Kong. Nat. Med. 26, 1714-1719. ( 10.1038/s41591-020-1092-0) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bourbonniere M, Feng Z, Intrator O, Angelelli J, Mor V, Zinn SJ. 2006. The use of contract licensed nursing staff in U.S. nursing homes. Med. Care Res. Rev. 63, 88-109. ( 10.1177/1077558705283128) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Castle NG. 2009. Use of agency staff in nursing homes. Res. Gerontol. Nurs. 2, 192-201. ( 10.3928/19404921-20090428-01) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Green R et al. 2021. COVID-19 testing in outbreak-free care homes: what are the public health benefits? J. Hosp. Infect. 111, 89-95. ( 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.12.024) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Robinson WS. 2009. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Int. J. Epidemiol. 38, 337-341. ( 10.1093/ije/dyn357) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Guyatt G et al. 2011. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64, 383-394. ( 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Balshem H et al. 2011. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64, 401-406. ( 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.An BY, Porcher S, Tang SY, Kim EE. 2021. Policy design for COVID-19: worldwide evidence on the efficacies of early mask mandates and other policy interventions. Public Adm. Rev. 81, 1157-1182. ( 10.1111/puar.13426) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Askitas N, Tatsiramos K, Verheyden B. 2021. Estimating worldwide effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 incidence and population mobility patterns using a multiple-event study. Sci. Rep. 11, 1972. ( 10.1038/s41598-021-81442-x) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bendavid E, Oh C, Bhattacharya J, Ioannidis JPA. 2021. Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 51, e13484. ( 10.1111/eci.13484) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Borjas GJ. 2020. Business closures, stay-at-home restrictions, and COVID-19 testing outcomes in New York City. Prev. Chronic Dis. 17, E109. ( 10.5888/pcd17.200264) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Brauner JM et al. 2021. Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19. Science 371, eabd9338. ( 10.1126/science.abd9338) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Chernozhukov V, Kasahara H, Schrimpf P. 2021. Causal impact of masks, policies, behavior on early COVID-19 pandemic in the US. J. Econ. 220, 23-62. ( 10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.003) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Chung PC, Chan TC. 2021. Impact of physical distancing policy on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 globally: perspective from government's response and residents' compliance. PLoS ONE 16, e0255873. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0255873) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Clyde W, Kakolyris A, Koimisis G. 2021. A study of the effectiveness of governmental strategies for managing mortality from COVID-19. East. Econ. J. 47, 487-505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cortis D, Vella King F. 2022. Back to basics: measuring the impact of interventions to limit the spread of COVID-19 in Europe. Arch. Public Health 80, 76. ( 10.1186/s13690-022-00830-5) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Davies MR, et al. 2022. SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential and policy changes in South Carolina, February 2020 - January 2021. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 17, e276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Dergiades T, Milas C, Mossialos E, Panagiotidis T. 2022. COVID-19 anti-contagion policies and economic support measures in the USA. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dreher N et al. 2021. Policy interventions, social distancing, and SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the United States: a retrospective state-level analysis. Am. J. Med. Sci. 361, 575-584. ( 10.1016/j.amjms.2021.01.007) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Ebrahim S, Ashworth H, Noah C, Kadambi A, Toumi A, Chhatwal J. 2020. Reduction of COVID-19 incidence and nonpharmacologic interventions: analysis using a US county-level policy data set. J. Med. Internet Res. 22, e24614. ( 10.2196/24614) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Gokmen Y, Baskici C, Ercil Y. 2021. Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19: a cross-country analysis. Int. J. Health Plann. Manag. 36, 1178-1188. ( 10.1002/hpm.3164) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Guo C et al. 2021. Physical distancing implementation, ambient temperature and COVID-19 containment: an observational study in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 789, 147876. ( 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147876) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Htun YM et al. 2022. Impact of containment measures on community mobility, daily confirmed cases, and mortality in the third wave of COVID-19 epidemic in Myanmar. Trop. Med. Health 50, 23. ( 10.1186/s41182-022-00413-8) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hunter PR, Colón-González FJ, Brainard J, Rushton S. 2021. Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe in 2020: a quasi-experimental non-equivalent group and time series design study. Euro Surveill. 26, 2001401. ( 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.28.2001401) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Islam N, Sharp SJ, Chowell G, Shabnam S, Kawachi I, Lacey B, Massaro JM, D'Agostino RB, White M. 2020. Physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019: natural experiment in 149 countries. Br. Med. J. 370, m2743. ( 10.1136/bmj.m2743) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Jamison JC, Bundy D, Jamison DT, Spitz J, Verguet S. 2021. Comparing the impact on COVID-19 mortality of self-imposed behavior change and of government regulations across 13 countries. Health Serv. Res. 56, 874-884. ( 10.1111/1475-6773.13688) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kaimann D, Tanneberg I. 2021. What containment strategy leads us through the pandemic crisis? An empirical analysis of the measures against the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 16, e0253237. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0253237) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Kaufman BG, Whitaker R, Mahendraratnam N, Hurewitz S, Yi J, Smith VA, Mcclellan M. 2021. State variation in effects of state social distancing policies on COVID-19 cases. BMC Public Health 21, 1239. ( 10.1186/s12889-021-11236-3) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Koh WC, Naing L, Wong J. 2020. Estimating the impact of physical distancing measures in containing COVID-19: an empirical analysis. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 100, 42-49. ( 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.08.026) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Li H, Wang L, Zhang M, Lu Y, Wang W. 2022. Effects of vaccination and non-pharmaceutical interventions and their lag times on the COVID-19 pandemic: comparison of eight countries. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 16, e0010101. ( 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010101) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Li Y, Campbell H, Kulkarni D, Harpur A, Nundy M, Wang X, Nair H. 2021. The temporal association of introducing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time-varying reproduction number (R) of SARS-CoV-2: a modelling study across 131 countries. Lancet Infect. Dis. 21, 193-202. ( 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30785-4) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Li Y, Li M, Rice M, Zhang H, Sha D, Li M, Su Y, Yang C. 2021. The impact of policy measures on human mobility, COVID-19 cases, and mortality in the US: a spatiotemporal perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 996. ( 10.3390/ijerph18030996) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Liang L-L, Kao C-T, Ho HJ, Wu C-Y. 2021. COVID-19 case doubling time associated with non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination: a global experience. J. Glob. Health 11, 05021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Liu X et al. 2021. Differential impact of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions on COVID-19 epidemics in the United States. BMC Public Health 21, 965. ( 10.1186/s12889-020-10013-y) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Liu Y, Morgenstern C, Kelly J, Lowe R, Jit M. 2021. The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on SARS-CoV-2 transmission across 130 countries and territories. BMC Med. 19, 1-12. ( 10.1186/s12916-020-01826-0) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Mensah AA, Sinnathamby M, Zaidi A, Coughlan L, Simmons R, Ismail SA, Ramsay ME, Saliba V, Ladhani SN. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 infections in children following the full re-opening of schools and the impact of national lockdown: prospective, national observational cohort surveillance, July-December 2020, England. J. Infect. 82, 67-74. ( 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.02.022) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Nader IW, Zeilinger EL, Jomar D, Zauchner C. 2021. Onset of effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 infection rates in 176 countries. BMC Public Health 21, 1472. ( 10.1186/s12889-021-11530-0) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Olney AM, Smith J, Sen S, Thomas F, Unwin HJT. 2021. Estimating the effect of social distancing interventions on COVID-19 in the United States. Am. J. Epidemiol. 190, 1504-1509. ( 10.1093/aje/kwaa293) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Pleninger R, Streicher S, Sturm JE. 2022. Do COVID-19 containment measures work? Evidence from Switzerland. Swiss J. Econ. Stat. 158, 5. ( 10.1186/s41937-022-00083-7) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Pozo-Martin F, Weishaar H, Cristea F, Hanefeld J, Bahr T, Schaade L, El Bcheraoui C. 2021. The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 epidemic growth in the 37 OECD member states. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 36, 629-640. ( 10.1007/s10654-021-00766-0) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Sharma M et al. 2021. Understanding the effectiveness of government interventions against the resurgence of COVID-19 in Europe. Nat. Commun. 12, 5820. ( 10.1038/s41467-021-26013-4) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Stephens N, Been F, Savic D. 2022. An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater to evaluate the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in The Netherlands. ACS EST Water 2, 2158-2166. ( 10.1021/acsestwater.2c00071) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Stokes J, Turner AJ, Anselmi L, Morciano M, Hone T. 2022. The relative effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on wave one COVID-19 mortality: natural experiment in 130 countries. BMC Public Health 22, 1113. ( 10.1186/s12889-022-13546-6) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Sun J et al. 2022. Quantifying the effect of public activity intervention policies on COVID-19 pandemic containment using epidemiologic data from 145 countries. Value Health 25,699-708. ( 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.007) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Taylan M, Sezgi C, Bayram N, Fakili F, Simsek A, Taylan H. 2021. Estimating the effect of governmental preventive actions on control of COVID-19 pandemic in six countries. Acta Med. Mediterr. 37, 2483-2494. [Google Scholar]
