Skip header and navigation

8 records – page 1 of 1.

Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH011401-01 ESR
Question Submitted
January 14, 2021
Date Completed
January 15, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH011401-01 ESR
Question Submitted
January 14, 2021
Date Completed
January 15, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccines
Decision Making
Health Planning
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Mueller, M; Howell-Spooner, B. How are other jurisdictions distributing COVID-19 vaccines in non-healthcare worker environments and what is the rationale for those distribution models? 2021 Jan 15; Document no.: PH011401-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 15 p. (CEST evidence search report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH011401 RR
Question Submitted
January 14, 2021
Date Completed
January 19, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH011401 RR
Question Submitted
January 14, 2021
Date Completed
January 19, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
· Recommended to use existing vaccination structures and delivery services as much as possible for distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines · Important to consider cold-chain requirements when developing distribution plans · Should consider alternate locations for hard-to-reach populations that are easily accessible and familiar · Consider branching out to mobile vaccination (e.g. home visits, door-to-door), pharmacies, workplaces, congregate living facilities, walk-up/drive-through mechanisms for vaccine delivery
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccines
Decision Making
Health Planning
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Mueller, M; Howell-Spooner, B. How are other jurisdictions distributing COVID-19 vaccines in non-healthcare worker environments and what is the rationale for those distribution models? 2021 Jan 19; Document no.: PH011401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 17 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH030401-01 ESR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 4, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH030401-01 ESR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 4, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vulnerable Populations
Vaccination
Health Planning
Population
All
Neonates
Infants
All Pediatrics
All adults
Aged (80+)
Homeless
Mental Health patients
Indigenous Peoples
Other
vulnerable populations
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the vaccination strategies for vulnerable populations? 2021 Mar 04; Document no.: PH030401-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 33 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH030401 RR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH030401 RR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
Vulnerable populations such as those experiencing homelessness are 20 times more likely to be hospitalised due to COVID-19, 10 times more likely to require intensive care for COVID-19 and 5 times more likely to die within 21 days of a positive test for COVID-19
Many organizations advocate for socially vulnerable populations to be considered priority populations due to their oftencomplex health needs and inability to fully execute best practices for infection prevention and control
Past experiences from Hepatitis vaccination (requiring 3 injections) and H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccination indicate that partnering with community organizations to provide vaccinations in shelters, community centers and other frequently accessed places along with education and access to known, trusted healthcare providers greatly increase the uptake of vaccination among socially vulnerable populations
Beyond sheltered populations experiencing homelessness, considerations for equitable vaccination programs for the general population should include plans for accessibility for all, including underserved geographic regions
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Health Planning
Vulnerable Populations
Vaccination
Population
All
Neonates
Infants
All Pediatrics
All adults
Aged (80+)
Homeless
Mental Health patients
Indigenous Peoples
Other
vulnerable populations
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Hanson, L; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the vaccination strategies for vulnerable populations? 2021 Mar 12; Document no.: PH030401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 33 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH042401-01 ESR
Question Submitted
24-Apr-2020
Date Completed
April 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH042401-01 ESR
Question Submitted
24-Apr-2020
Date Completed
April 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Category
Diagnostics
Epidemiology
Subject
Screening
Population
All
Neonates
Infants
All Pediatrics
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Emergency
Long Term Care
Other
OR
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Dalidowicz, M; Mueller, M. What is the sensitivity and specificity of screening checklists and temperature checks for detecting the presence of COVID-19 in individuals? 2020 Apr 27; Document no.: PH042401-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 12 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH042401 RR
Question Submitted
24-Apr-2020
Date Completed
April 28, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH042401 RR
Question Submitted
24-Apr-2020
Date Completed
April 28, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
