Browsing Health by Journal
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
Factors impacting social distancing measures for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]: a systematic reviewThis is a preprint. Preprints are preliminary reports that have not undergone peer review. They should not be considered conclusive, used to inform clinical practice, or referenced by the media as validated information. Background: Social distancing measures (SDMs) protect the health of the public from coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, the impact of SDMs has been inconsistent and unclear. This study aims to review the factors impacting SDMs (e.g. isolation, quarantine) for reducing the transmission of COVID-19. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research and WHO database on COVID-19 for primary studies assessing the enablers and barriers associated with SDMs, and reported in accordance with PRISMA statement. We used JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for the cross-sectional survey and Qualitative Research to assess the methodological qualities and synthesised performing thematic analysis. Two reviewers independently screened the papers and extracted data. Results: A total of 1235 citations were identified, of which 16 were found to be relevant. The studies reported in two broad categories, under seven separate themes: positive impact of SDMs, effective public health interventions, positive change in people’s behaviour, worries and concerns about COVID-19, roles of mass media, physical and psychological impacts, and ethnicity/age associated with COVID-19. Conclusion: The identified evidence signals that SDMs are generally effective for preventing or reducing transmission. There is a scope and need to find the best methods and approaches at the primary healthcare level in terms of developing objective measures and interventions to establish the link between different factors and SDMs and reducing transmission of COVID-19 trend effectively, efficiently and equitably.
Factors in implementation of clinical commissioning policy in improving health and wellbeing and/or reducing health inequalities in the English NHS: a systematic review of the evidenceThis is a preprint. Preprints are preliminary reports that have not undergone peer review. They should not be considered conclusive, used to inform clinical practice, or referenced by the media as validated information. Objective: This study aimed to identify and synthesise the factors in implementing clinical commissioning policy in improving health and/or reducing health inequalities in the English NHS. Methods: Systematic review was conducted. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Allied & Complementary Medicine, DH-DATA, Global Health and CINAHL for primary studies that assessed the enablers and barriers, and reported in accordance with PRISMA statement. Methodological quality was appraised using JBI Critical Appraisal tools and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool [MMAT] to assess the methodological qualities, and synthesised performing thematic analysis. Two reviewers independently screened the papers and extracted data. Results: We included six primary studies (including a total of 1155 participants) in the final review. The studies reported two broad categories, under four separate themes: agenda of health inequalities not fully addressed; poor evidence for reducing health inequalities; reform through restructuring of organisations, and strategic approaches. Conclusion: This study provides useful factors – enablers and barriers – to implement and deliver clinical commissioning policy in improving health and wellbeing. These factors could be assessed in future to develop objective measures and interventions to establish the link between commissioning and health inequalities improving equitable access, health outcomes and effective partnerships.