- 50.Torres AR, Rodrigues AP, Sousa-Uva M, Kislaya I, Silva S, Antunes L, Dias C, Nunes B. 2022. Impact of stringent non-pharmaceutical interventions applied during the second and third COVID-19 epidemic waves in Portugal, 9 November 2020 to 10 February 2021: an ecological study. Euro Surveill. 27, 2100497. ( 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.23.2100497) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Tsai AC, Harling G, Reynolds Z, Gilbert RF, Siedner MJ. 2021. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission in the United States before versus after relaxation of statewide social distancing measures. Clin. Infect. Dis. 73(Suppl 2), S120-S1S6. ( 10.1093/cid/ciaa1502) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Xiu Z, Feng P, Yin J, Zhu Y. 2022. Are stringent containment and closure policies associated with a lower COVID-19 spread rate? Global evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 1725. ( 10.3390/ijerph19031725) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Yang B et al. 2021. Effect of specific non-pharmaceutical intervention policies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the counties of the United States. Nat. Commun. 12, 3560. ( 10.1038/s41467-021-23865-8) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Zamanzadeh A, Cavoli T. 2022. The effect of nonpharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 infections for lower and middle-income countries: a debiased LASSO approach. PLoS ONE 17, e0271586. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0271586) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Zimmerman FJ, Anderson NW. 2021. Association of the timing of school closings and behavioral changes with the evolution of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in the US. JAMA Pediatr. 175, 501-509. ( 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.6371) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Courtemanche C, Garuccio J, Le A, Pinkston J, Yelowitz A. 2020. Strong social distancing measures in the United States reduced the COVID-19 growth rate. Health Aff (Millwood). 39, 1237-1246. ( 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00608) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.García-García D, Herranz-Hernández R, Rojas-Benedicto A, León-Gómez I, Larrauri A, Peñuelas M, Guerrero-Vadillo M, Ramis R, Gómez-Barrosoo D. 2022. Assessing the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission in Spain, 30 August 2020 to 31 January 2021. Euro Surveill. 27, 2100869. ( 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.19.2100869) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Hong SH, Hwang H, Park MH. 2020. Effect of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions and the implications for human rights. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 18, 217. ( 10.3390/ijerph18010217) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Piovani D, Christodoulou MN, Hadjidemetriou A, Pantavou K, Zaza P, Bagos PG, Bonovas S, Nikolopoulos GK. 2021. Effect of early application of social distancing interventions on COVID-19 mortality over the first pandemic wave: an analysis of longitudinal data from 37 countries. J. Infect. 82, 133-142. ( 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.11.033) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Agrawal M, Kanitkar M, Vidyasagar M. 2021. Modelling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic- impact of lockdowns & interventions. Indian J. Med. Res. 153, 175-181. ( 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_4051_20) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Baccini M, Cereda G, Viscardi C. 2021. The first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Tuscany (Italy): a (SIRD)-R-2-D-2 compartmental model with uncertainty evaluation. PLoS ONE 16, e0250029. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0250029) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Ben Khedher N, Kolsi L, Alsaif H. 2021. A multi-stage SEIR model to predict the potential of a new COVID-19 wave in KSA after lifting all travel restrictions. Alex. Eng. J. 60, 3965-3974. ( 10.1016/j.aej.2021.02.058) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Birrell P, Blake J, Van Leeuwen E, Gent N, De Angelis D. 2021. Real-time nowcasting and forecasting of COVID-19 dynamics in England: the first wave. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 376, 20200279. ( 10.1098/rstb.2020.0279) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Bonisch S, Wegscheider K, Krause L, Sehner S, Wiegel S, Zapf A, Moser S, Becher H. 2020. Effects of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) related contact destrictions in Germany, March to May 2020, on the mobility and relation to infection patterns. Front. Public Health 8, 619. ( 10.3389/fpubh.2020.568287) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Chin V, Ioannidis JPA, Tanner MA, Cripps S. 2021. Effect estimates of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions are non-robust and highly model-dependent. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 136, 96-132. ( 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.014) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Dagpunar JS. 2020. Sensitivity of UK COVID-19 deaths to the timing of suppression measures and their relaxation. Infect. Dis. Model. 5, 525-535. ( 10.1016/j.idm.2020.07.002) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Deo V, Chetiya AR, Deka B, Grover G. 2020. Forecasting transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in India under containment measures-a time-dependent state-space SIR approach. Stat. Appl. 18, 157-180. ( 10.1101/2020.05.08.20095877) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Eales O et al. 2022. Appropriately smoothing prevalence data to inform estimates of growth rate and reproduction number. Epidemics 40, 100604. ( 10.1016/j.epidem.2022.100604) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Eales O et al. 2022. Trends in SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence during England's roadmap out of lockdown, January to July 2021. PLoS Comput. Biol. 18, e1010724. ( 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010724) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Guirao A. 2020. The COVID-19 outbreak in Spain. A simple dynamics model, some lessons, and a theoretical framework for control response. Infect. Dis. Model. 5, 652-669. ( 10.1016/j.idm.2020.08.010) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Guzzetta G et al. 2021. Impact of a nationwide lockdown on SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility, Italy. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 27, 267-270. ( 10.3201/eid2701.202114) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Hyafil A, Morina D. 2021. Analysis of the impact of lockdown on the reproduction number of the SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Gac. Sanit. 35, 453-458. ( 10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.05.003) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Jamiluddin MS, Mohd MH, Ahmad NA, Musa KI. 2021. Situational analysis for COVID-19: estimating transmission dynamics in Malaysia using an SIR-type model with neural network approach. Sains Malays. 50, 2469-2478. ( 10.17576/jsm-2021-5008-27) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Kabiraj A, Pal D, Bhattacherjee P, Chatterjee K, Majumdar R, Ganguly D. 2021. How successful is a lockdown during a pandemic. In 2020 IEEE 17th India Council Int. Conf., INDICON 2020, New Delhi, 10–13 December. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. [Google Scholar]
- 75.Law KB et al. 2020. Tracking the early depleting transmission dynamics of COVID-19 with a time-varying SIR model. Sci. Rep. 10, 21721. ( 10.1038/s41598-020-78739-8) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Li Y, Undurraga EA, Zubizarreta JR. 2022. Effectiveness of localized lockdowns in the COVID-19 pandemic. Am. J. Epidemiol. 191, 812-824. ( 10.1093/aje/kwac008) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Made F, Utembe W, Wilson K, Naicker N, Tlotleng N, Mdleleni S, Mazibuko L, Ntlebi V, Ngwepe P. 2021. Impact of level five lockdown on the incidence of COVID-19: lessons learned from South Africa. Pan Afr. Med. J. 39, 144. ( 10.11604/pamj.2021.39.144.28201) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Mitra A, Roy A, Joshi A, Pakhare AP. 2020. Impact of COVID-19 epidemic curtailment strategies in selected Indian states: an analysis by reproduction number and doubling time with incidence modelling. PLoS ONE 15, e0239026. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0239026) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Musa KI, Arifin WN, Mohd MH, Jamiluddin MS, Ahmad NA, Chen XW, Hanis TM, Bulgiba A. 2021. Measuring time-varying effective reproduction numbers for COVID-19 and their relationship with movement control order in Malaysia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 18, 3273. ( 10.3390/ijerph18063273) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Ofori SK, Ogwara CA, Kwon S, Hua X, Martin KM, Mallhi AK, Twum F, Chowell G, Fung IC-H. 2022. SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential and rural-urban disease burden disparities across Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, March 2020 - May 2021. Ann. Epidemiol. 71, 1-8. ( 10.1016/j.annepidem.2022.04.006) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Patanarapeelert K, Songprasert W, Patanarapeelert N. 2022. Modeling dynamic responses to COVID-19 epidemics: a case study in Thailand. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 7, 303. ( 10.3390/tropicalmed7100303) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Patel P, Athotra A, Vaisakh TP, Dikid T, Jain SK, Te NCIM. 2020. Impact of nonpharmacological interventions on COVID-19 transmission dynamics in India. Indian J. Public Health 64, 142. ( 10.4103/ijph.IJPH_488_20) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Ranjan A, Ayub A, Kumar A, Pandey S, Kumar P, Agarwal N. 2020. Impact of lockdown 1.0–4.0 on spread of COVID-19 pandemic in India. Indian J. Community Health 32, 598-600. ( 10.47203/IJCH.2020.v32i03.025) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Roques L, Klein EK, Papaix J, Sar A, Soubeyrand S. 2020. Impact of lockdown on the epidemic dynamics of COVID-19 in France. Front. Med. 7, 274. ( 10.3389/fmed.2020.00274) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Salvatore M, Basu D, Ray D, Kleinsasser M, Purkayastha S, Bhattacharyya R, Mukherjee B. 2020. Comprehensive public health evaluation of lockdown as a non-pharmaceutical intervention on COVID-19 spread in India: national trends masking state-level variations. BMJ Open 10, e041778. ( 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041778) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Santamaria L, Hortal J. 2021. COVID-19 effective reproduction number dropped during Spain's nationwide dropdown, then spiked at lower-incidence regions. Sci. Total Environ. 751, 142257. ( 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142257) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Saul A, Scott N, Crabb BS, Majumdar SS, Coghlan B, Hellard ME. 2020. Impact of Victoria's Stage 3 lockdown on COVID-19 case numbers. Med. J. Aust. 213, 494. ( 10.5694/mja2.50872) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Shimul SN, Alradie-Mohamed A, Kabir R, Al-Mohaimeed A, Mahmud I. 2021. Effect of easing lockdown and restriction measures on COVID-19 epidemic projection: a case study of Saudi Arabia. PLoS ONE 16, e0256958. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0256958) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Sinha S. 2020. Epidemiological dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic in India: an interim assessment. Stat. Appl. 18, 333-350. [Google Scholar]