Screening tools commonly include fever, respiratory symptoms (cough, shortness of breath), and epidemiological risk factors. · The sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires depends considerably on the items used in the questionnaire. The limited published literature demonstrates great variability in the performance of different screening tools: sensitivity ranges from 0 – 48.6 – 84.3 – 100%; specificity ranges from 64.8 – 71.3 – 89.6 – 96%). · The standard WHO symptom checklist performs poorly, with a sensitivity of 48.6%, and specificity of 89.6%. As such, half of individuals who have SARS-CoV-2 present at the time of testing will be missed by the symptom questionnaire (being either asymptomatic or presymptomatic). Depending on the population being screened the prevalence of the virus may vary widely. Given the sensitivity and specificity of the WHO symptom checklist in a population with prevalence ranging from 0.1% to 1% to 10% the positive predictive value (PPV) will be poor, range from 0.4% to 4.8% to 35%, respectively. Furthermore, the performance characteristics of the screening questionnaire may be poorer than reported if used in a setting or time of year when other respiratory viruses with similar symptoms are circulating.
Category
Diagnostics
Epidemiology
Subject
Screening
Population
All
Neonates
Infants
All Pediatrics
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Emergency
Long Term Care
Other
OR
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Fick, F; Neudorf, C; Reeder, B; Dalidowicz, M; Mueller, M. What is the sensitivity and specificity of screening checklists and temperature checks for detecting the presence of COVID-19 in individuals? 2020 Apr 28; Document no.: PH042401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 20 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Similar Reviews
LAB041401 RR
EPM051201 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH111001-01 ESR
Question Submitted
November 10, 2020
Date Completed
November 13, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH111001-01 ESR
Question Submitted
November 10, 2020
Date Completed
November 13, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Saskatchewan
Outcome Assessment
Decision Making
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What public health interventions are effective in reducing the burden of COVID-19 disease in comparable jurisdictions to Saskatchewan? 2020 Nov 13; Document no.: PH111001-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 25 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH111001 RR
Question Submitted
November 10, 2020
Date Completed
January 11, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH111001 RR
Question Submitted
November 10, 2020
Date Completed
January 11, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
A recent comprehensive examination of international experience [17] provides a hierarchy of effectiveness of public health interventions. The most effective interventions, as measured by the change in the effective reproduction number (Rt), include the cancellation of small and mass gatherings, closure of educational institutions, border restrictions, lockdowns, restrictions on individual movement, and increased availability and use of PPE such as face masks. Less effective are testing restrictions, public transportation restrictions, airport health checks, and environmental cleaning and disinfection (Figure 1).
Shelter-in-place, lockdown, and curfew orders have a substantial impact on the burden of COVID-19, having reduced Rt from 6.9 to 0.8 over the course of a month in Spain, for example. In an international comparison, stay-at-home orders reduced the percent daily increase in new cases from baseline from 26.9% at baseline to 20.3%, 12.8%, 7.3% at 7, 14, 21 days, respectively.
Closure of schools and workplaces are associated with a modest reduction in the incidence of COVID-19, in the order of 13%.
Travel restrictions lead to a moderate reduction COVID-19 disease burden. A study of 13 European countries found that voluntary reduced mobility occurring prior to government policies decreased the percent change in deaths per day by 9.2%, whereas subsequent government closure policies decreased deaths per day by 14.0%.
An extensive systematic review of SARS, MERS, and SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates that physical distancing of 1 m is associated with a relative risk (RR) of disease transmission = 0.18. The RR decreases two-fold for each additional m increase in distance.
A ban on public gatherings reduces COVID-19 transmission; however, evidence supporting specific gathering size limits is weak. In Germany, gathering restrictions and voluntary behaviour changes had the single greatest effect on the epidemic, reducing Rt by 9.7% per day and the growth rate from 30 to 12% within 2 weeks. Findings from the UK lockdown indicate that the average daily number of contacts decreased from 10.8 before to 2.8 after the lockdown. This was associated with a decrease in Rt from 2.6 to 0.62.
In a systematic review and in modelling studies, mask use by the public is estimated to reduce COVID-19 incidence and deaths by 38% and 47%, respectively.
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Saskatchewan
Outcome Assessment
Decision Making
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
McCarron, M; Karreman, E; Okpalauwaekwe, U; Henderson, R; Reeder, B; Muhajarine, N; Neudorf, C; Groot, G; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. Which public health interventions are (most) effective in reducing the burden of COVID-19 disease in predominately OECD countries? 2021 Jan 11; Document no.: PH111001 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 54 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

8 records – page 1 of 1.