- 90.Sypsa V, Roussos S, Paraskevis D, Lytras T, Tsiodras S, Hatzakis A. 2021. Effects of social distancing measures during the first epidemic wave of severe acute respiratory syndrome infection, Greece. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 27, 452-462. ( 10.3201/eid2702.203412) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Talmoudi K et al. 2020. Estimating transmission dynamics and serial interval of the first wave of COVID-19 infections under different control measures: a statistical analysis in Tunisia from February 29 to May 5, 2020. BMC Infect. Dis. 20, 1-8. ( 10.1186/s12879-020-05577-4) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Valentin JB, Moller H, Johnsen SP. 2021. The basic reproduction number can be accurately estimated within 14 days after societal lockdown: the early stage of the COVID-19 epidemic in Denmark. PLoS ONE 16, e0247021. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0247021) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Wang K, Zhao S, Li H, Song Y, Wang L, Wang MH, Peng Z, Li H, He D. 2020. Real-time estimation of the reproduction number of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in China in 2020 based on incidence data. Ann. Transl. Med. 8, 689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Xiao YN, Tang B, Wu JH, Cheke RA, Tang SY. 2020. Linking key intervention timing to rapid decline of the COVID-19 effective reproductive number to quantify lessons from mainland China. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 97, 296-298. ( 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.030) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Yang HB, Nie H, Zhou DW, Wang YJ, Zuo W. 2022. The effect of strict lockdown on Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant transmission in Shanghai. Vaccines 10, 1392. ( 10.3390/vaccines10091392) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Yuan ZM, Xiao Y, Dai ZJ, Huang JJ, Zhang ZH, Chen Y. 2020. Modelling the effects of Wuhan's lockdown during COVID-19, China. Bull. World Health Organ. 98, 484-494. ( 10.2471/BLT.20.254045) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Yung CF, Saffari E, Liew C. 2020. Time to R-t<1 for COVID-19 public health lockdown measures. Epidemiol. Infect. 148, e301. ( 10.1017/S0950268820002964) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Alderman J, Harjoto M. 2021. COVID-19: US shelter-in-place orders and demographic characteristics linked to cases, mortality, and recovery rates. Transform. Gov.-People Process Policy 15, 627-644. ( 10.1108/TG-06-2020-0130) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Alfano V, Ercolano S. 2022. Stay at home! Governance quality and effectiveness of lockdown. Soc. Indic. Res. 159, 101-123. ( 10.1007/s11205-021-02742-3) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Amuedo-Dorantes C, Borra C, Rivera-Garrido N, Sevilla A. 2021. Early adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions and COVID-19 mortality. Econ. Hum. Biol. 42, 101003. ( 10.1016/j.ehb.2021.101003) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Bennett M. 2021. All things equal? Heterogeneity in policy effectiveness against COVID-19 spread in Chile. World Dev. 137, 105208. ( 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105208) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Delavari S, Jamali Z, Bayati M. 2021. Lockdown effect on COVID-19 incidence and death: Iran experience. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 16, 2385-2387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Edre MA, Muhammad AZA, Jamalludin AR. 2020. Forecasting Malaysia COVID-19 incidence based on movement control order using ARIMA and expert modeler. IIUM Med. J. Malays. 19, 1. ( 10.31436/imjm.v19i2.1606) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Ferrante P. 2022. The first year of COVID-19 in Italy: incidence, lethality, and health policies. J. Public Health Res. 11, jphr-2021. ( 10.4081/jphr.2021.2201) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Ferreira CP, Marcondes D, Melo MP, Oliva SM, Peixoto CM, Peixoto PS. 2021. A snapshot of a pandemic the interplay between social isolation and COVID-19 dynamics in Brazil. Patterns 2, 100349. ( 10.1016/j.patter.2021.100349) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Houvessou GM, De Souza TP, Da Silveira MF. 2021. Lockdown-type containment measures for COVID-19 prevention and control: a descriptive ecological study with data from South Africa, Germany, Brazil, Spain, United States, Italy and New Zealand, February - August 2020. Epidemiol. Serv. Saude 30, e2020513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Huntley KS, Wahood W, Mintz J, Raine S, Hardigan P, Haffizulla F. 2022. Associations of stay-at-home order enforcement with COVID-19 population outcomes: an interstate statistical analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 191, 561-569. ( 10.1093/aje/kwab267) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Ismail SNS, Abidin EZ, Rasdi I, Ezani NE, Dom NC, Shamsuddin AS. 2021. COVID-19: the epidemiological hotspot and the disease spread in Malaysia. Malays. J. Med. Health Sci. 17, 42-50. [Google Scholar]
- 109.Kao S-YZ, Sharpe JD, Lane RI, Njai R, Mccord RF, Ajiboye AS, Ladva CN, Vo L, Ekwueme DU. 2023. Duration of behavioral policy interventions and incidence of COVID-19 by social vulnerability of US counties, April-December 2020. Public Health Rep. 138, 190-199. ( 10.1177/00333549221125202) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Mave V, Shaikh A, Monteiro JM, Bogam P, Pujari BS, Gupte N. 2022. Association of national and regional lockdowns with COVID-19 infection rates in Pune, India. Sci. Rep. 12, 10446. ( 10.1038/s41598-022-14674-0) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Maza A, Hierro M. 2022. Modelling changing patterns in the COVID-19 geographical distribution: Madrid's case. Geogr. Res. 60, 218-231. ( 10.1111/1745-5871.12521) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Megarbane B, Bourasset F, Scherrmann JM. 2021. Is lockdown effective in limiting SARS-CoV-2 epidemic progression?-A cross-country comparative evaluation using epidemiokinetic tools. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 36, 746-752. ( 10.1007/s11606-020-06345-5) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Milazzo A, Giles L, Parent N, Mccarthy S, Laurence C. 2022. The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 cases in South Australia and Victoria. Aust. N Z J. Public Health 46, 482-487. ( 10.1111/1753-6405.13249) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Milne GJ, Xie SM, Poklepovich D, O'halloran D, Yap M, Whyatt D. 2021. A modelling analysis of the effectiveness of second wave COVID-19 response strategies in Australia. Sci. Rep. 11, 1-10. ( 10.1038/s41598-020-79139-8) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Molefi M, Tlhakanelo JT, Phologolo T, Hamda SG, Masupe T, Tsima B, Setlhare V, Mashalla Y, Jakovljevic M. 2021. The impact of China's lockdown policy on the incidence of COVID-19: an interrupted time series analysis. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 9498029. ( 10.1155/2021/9498029) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Peixoto VR, Vieira A, Aguiar P, Carvalho C, Thomas DR, Abrantes A. 2020. Initial assessment of the impact of the emergency state lockdown measures on the 1st wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in Portugal. Acta Med. Port. 33, 733. ( 10.20344/amp.14129) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Rahmouni M. 2021. Efficacy of government responses to COVID-19 in Mediterranean countries. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 14, 3091-3115. ( 10.2147/RMHP.S312511) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Shi W, Tong C, Zhang A, Wang B, Shi Z, Yao Y, Jia P. 2021. An extended Weight Kernel Density Estimation model forecasts COVID-19 onset risk and identifies spatiotemporal variations of lockdown effects in China. Commun. Biol. 4, 126. ( 10.1038/s42003-021-01677-2) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Silva L, Figueiredo D, Fernandes A. 2020. The effect of lockdown on the COVID-19 epidemic in Brazil: evidence from an interrupted time series design. Cad. Saude Publica 36, e00213920. ( 10.1590/0102-311x00213920) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Singh BP. 2021. Modeling and forecasting the spread of COVID-19 pandemic in India and significance of lockdown: a mathematical outlook. In Handbook of statistics, vol. 44, pp. 257-289. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
- 121.Souty C et al. 2021. Impact of the lockdown on the burden of COVID-19 in outpatient care in France, spring 2020. Infect. Dis. 53, 376-381. ( 10.1080/23744235.2021.1880024) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Tan AL, Ng SHX, Pereira MJ. 2021. Singapore's COVID-19 ‘circuit breaker’ interventions: a description of individual-level adoptions of precautionary behaviours. Ann. Acad. Med. Singap. 50, 613-618. ( 10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2020597) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Thayer WM, Hasan MZ, Sankhla P, Gupta S. 2021. An interrupted time series analysis of the lockdown policies in India: a national-level analysis of COVID-19 incidence. Health Policy Plan 36, 620-629. ( 10.1093/heapol/czab027) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Timelli L, Girardi E. 2021. Effect of timing of implementation of containment measures on COVID-19 epidemic. The case of the first wave in Italy. PLoS ONE 16, e0245656. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0245656) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Trivedi MM, Das A. 2021. Did the timing of state mandated lockdown affect the spread of COVID-19 infection? A county-level ecological study in the United States. J. Prev. Med. Pub. Health 54, 238-244. ( 10.3961/jpmph.21.071) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Vicuna MI, Vasquez C, Quiroga BF. 2021. Forecasting the 2020 COVID-19 epidemic: a multivariate quasi-Poisson regression to model the evolution of new cases in Chile. Front. Public Health 9, 610479. ( 10.3389/fpubh.2021.610479) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Wang GH. 2022. Stay at home to stay safe: effectiveness of stay-at-home orders in containing the COVID-19 pandemic. Prod. Oper. Manag. 31, 2289-2305. ( 10.1111/poms.13685) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Wu SX, Wu X. 2022. Stay-at-home and face mask policy intentions inconsistent with incidence and fatality during the US COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Public Health 10, 990400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Yang XX. 2021. Does city lockdown prevent the spread of COVID-19? New evidence from the synthetic control method. Glob. Health Res. Policy 6, 1-14. ( 10.1186/s41256-020-00182-z) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Arbel R, Pliskin J. 2022. Vaccinations versus lockdowns to prevent COVID-19 mortality. Vaccines 10, 1347. ( 10.3390/vaccines10081347) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Borri N, Drago F, Santantonio C, Sobbrio F. 2021. The ‘Great Lockdown’: inactive workers and mortality by COVID-19. Health Econ. 30, 2367-2382. ( 10.1002/hec.4383) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Castaneda MA, Saygili M. 2020. The effect of shelter-in-place orders on social distancing and the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic: a study of Texas. Front. Public Health 8, 596607. ( 10.3389/fpubh.2020.596607) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Fowler JH, Hill SJ, Levin R, Obradovich N. 2021. Stay-at-home orders associate with subsequent decreases in COVID-19 cases and fatalities in the United States. PLoS ONE 16, e0248849. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0248849) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Friedson AI, Mcnichols D, Sabia JJ, Dave D. 2021. Shelter-in-place orders and public health: evidence from California during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 40, 258. ( 10.1002/pam.22267) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Gerli AG, Centanni S, Miozzo MR, Virchow JC, Sotgiu G, Canonica GW, Soriano JB. 2020. COVID-19 mortality rates in the European Union, Switzerland, and the UK: effect of timeliness, lockdown rigidity, and population density. Minerva Med. 111, 308-314. ( 10.23736/S0026-4806.20.06702-6) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Ghosal S, Bhattacharyya R, Majumder M. 2020. Impact of complete lockdown on total infection and death rates: a hierarchical cluster analysis. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 14, 707-711. ( 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.05.026) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Gosce L, Phillips A, Spinola P, Gupta RK, Abubakar I. 2020. Modelling SARS-CoV-2 spread in London: approaches to lift the lockdown. J. Infect. 81, 260-265. ( 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.037) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Huber M, Langen H. 2020. Timing matters: the impact of response measures on COVID-19-related hospitalization and death rates in Germany and Switzerland. Swiss J. Econ. Stat. 156, 1-19. ( 10.1186/s41937-020-00054-w) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Lyu W, Wehby GL. 2020. Shelter-in-place orders reduced COVID-19 mortality and reduced the rate of growth in hospitalizations. Health Aff (Millwood). 39, 1615-1623. ( 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00719) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Meo SA, Abukhalaf AA, Alomar AA, Almutairi FJ, Usmani AM, Klonoff DC. 2020. Impact of lockdown on COVID-19 prevalence and mortality during 2020 pandemic: observational analysis of 27 countries. Eur. J. Med. Res. 25, 1-7. ( 10.1186/s40001-019-0399-0) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.Padalabalanarayanan S, Hanumanthu VS, Sen B. 2020. Association of state stay-at-home orders and state-level African American population with COVID-19 case rates. JAMA Netw. Open 3, e2026010. ( 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.26010) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Palladino R, Bollon J, Ragazzoni L, Barone-Adesi F. 2020. Excess deaths and hospital admissions for COVID-19 due to a late implementation of the lockdown in Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 5644. ( 10.3390/ijerph17165644) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Palladino R, Bollon J, Ragazzoni L, Barone-Adesi F. 2021. Effect of implementation of the lockdown on the number of COVID-19 deaths in four European countries. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 15, E40-EE2. ( 10.1017/dmp.2020.433) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Berry CR, Fowler A, Glazer T, Handel-Meyer S, Macmillen A. 2021. Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2019706118. ( 10.1073/pnas.2019706118) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Mader S, Rüttenauer T. 2022. The effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 mortality: a generalized synthetic control approach across 169 countries. Front. Public Health 10, 820642. ( 10.3389/fpubh.2022.820642) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.Mccafferty S, Ashley S. 2021. COVID-19 social distancing interventions by statutory mandate and their observational correlation to mortality in the United States and Europe. Pragmat Obs. Res. 12, 15-24. ( 10.2147/POR.S298309) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Page-Tan C, Corbin TB. 2021. Protective policies for all? An analysis of COVID-19 deaths and protective policies among low-, medium-, and high-vulnerability groups. Disasters 45(Suppl 1), S119-S145. ( 10.1111/disa.12525) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Sabrin S, Karimi M, Nazari R, Fahad MGR, Peters RW, Uddin A. 2021. The impact of stay-at-home orders on air-quality and COVID-19 mortality rate in the United States. Urban Clim. 39, 100946. ( 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100946) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Boutzoukas AE et al. 2022. Secondary transmission of COVID-19 in K-12 schools: findings from 2 states. Pediatrics 149(Suppl. 2), e2021054268K. ( 10.1542/peds.2021-054268K) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Donovan CV et al. 2022. An examination of SARS-CoV-2 transmission based on classroom distancing in schools with other preventive measures in place-Missouri, January-March 2021. Public Health Rep. 137, 972-979. ( 10.1177/00333549221109003) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.Katz SE, Mchenry R, Mauer LG, Chappell JD, Stewart LS, Schmitz JE, Halasa N, Edwards KM, Banerjee R. 2021. Low in-school COVID-19 transmission and asymptomatic infection despite high community prevalence. J. Pediatr. 237, 302-306.e1. ( 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.06.015) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Larosa E et al. 2020. Secondary transmission of COVID-19 in preschool and school settings in northern Italy after their reopening in September 2020: a population-based study. Euro Surveill. 25, 2001911. ( 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.49.2001911) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Ramirez DWE, Klinkhammer MD, Rowland LC. 2021. COVID-19 transmission during transportation of 1st to 12th grade students: experience of an independent school in Virginia. J. Sch. Health 91, 678-682. ( 10.1111/josh.13058) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Yuan H, Reynolds C, Ng S, Yang W. 2022. Factors affecting the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in school settings. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses 16, 643-652. ( 10.1111/irv.12968) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Baccega D et al. 2022. An agent-based model to support infection control strategies at school. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 25, 1-15. ( 10.18564/jasss.4830) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Colosi E, Bassignana G, Barrat A, Lina B, Vanhems P, Bielicki J, Colizza V. 2023. Minimising school disruption under high incidence conditions due to the Omicron variant in France, Switzerland, Italy, in January 2022. Euro Surveill. 28, 2200192. ( 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2023.28.5.2200192) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.Espana G et al. 2021. Impacts of K-12 school reopening on the COVID-19 epidemic in Indiana, USA. Epidemics 37, 100487. ( 10.1016/j.epidem.2021.100487) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158.Kaiser AK, Kretschmer D, Leszczensky L. 2021. Social network-based cohorting to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in secondary schools: a simulation study in classrooms of four European countries. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 8, 100166. ( 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100166) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159.Mauras S, Cohen-Addad V, Duboc G, Dupré la Tour M, Frasca P, Mathieu C, Opatowski L, Viennot L. 2021. Mitigating COVID-19 outbreaks in workplaces and schools by hybrid telecommuting. PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1009264. ( 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009264) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160.Zhang Y, Mayorga ME, Ivy J, Hassmiller Lich K, Swann JL. 2022. Modeling the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission in K-12 schools. MDM Policy Pract. 7, 23814683221140866. ( 10.1177/23814683221140866) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161.Bisanzio D, Reithinger R, Alqunaibet A, Almudarra S, Alsukait RF, Dong D, Zhang Y, El-Saharty S, Herbst CH. 2022. Estimating the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to mitigate COVID-19 spread in Saudi Arabia. BMC Med. 20, 51. ( 10.1186/s12916-022-02232-4) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Colosi E, Bassignana G, Barrat A, Colizza V. 2022. Modelling COVID-19 in school settings to evaluate prevention and control protocols. Anaesth. Crit. Care Pain Med. 41, 101047. ( 10.1016/j.accpm.2022.101047) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163.Lasser J, Sorger J, Richter L, Thurner S, Schmid D, Klimek P. 2022. Assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 prevention measures in Austrian schools using agent-based simulations and cluster tracing data. Nat. Commun. 13, 554. ( 10.1038/s41467-022-28170-6) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.Mcgee RS, Homburger JR, Williams HE, Bergstrom CT, Zhou AY. 2021. Model-driven mitigation measures for reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2108909118. ( 10.1073/pnas.2108909118) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165.Miller GF, Greening B, Rice KL, Arifkhanova A, Meltzer MI, Coronado F. 2022. Modeling the transmission of COVID-19: impact of mitigation strategies in Prekindergarten-Grade 12 Public Schools, United States, 2021. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 28, 25-35. ( 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001373) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166.Zafarnejad R, Griffin PM. 2021. Assessing school-based policy actions for COVID-19: an agent-based analysis of incremental infection risk. Comput. Biol. Med. 134, 104518. ( 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104518) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167.Staguhn ED, Weston-Farber E, Castillo RC. 2021. The impact of statewide school closures on COVID-19 infection rates. Am. J. Infect. Control. 49, 503-505. ( 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.01.002) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168.Iwata K, Doi A, Miyakoshi C.. 2020. Was school closure effective in mitigating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Time series analysis using Bayesian inference. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 99, 57-61. ( 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.07.052) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169.Wieland T. 2020. Flatten the curve! modeling SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 growth in Germany at the county level. Region 7, 43-83. ( 10.18335/region.v7i2.324) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 170.Cowling BJ et al. 2020. Impact assessment of non-pharmaceutical interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 and influenza in Hong Kong: an observational study. Lancet Public Health 5, e279-e288. ( 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30090-6) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171.Zhang J et al. 2020. Changes in contact patterns shape the dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Science 368, 1481-1486. ( 10.1126/science.abb8001) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172.Leffler CT, Ing E, Lykins JD, Hogan MC, Mckeown CA, Grzybowski A. 2020. Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 103, 2400-2411. ( 10.4269/ajtmh.20-1015) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173.Pasdar Z et al. 2021. An ecological study assessing the relationship between public health policies and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare (Basel) 9, 1221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174.Tan J, Wu Z, Gan L, Zhong Q, Zhu Y, Li Y, Zhang D. 2022. Impact of vaccination and control measures on the fatality of COVID-19: an ecological study. J. Epidemiol. Glob. Health 12, 456-471. ( 10.1007/s44197-022-00064-2) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175.Chung HW et al. 2021. Effects of government policies on the spread of COVID-19 worldwide. Sci. Rep. 11, 20495. ( 10.1038/s41598-021-99368-9) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176.Stein-Zamir C, Abramson N, Shoob H, Libal E, Bitan M, Cardash T, Cayam R, Miskin I. 2020. A large COVID-19 outbreak in a high school 10 days after schools’ reopening, Israel, May 2020. Euro Surveill. 25, 2001352. ( 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.29.2001352) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177.Vlachos J, Hertegard E, Svaleryd HB. 2021. The effects of school closures on SARS-CoV-2 among parents and teachers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2020834118. ( 10.1073/pnas.2020834118) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178.Rotevatn TA, Elstrøm P, Greve-Isdahl M, Surén P, Johansen TKB, Astrup E. 2022. School closure versus targeted control measures for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pediatrics 149, e2021055071. ( 10.1542/peds.2021-055071) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 179.Gandini S, Rainisio M, Iannuzzo ML, Bellerba F, Cecconi F, Scorrano L. 2021. A cross-sectional and prospective cohort study of the role of schools in the SARS-CoV-2 second wave in Italy. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 5, 100092. ( 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100092) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180.Godøy A, Grøtting MW, Hart RK. 2022. Reopening schools in a context of low COVID-19 contagion: consequences for teachers, students and their parents. J. Popul. Econ. 35, 935-961. ( 10.1007/s00148-021-00882-x) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181.Mossong J, Mombaerts L, Veiber L, Pastore J, Coroller GL, Schnell M, Masi S, Huiart L, Wilmes P. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 transmission in educational settings during an early summer epidemic wave in Luxembourg, 2020. BMC Infect. Dis. 21, 1-8. ( 10.1186/s12879-021-06089-5) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182.Powell AA, Amin-Chowdhury Z, Mensah A, Ramsay ME, Saliba V, Ladhani SN. 2021. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in primary school age children after partial reopening of schools in England. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 40, e243-e245. ( 10.1097/INF.0000000000003120) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183.Yoon Y, Kim KR, Park H, Kim S, Kim YJ. 2020. Stepwise school opening and an impact on the epidemiology of COVID-19 in the children. J. Korean Med. Sci. 35, e414. ( 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e414) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184.Colonia CB et al. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 infection among school population of one developing country. Do school closures protect students and teachers against SARS-CoV-2 infection? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 12680. ( 10.3390/ijerph182312680) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185.Paff SQ et al. 2021. Phased return of students to 77 transitional kindergarten-8th grade schools with cohesive mitigation strategies serving as protective factors against the increase of COVID-19 cases in Marin County: September 2020-January 2021. Cureus 13, e19821. ( 10.7759/cureus.19821) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186.Fenton L et al. 2021. Risk of hospital admission with COVID-19 among teachers compared with healthcare workers and other adults of working age in Scotland, March 2020 to July 2021: population based case-control study. Br. Med. J. 374, n2060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187.Consolazio D, Sarti S, Terraneo M, Celata C, Russo AG. 2022. The impact of school closure intervention during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: evidence from the Milan area. PLoS ONE 17, e0271404. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0271404) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 188.Tosi D, Campi AS. 2021. How schools affected the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: data analysis for Lombardy region, Campania region, and Emilia region. Future Internet 13, 109. ( 10.3390/fi13050109) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 189.Kuitunen I, Artama M, Haapanen M, Renko M. 2022. Respiratory virus circulation in children after relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions in fall 2021-a nationwide register study in Finland. J. Med. Virol. 94, 4528-4532. ( 10.1002/jmv.27857) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 190.Simetin IP, Svajda M, Ivanko P, Dimnjakovic J, Belavic A, Istvanovic A, Poljicanin T. 2021. COVID-19 incidence, hospitalizations and mortality trends in Croatia and school closures. Public Health 198, 164-170. ( 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.07.030) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191.Fitzpatrick T, Wilton A, Cohen E, Rosella L, Guttmann A. 2022. School reopening and COVID-19 in the community: evidence from a natural experiment in Ontario, Canada. Health Aff (Millwood). 41, 864-872. ( 10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01676) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 192.Friedman N et al. 2022. Pediatric hospitalizations after school reopening during the SARS-CoV-2 alpha (B.1.1.7) variant spread: a multicenter cross-sectional study in Israel. Clin. Infect. Dis. 75, e300-e302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193.Shapiro Ben David S, Rahamim-Cohen D, Tasher D, Geva A, Azuri J, Ash N. 2021. COVID-19 in children and the effect of schools reopening on potential transmission to household members. Acta Paediatr. 110, 2567-2573. ( 10.1111/apa.15962) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194.Frie M, Havinga LM, Wiersema-Buist J, Veldman CG, De Vries MJT, Rurenga-Gard L, Friedrich AW, Knoester M. 2021. Effect of school reopening on SARS-CoV-2 incidence in a low-prevalence region: prospective SARS-CoV-2 testing in healthcare workers with primary school-attending children versus without children living at home. J. Infect. Prev. 22, 269-274. ( 10.1177/17571774211012469) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195.Von Bismarck-Osten C, Borusyak K, Schonberg U. 2022. The role of schools in transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus: quasi-experimental evidence from Germany. Econ. Policy 37, 87-130. ( 10.1093/epolic/eiac001) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 196.White P, Ceannt R, Kennedy E, O'sullivan MB, Ward M, Collins A. 2021. Children are safe in schools: a review of the Irish experience of reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health 195, 158-160. ( 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.04.001) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197.Somekh I, Boker LK, Shohat T, Pettoello-Mantovani M, Simões EAF, Somekh E. 2021. Comparison of COVID-19 incidence rates before and after school reopening in Israel. JAMA Netw. Open 4, e217105. ( 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7105) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198.Isphording IE, Lipfert M, Pestel N. 2021. Does re-opening schools contribute to the spread of SARS-CoV-2? Evidence from staggered summer breaks in Germany. J. Public Econ. 198, 104426. ( 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104426) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 199.Juutinen A, Sarvikivi E, Laukkanen-Nevala P, Helve O. 2021. Closing lower secondary schools had no impact on COVID-19 incidence in 13–15-year-olds in Finland. Epidemiol. Infect. 149, e233. ( 10.1017/S0950268821002351) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 200.Somekh I, Shohat T, Boker LK, Simões EAF, Somekh E. 2021. Reopening schools and the dynamics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in Israel: a nationwide study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 73, 2265-2275. ( 10.1093/cid/ciab035) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 201.Giuliani M. 2023. COVID-19 counterfactual evidence. Estimating the effects of school closures. Policy Stud. 44, 112-131. ( 10.1080/01442872.2022.2103527) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 202.Tormos R, Fonseca I Casas P, Garcia-Alamino JM. 2022. In-person school reopening and the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the second wave in Spain. Front. Public Health 10, 3627. ( 10.3389/fpubh.2022.990277) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 203.Haapanen M, Renko M, Artama M, Kuitunen I. 2021. The impact of the lockdown and the re-opening of schools and day cares on the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections in children - a nationwide register study in Finland. EClinicalMedicine 34, 100807. ( 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100807) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 204.Valentine R, Valentine D, Valentine JL. 2021. Investigating the relationship of schools reopening to increases in COVID-19 infections using event study methodology: the case of the Delta variant. J. Public Health (Oxf.) 45, 134-135. ( 10.1093/pubmed/fdab373) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 205.Alfano V, Ercolano S. 2022. Back to school or … back to lockdown? The effects of opening schools on the diffusion of COVID-19 in Italian regions. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 82, 101260. ( 10.1016/j.seps.2022.101260) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 206.Casini L, Roccetti M. 2021. Reopening Italy's schools in September 2020: a Bayesian estimation of the change in the growth rate of new SARS-CoV-2 cases. BMJ Open 11, e051458. ( 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051458) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 207.Munday JD et al. 2021. Estimating the impact of reopening schools on the reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 in England, using weekly contact survey data. BMC Med. 19, 233. ( 10.1186/s12916-021-02107-0) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 208.Fukumoto K, Mcclean CT, Nakagawa K. 2021. No causal effect of school closures in Japan on the spread of COVID-19 in spring 2020. Nat. Med. 27, 2111-2119. ( 10.1038/s41591-021-01571-8) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 209.Harris DN, Ziedan E, Hassig S. 2021. The effects of school reopenings on COVID-19 hospitalizations New Orleans, United States: National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice. Technical Report. https://reachcentered.org/uploads/technicalreport/The-Effects-of-School-Reopenings-on-COVID-19-Hospitalizations-REACH-January-2021.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 210.Lichand G, Doria CA, Fernandes JPC, Leal-Neto O. 2022. Association of COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates with school reopening in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Health Forum 3. ( 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.5032) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 211.Arnarson BT. 2021. How a school holiday led to persistent COVID-19 outbreaks in Europe. Sci. Rep. 11, 24390. ( 10.1038/s41598-021-03927-z) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 212.Yehya N, Venkataramani A, Harhay MO. 2021. Statewide interventions and coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in the United States: an observational study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 73, e1863-e9. ( 10.1093/cid/ciaa923) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 213.Auger KA et al. 2020. Association between statewide school closure and COVID-19 incidence and mortality in the US. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 324, 859-870. ( 10.1001/jama.2020.14348) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 214.Rauscher E, Burns A. 2021. Unequal opportunity spreaders: higher COVID-19 deaths with later school closure in the United States. Sociol. Perspect. 64, 831-856. ( 10.1177/07311214211005486) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 215.Klimek-Tulwin M, Tulwin T. 2022. Early school closures can reduce the first-wave of the COVID-19 pandemic development. Z. Gesundh Wiss. 30, 1155-1161. ( 10.1007/s10389-020-01391-z) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 216.Liyaghatdar Z, Pezeshkian Z, Mohammadi-Dehcheshmeh M, Ebrahimie E. 2021. Fast school closures correspond with a lower rate of COVID-19 incidence and deaths in most countries. Inform. Med. Unlocked 27, 100805. ( 10.1016/j.imu.2021.100805) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 217.Mueed A, Aliani R, Abdullah M, Kazmi T, Sultan F, Khan A. 2022. School closures help reduce the spread of COVID-19: a pre-and post-intervention analysis in Pakistan. PLOS Glob. Public Health 2, e0000266. ( 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000266) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 218.Alfano V. 2022. The effects of school closures on COVID-19: a cross-country panel analysis. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 20, 223-233. ( 10.1007/s40258-021-00702-z) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 219.Franks J, Gruss B, Mulas-Granados C, Patnam M, Weber S. 2022. Reopening strategies, mobility and COVID-19 infections in Europe: panel data analysis. BMJ Open 12, e055938. ( 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055938) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 220.Krishnamachari B, Morris A, Zastrow D, Dsida A, Harper B, Santella AJ. 2021. The role of mask mandates, stay at home orders and school closure in curbing the COVID-19 pandemic prior to vaccination. Am. J. Infect. Control. 49, 1036-1042. ( 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.02.002) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 221.Sorg AL, Kaiser V, Becht S, Simon A, Von Kries R. 2022. Impact of school closures on the proportion of children in the COVID-19 pandemic: an example from the winter lockdown in Germany. Klin. Padiatr. 234, 81-87. ( 10.1055/a-1594-2818) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 222.Hayashi K et al. 2022. Assessing public health and social measures against COVID-19 in Japan from March to June 2021. Front. Med. 9. ( 10.3389/fmed.2022.937732) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 223.He Y, Chen Y, Yang L, Zhou Y, Ye R, Wang X. 2022. The impact of multi-level interventions on the second-wave SARS-CoV-2 transmission in China. PLoS ONE 17, e0274590. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0274590) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 224.Wagner AB et al. 2020. Social distancing merely stabilized COVID-19 in the United States. Stat (Int. Stat. Inst.) 9, e302. ( 10.1002/sta4.302) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 225.Wieland T. 2020. A phenomenological approach to assessing the effectiveness of COVID-19 related nonpharmaceutical interventions in Germany. Saf. Sci. 131, 104924. ( 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104924) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 226.Deb P, Furceri D, Ostry JD, Tawk N. 2020. The effect of containment measures on the COVID-19 pandemic. Working Paper Series, 2020. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. [Google Scholar]
- 227.Kosfeld R, Mitze T, Rode J, Wälde K. 2021. The COVID-19 containment effects of public health measures: a spatial difference-in-differences approach. J. Reg. Sci. 61, 799-825. ( 10.1111/jors.12536) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 228.Siedner MJ, Harling G, Reynolds Z, Gilbert RF, Haneuse S, Venkataramani AS, Tsai AC. 2020. Social distancing to slow the US COVID-19 epidemic: longitudinal pretest–posttest comparison group study. PLoS Med. 17, e1003244. ( 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003244) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 229.Wen HY et al. 2022. Non-pharmacological interventions of travel restrictions and cancelation of public events had a major reductive mortality affect during pre-vaccination coronavirus disease 2019 period. Front. Med. 9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 230.Vickers DM et al. 2022. Stringency of containment and closures on the growth of SARS-CoV-2 in Canada prior to accelerated vaccine roll-out. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 118, 73-82. ( 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.02.030) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 231.Kaçak H, Yildiz MS. 2020. Stringency of government responses to COVID-19 and initial results: a comparison between five European countries and Turkey. Turk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi 77, 233-242. ( 10.5505/TurkHijyen.2020.60487) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 232.Flaxman S et al. 2020. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature 584, 257-261. ( 10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 233.Echeverría P, Puig J, Ruiz JM, Herms J, Sarquella M, Clotet B, Negredo E. 2022. Remote health monitoring in the workplace for early detection of COVID-19 cases during the COVID-19 pandemic using a mobile health application: COVIDApp. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 19, 167. ( 10.3390/ijerph19010167) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 234.Falzone YM, Bosco L, Sferruzza G, Russo T, Vabanesi M, Carlo S, Filippi M. 2022. Evaluation of the combined effect of mobility and seasonality on the COVID-19 pandemic: a Lombardy-based study. Acta Biomed. 93, e2022212. ( 10.21203/rs.3.rs-315449/v1) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 235.Hsiang S et al. 2020. The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature 584, 262-267. ( 10.1038/s41586-020-2404-8) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 236.Li Z, Xu T, Zhang K, Deng HW, Boerwinkle E, Xiong M. 2020. Causal analysis of health interventions and environments for influencing the spread of COVID-19 in the United States of America. Front. Appl. Math. Stat. 6, 611805. ( 10.3389/fams.2020.611805) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 237.Nepomuceno TCC, Garcez TV, Silva LC, Coutinho AP. 2022. Measuring the mobility impact on the COVID-19 pandemic. Math. Biosci. Eng. 19, 7032-7054. ( 10.3934/mbe.2022332) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 238.Ng WT. 2021. COVID-19: protection of workers at the workplace in Singapore. Saf. Health Work 12, 133-135. ( 10.1016/j.shaw.2020.09.013) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 239.Stave GM, Smith SE, Hymel PA, Heron RJL. 2021. Worksite temperature screening for COVID-19. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 63, 638-641. ( 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002245) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 240.Stevens NT, Sen A, Kiwon F, Morita PP, Steiner SH, Zhang QH. 2022. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions and population mobility on daily COVID-19 cases: evidence from Ontario. Can. Public Policy-Anal. Polit. 48, 144-161. ( 10.3138/cpp.2021-022) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 241.Gallaway MS, Rigler J, Robinson S, Herrick K, Livar E, Komatsu KK, Brady S, Cunico J, Christ CM. 2020. Trends in COVID-19 incidence after implementation of mitigation measures- Arizona, January 22–August 7, 2020. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 69, 1460-1463. ( 10.15585/mmwr.mm6940e3) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 242.Jefferies S et al. 2020. COVID-19 in New Zealand and the impact of the national response: a descriptive epidemiological study. Lancet Public Health 5, E612-EE23. ( 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30225-5) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 243.Durmus H, Gökler ME, Metintas S. 2020. The effectiveness of community-based social distancing for mitigating the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. J. Prev. Med. Pub. Health 53, 397-404. ( 10.3961/jpmph.20.381) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 244.Gupta S, Georgiou A, Sen S, Simon K, Karaca-Mandic P. 2021. US trends in COVID-19-associated hospitalization and mortality rates before and after reopening economies. JAMA Health Forum 2, e211262. ( 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.1262) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 245.Wang Y, Wang Z, Wang J, Li M, Wang S, He X, Zhou C. 2022. Evolution and control of the COVID-19 pandemic: a global perspective. Cities 130, 103907. ( 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103907) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 246.Woskie LR et al. 2021. Early social distancing policies in Europe, changes in mobility & COVID-19 case trajectories: insights from Spring 2020. PLoS ONE 16, e0253071. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0253071) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 247.Erim DO, Oke GA, Adisa AO, Odukoya O, Ayo-Yusuf OA, Erim TN, Tsafa TN, Meremikwu MM, Agaku IT. 2021. Associations of government-mandated closures and restrictions with aggregate mobility trends and SARS-CoV-2 infections in Nigeria. JAMA Netw. Open 4, e2032101. ( 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32101) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 248.Rafiq R, Ahmed T, Yusuf Sarwar Uddin M. 2022. Structural modeling of COVID-19 spread in relation to human mobility. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 13, 100528. ( 10.1016/j.trip.2021.100528) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 249.Won JY, Lee YR, Cho MH, Kim YT, Heo BY. 2022. Impact of government intervention in response to coronavirus disease 2019. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 16070. ( 10.3390/ijerph192316070) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 250.Mchugh M, Tian Y, Maechling CR, Farley D, Holl JL. 2021. Closure of anchor businesses reduced COVID-19 transmission during the early months of the pandemic. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 63, 1019-1023. ( 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002348) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 251.Zobbi MA, Alsinglawi B, Mubin O, Alnajjar F. 2020. Measurement method for evaluating the lockdown policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 17, 5574. ( 10.3390/ijerph17155574) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 252.Amuedo-Dorantes C, Kaushal N, Muchow AN. 2021. Timing of social distancing policies and COVID-19 mortality: county-level evidence from the U.S. J. Popul. Econ. 34, 1445-1472. ( 10.1007/s00148-021-00845-2) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 253.Helsingen LM et al. 2021. COVID-19 transmission in fitness centers in Norway-a randomized trial. BMC Public Health 21, 2103. ( 10.1186/s12889-021-12073-0) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 254.Methi F, Telle K, Magnusson K. 2022. COVID-19 infection among bartenders and waiters before and after pub lockdown. Occup. Environ. Med. 79, 46-48. ( 10.1136/oemed-2021-107502) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 255.Ho F, Tsang TK, Gao H, Xiao J, Lau EHY, Wong JY, Wu P, Leung GM, Cowling BJ. 2022. Restaurant-based measures to control community transmission of COVID-19, Hong Kong. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 28, 759-761. ( 10.3201/eid2803.211015) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 256.Nakanishi M, Shibasaki R, Yamasaki S, Miyazawa S, Usami S, Nishiura H, Nishida A. 2021. On-site dining in Tokyo during the COVID-19 pandemic: time series analysis using mobile phone location data. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 9, e27342. ( 10.2196/27342) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 257.Abeysuriya RG, Delport D, Stuart RM, Sacks-Davis R, Kerr CC, Mistry D, Klein DJ, Hellard M, Scott N. 2022. Preventing a cluster from becoming a new wave in settings with zero community COVID-19 cases. BMC Infect. Dis. 22, 1-15. ( 10.1186/s12879-022-07180-1) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 258.Chen Y, Wang Z, Li F, Ma J, Zhang J, Chen Y, Zhang T. 2022. Comparison of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza under different intensities of non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccine effectiveness. Front. Public Health 10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 259.Chiba A. 2021. The effectiveness of mobility control, shortening of restaurants' opening hours, and working from home on control of COVID-19 spread in Japan. Health Place 70, 102622. ( 10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102622) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 260.Liang C, Jiang S, Shao X, Wang H, Yan S, Yang Z, Li X. 2021. Is it safe to reopen theaters during the COVID-19 pandemic? Front. Built Environ. 7, 637277. ( 10.3389/fbuil.2021.637277) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 261.Valberg M, Gran JM, Rueegg CS, Leblanc M. 2022. Letter to the editor regarding ‘COVID-19 transmission in fitness centers in Norway - a randomized trial’. BMC Public Health 22, 2433. ( 10.1186/s12889-022-14800-7) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 262.Chen MK, Chevalier JA, Long EF. 2020. Nursing home staff networks and COVID-19. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2015455118. ( 10.1073/pnas.2015455118) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 263.Dolveck F, Strazzulla A, Noel C, Aufaure S, Tarteret P, de Pontfarcy A, Briole N, Vignier N, Diamantis S. 2021. COVID-19 among nursing home residents: results of an urgent pre-hospital intervention by a multidisciplinary task force. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 264.Guo WH, Li Y, Temkin-Greener H. 2022. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in assisted living communities: neighborhood deprivation and state social distancing policies matter. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 43, 1004-1009. ( 10.1017/ice.2022.46) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 265.Knock ES et al. 2021. Key epidemiological drivers and impact of interventions in the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in England. Sci. Transl. Med. 13, eabg4262. ( 10.1126/scitranslmed.abg4262) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 266.Li Y, Cheng ZJ, Cai XY, Mao YJ, Temkin-Greener H. 2022. State social distancing restrictions and nursing home outcomes. Sci. Rep. 12, 1058. ( 10.1038/s41598-022-05011-6) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 267.Lipsitz LA, Lujan AM, Dufour A, Abrahams G, Magliozzi H, Herndon L, Dar M. 2020. Stemming the tide of COVID-19 infections in Massachusetts nursing homes. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 68, 2447-2453. ( 10.1111/jgs.16832) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 268.Rolland Y, Lacoste MH, De Mauleon A, Ghisolfi A, De Souto Barreto P, Blain H, Villars H. 2020. Guidance for the prevention of the COVID-19 epidemic in long-term care facilities: a short-term prospective study. J. Nutr. Health Aging 24, 812-816. ( 10.1007/s12603-020-1440-2) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 269.Shallcross L et al. 2021. Factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and outbreaks in long-term care facilities in England: a national cross-sectional survey. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2, E129-EE42. ( 10.1016/S2666-7568(20)30065-9) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 270.Telford CT, Bystrom C, Fox T, Holland DP, Wiggins-Benn S, Mandani A, Mccloud M, Shah S. 2021. COVID-19 infection prevention and control adherence in long-term care facilities, Atlanta, Georgia. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 69, 581-586. ( 10.1111/jgs.17001) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 271.Viray P, Low Z, Sinnappu R, Harvey PA, Brown S. 2021. Residential aged care facility COVID-19 outbreaks and magnitude of spread among residents: observations from a Victorian residential in-reach service. Intern. Med. J. 51, 99-101. ( 10.1111/imj.15143) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 272.Holmdahl I, Kahn R, Hay JA, Buckee CO, Mina MJ. 2021. Estimation of transmission of COVID-19 in simulated nursing homes with frequent testing and immunity-based staffing. JAMA Netw. Open 4, e2110071. ( 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10071) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 273.Lasser J et al. 2021. Agent-based simulations for protecting nursing homes with prevention and vaccination strategies. J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210608. ( 10.1098/rsif.2021.0608) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 274.Nguyen LKN, Howick S, Mclafferty D, Anderson GH, Pravinkumar SJ, Van Der Meer R, Megiddo I. 2021. Impact of visitation and cohorting policies to shield residents from COVID-19 spread in care homes: an agent-based model. Am. J. Infect. Control. 49, 1105-1112. ( 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.07.001) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 275.Rosello A, Barnard RC, Smith DRM, Evans S, Grimm F, Davies NG, Deeny SR, Knight GM, Edmunds WJ. 2022. Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in English care homes: a modelling study. BMC Infect. Dis. 22, 324. ( 10.1186/s12879-022-07268-8) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 276.Schmidt AJ, Garcia Y, Pinheiro D, Reichert TA, Nuno M. 2022. Using non-pharmaceutical interventions and high isolation of asymptomatic carriers to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes. Life (Basel) 12, 180. ( 10.3390/life12020180) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 277.Ladhani SN et al. 2020. Increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in staff working across different care homes: enhanced COVID-19 outbreak investigations in London care Homes.J. Infect. 81, 621-624. ( 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.07.027) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 278.The World Health Organization. Overview of public health and social measures in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance, 18 May 2020. The World Health Organization; 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/overview-of-public-health-and-social-measures-in-the-context-of-covid-19.
- 279.Alagoz O, Sethi AK, Patterson BW, Churpek M, Safdar N. 2021. Effect of timing of and adherence to social distancing measures on COVID-19 burden in the United States: a simulation modeling approach. Ann. Intern. Med. 174, 50-57. ( 10.7326/M20-4096) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 280.Amiri A. 2021. Role of social distancing in tackling COVID-19 during the first wave of pandemic in Nordic region: evidence from daily deaths, infections and needed hospital resources. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 8, 145-151. ( 10.1016/j.ijnss.2021.03.010) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 281.Ayoub HH et al. 2021. Mathematical modeling of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Qatar and its impact on the national response to COVID-19. J. Glob. Health 11, 05005. ( 10.7189/jogh.11.05005) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 282.Babino A, Magnasco MO. 2021. Masks and distancing during COVID-19: a causal framework for imputing value to public-health interventions. Sci. Rep. 11, 5183. ( 10.1038/s41598-021-84679-8) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 283.Barros V, Manes I, Akinwande V, Cintas C, Bar-Shira O, Ozery-Flato M, Shimoni Y, Rosen-Zvi M. 2022. A causal inference approach for estimating effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions during COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 17, e0265289. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0265289) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 284.Bo Y et al. 2021. Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission in 190 countries from 23 January to 13 April 2020. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 102, 247-253. ( 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.066) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 285.Cernuda-Martínez JA, Fernández-García A. 2021. Estimation of the number of preventable COVID-19 deaths in relation to the restrictive measures adopted in America. Gac. Med. Mex. 157, 225-230. ( 10.24875/GMM.M21000550) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 286.Courtemanche C, Garuccio J, Le A, Pinkston J, Yelowitz A. 2021. Chance elections, social distancing restrictions, and Kentucky's early COVID-19 experience. PLoS ONE 16, e0250152. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0250152) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 287.Gagnon K, Young B, Bachman T, Longbottom T, Severin R, Walker MJ. 2020. Doctor of physical therapy education in a hybrid learning environment: reimagining the possibilities and navigating a ‘New Normal’. Phys. Ther. 100, 1268-1277. ( 10.1093/ptj/pzaa096) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 288.Geng EH et al. 2021. Outcomes associated with social distancing policies in St Louis, Missouri, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw. Open 4, e2123374. ( 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.23374) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 289.Glogowsky U, Hansen E, Schächtele S. 2021. How effective are social distancing policies? Evidence on the fight against COVID-19. PLoS ONE 16, e0257363. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0257363) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 290.Guimarães RM, Monteiro Da Silva JHC, Brusse GPL, Martins TCF. 2021. Effect of physical distancing on COVID-19 incidence in Brazil: does the strictness of mandatory rules matter? Health Policy Plan 36, 1605-1612. ( 10.1093/heapol/czab110) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 291.Horga NG, Cirnatu D, Kundnani NR, Ciurariu E, Parvu S, Ignea AL, Borza C, Sharma A, Morariu S. 2022. Evaluation of non-pharmacological measures implemented in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania. Healthcare 10, 1756. ( 10.3390/healthcare10091756) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 292.Jarvis CI, Van Zandvoort K, Gimma A, Prem K, Klepac P, Rubin GJ, Edmunds WJ. 2020. Quantifying the impact of physical distance measures on the transmission of COVID-19 in the UK. BMC Med. 18, 124. ( 10.1186/s12916-020-01597-8) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 293.Kucharski AJ et al. 2020. Effectiveness of isolation, testing, contact tracing, and physical distancing on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in different settings: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 20, 1151-1160. ( 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30457-6) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 294.Morley CP, Anderson KB, Shaw J, Stewart T, Thomas SJ, Wang D. 2020. Social distancing metrics and estimates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates: associations between mobile telephone data tracking and R. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 26, 606-612. ( 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001240) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 295.Moussaoui A, Zerga EH. 2020. Transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in Algeria: the impact of physical distancing and face masks. AIMS Public Health 7, 816-827. ( 10.3934/publichealth.2020063) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 296.Nakhaeizadeh M, Eybpoosh S, Jahani Y, Ahmadi Gohari M, Haghdoost AA, White L, Sharifi H. 2021. Impact of non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the control of COVID-19 in Iran: a mathematical modeling study. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 11, 1472-1481. ( 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.48) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 297.Ng V, Fazil A, Waddell LA, Bancej C, Turgeon P, Otten A, Atchessi N, Ogden NH. 2020. Projected effects of nonpharmaceutical public health interventions to prevent resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Canada. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 192, E1053-E1e64. ( 10.1503/cmaj.200990) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 298.Nyabadza F, Chirove F, Chukwu CW, Visaya MV. 2020. Modelling the potential impact of social distancing on the COVID-19 epidemic in South Africa. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2020, 1-12. ( 10.1155/2020/5379278) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 299.Sanchez JN, Reyes GA, Martínez-López B, Johnson C. 2022. Impact of social distancing on early SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the United States. Zoonoses Public Health 69, 746-756. ( 10.1111/zph.12909) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 300.Trentini F et al. 2022. Investigating the relationship between interventions, contact patterns, and SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility. Epidemics 40, 100601. ( 10.1016/j.epidem.2022.100601) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 301.Van Den Berg P, Schechter-Perkins EM, Jack RS, Epshtein I, Nelson R, Oster E, Branch-Elliman W. 2021. Effectiveness of 3 versus 6ft of physical distancing for controlling spread of coronavirus disease 2019 among primary and secondary students and staff: a retrospective, statewide cohort study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 73, 1871-1878. ( 10.1093/cid/ciab230) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 302.Yuan HY, Liang J, Hossain MP. 2022. Impacts of social distancing, rapid antigen test and vaccination on the Omicron outbreak during large temperature variations in Hong Kong: a modelling study. J. Infect. Public Health 15, 1427-1435. ( 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.10.026) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 303.Ge Y et al. 2022. Impacts of worldwide individual non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission across waves and space. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 106, 102649. ( 10.1016/j.jag.2021.102649) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 304.Gianino MM, Nurchis MC, Politano G, Rousset S, Damiani G. 2021. Evaluation of the strategies to control COVID-19 pandemic in four European Countries. Front. Public Health 9, 700811. ( 10.3389/fpubh.2021.700811) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 305.Huy LD, Nguyen NTH, Phuc PT, Huang C-C. 2022. The effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 epidemic growth rate during pre- and post-vaccination period in Asian countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 1139. ( 10.3390/ijerph19031139) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 306.Jüni P, Rothenbühler M, Bobos P, Thorpe KE, Da Costa BR, Fisman DN, Slutsky AS, Gesink D. 2020. Impact of climate and public health interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective cohort study. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 192, E566-EE73. ( 10.1503/cmaj.200920) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 307.Liu Y, Yu Q, Wen H, Shi F, Wang F, Zhao Y, Hong Q, Yu C. 2022. What matters: non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19 in Europe. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 11, 3. ( 10.1186/s13756-021-01039-x) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 308.Lou J et al. 2022. Quantifying the effect of government interventions and virus mutations on transmission advantage during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Infect. Public Health 15, 338-342. ( 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.01.020) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 309.Ofori SK, Schwind JS, Sullivan KL, Cowling BJ, Chowell G, Fung IC-H. 2022. Transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in Ghana and the impact of public health interventions. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 107, 175-179. ( 10.4269/ajtmh.21-0718) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 310.Tao S, Bragazzi NL, Wu J, Mellado B, Kong JD. 2022. Harnessing artificial intelligence to assess the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions on the second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic across the world. Sci. Rep. 12, 944. ( 10.1038/s41598-021-04731-5) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 311.Wibbens PD, Koo WW, Mcgahan AM. 2020. Which COVID policies are most effective? A Bayesian analysis of COVID-19 by jurisdiction. PLoS ONE 15, e0244177. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0244177) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 312.Yasutaka T, Murakami M, Iwasaki Y, Naito W, Onishi M, Fujita T, Imoto S. 2022. Assessment of COVID-19 risk and prevention effectiveness among spectators of mass gathering events. Microb. Risk Anal. 21, 100215. ( 10.1016/j.mran.2022.100215) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 313.Huang QS et al. 2021. Impact of the COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions on influenza and other respiratory viral infections in New Zealand. Nat. Commun. 12, 1001. ( 10.1038/s41467-021-21157-9) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 314.Soo RJJ, Chiew CJ, Ma S, Pung R, Lee V. 2020. Decreased influenza incidence under COVID-19 control measures, Singapore. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 26, 1933-1935. ( 10.3201/eid2608.201229) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 315.Dadras O et al. 2021. Effects of COVID-19 prevention procedures on other common infections: a systematic review. Eur. J. Med. Res. 26, 67. ( 10.1186/s40001-021-00539-1) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 316.Kraemer MUG et al. 2020. The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science 368, 493-497. ( 10.1126/science.abb4218) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 317.Barbieri DM et al. 2021. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mobility in ten countries and associated perceived risk for all transport modes. PLoS ONE 16, e0245886. ( 10.1371/journal.pone.0245886) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 318.Ainslie KEC et al. 2020. Evidence of initial success for China exiting COVID-19 social distancing policy after achieving containment. Wellcome Open Res. 5, 81. ( 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15843.2) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 319.Nouvellet P et al. 2021. Reduction in mobility and COVID-19 transmission. Nat. Commun. 12, 1090. ( 10.1038/s41467-021-21358-2) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 320.Murphy C et al. 2023. Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings. Figshare. ( 10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6677632) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Citations
- Murphy C et al. 2023. Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings. Figshare. ( 10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6677632) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Data Availability Statement
The data are provided in the electronic supplementary material [320].