Skip header and navigation

20 records – page 1 of 1.

Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220304v002 RR
Question Submitted
March 29, 2022
Date Completed
June 7, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220304v002 RR
Question Submitted
March 29, 2022
Date Completed
June 7, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Updated Key Findings
June 7, 2022
ECDC & WHO have released statements indicating that while a 4th dose may be beneficial to populations at highest risk of severe outcomes, marginal benefits for other populations may be outweighed by the opportunity and financial cost
Extensive analysis of data from Israel’s 4th dose campaign indicates that while protection against severe disease and death remains high following 3rd dose, the administration of a 4th dose significantly increases protection against infection and symptomatic disease, though this protection appears short-lived, with protective effects waning by 10 weeks
Israeli healthcare workers demonstrate an increase in immunity markers following 4th dose, but protection against infection remains low
In immunocompromised individuals (such as solid organ transplant patients and dialysis patients), receipt of a 4th dose of COVID-19 vaccine increases immunity marker titers, but non-responders continue to have a low likelihood of de novo seroconversion
Key Findings
March 31, 2022
Data from Israel of adults 60 years and older who received a 4th dose of mRNA vaccine found that the rate of confirmed infection decreased ~2 fold following the 4th dose, and the rate of severe illness decreased by ~4-fold in those who received a 4th dose versus those with 3 doses, both results were found to be statistically significant
NACI recommends a 4th dose at least 6 months following a 3rd dose for severely immunocompromised individuals who are not only at higher risk of severe outcomes, but also at higher risk of decreased protection over time following vaccination – this recommendation has been echoed by Public Health Ontario, the Northwest Territories Health and Social Services
The FDA has also authorized the use of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine as a 4th dose for adults over 50 years and those over 12 years with compromised immune systems
A small study of Israeli healthcare workers compared the incidence of COVID-19 in those who had received a 4th dose of vaccine to those who had received only three doses. It found that protection from Omicron infection was only slightly higher in the four-dose vaccine group compared to the three-dose control group (31% for Pfizer as a 4th dose, 11% for Moderna as a 4th dose), and that neither result was statistically significant. Breakthrough infections were mild, yet with high viral loads
Small-scale studies of solid-organ transplant and hemodialysis patients found that while a 4th dose increased antibody titers in most participants, those with severe immune deficiencies such as those taking anti-rejection medication were still unable to mount an immune response to vaccination – in addition, these studies have not assessed the presence or strength of functional immunity in these populations
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Clinical Presentation
Immunity
Infection Prevention and Control
Vaccines
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Dalidowicz, M; Howell-Spooner, B; Groot, G; Reeder. B. What is the efficacy of a 4th booster dose for COVID-19? 2022 Jun 07. Document no.: EOC220304v002 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. 12 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Similar Reviews
INF031801
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220301 SBAR
Question Submitted
March 1, 2022
Date Completed
May 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220301 SBAR
Question Submitted
March 1, 2022
Date Completed
May 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Notes
This is not a regular rapid review. It was decided to write this SBAR instead.
Category
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Public Health
Decision Making
Health Personnel
Infection Prevention and Control
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Rowein S, Singh S, Habbick M, Mehdiyeva K, Miller L, Gagneur, A, Groot G, Neudorf C, Camillo CA, Tokhmafshan, F, Muhajarine N. Motivational Interviewing for Vaccine Hesitancy. May 2022. Document no.: [12.1]. CoVaRR-Net Public Health, Health Systems, Social Policy Team, c2022.
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC211220v016 ESR Table
Question Submitted
December 20, 2021
Date Completed
April 14, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC211220v016 ESR Table
Question Submitted
December 20, 2021
Date Completed
April 14, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Mueller, M; Miller, L. What is the epidemiology of the Omicron variant and its impact on health care? 2022 Apr 14. Document no.: EOC211220v016 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet].SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. (CEST table).
Category
Epidemiology
Healthcare Services
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Related Documents
Documents

EOC211220v016 ESR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC220302 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 1, 2022
Date Completed
March 10, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC220302 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 1, 2022
Date Completed
March 10, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Clinical Management
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Infection Prevention and Control
Immunity
Risk
Vaccines
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L. What is the safety/efficacy of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine? 2022 Mar 10. Document no.: EOC220302 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. 8 p. (CEST Table)
Related Documents
Documents

EOC220302 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220302 RR
Question Submitted
March 1, 2022
Date Completed
March 10, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220302 RR
Question Submitted
March 1, 2022
Date Completed
March 10, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Novavax was authorized for use in Canada February 16, 2022 and has also been authorized for use in 35 other countries as a 2-dose primary series given as an intramuscular injection, 21 days apart
Phase 3 trials of Novavax in US/Mexico and UK showed an overall vaccine effectiveness of 89.7-90.4% against all severity COVID infection and 100% against moderate/severe infection and death
In the US/Mexico, vaccine effectiveness against the dominant Alpha variant was found to be 92.6%, while in the UK, it’s effectiveness dropped to 86.3%
The most frequently reported local and systemic adverse events in both trials were tenderness and pain at the injection site and headache, myalgia and fatigue, respectively. Adverse events were mild-to-moderate and transient in nature, and more frequently reported following the second dose
A Phase 2 trial assessing safety and efficacy of Novavax in South Africa in adults 18-64 years during Beta dominance found a vaccine efficacy of only 49.4%, however, in subgroup analysis of only HIV negative individuals, efficacy rose to 60.1% overall, and 51% against the Beta variant. (). While efficacy against disease severity was not measured, the majority of infections reported in both the vaccine and placebo group were mild to moderate
Category
Clinical Management
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Infection Prevention and Control
Immunity
Risk
Vaccines
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L. What is the safety/efficacy of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine? 2022 Mar 10. Document no.: EOC220302 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. 7 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
CAC220101 RR Table
Question Submitted
January 11, 2022
Date Completed
February 10, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Clinical/Acute Care
Document Type
Table
Review Code
CAC220101 RR Table
Question Submitted
January 11, 2022
Date Completed
February 10, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Clinical/Acute Care
Category
Administration
Healthcare Services
Subject
Decision Making
Health Planning
Hospitalization
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
Emergency
EMS
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Other
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Asamoah, G; Badea, A; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Muhajarine, N; Howell-Spooner, B; Young, C. What is the (case) definition of hospitalization for COVID-19 in similar jurisdictions? 2022 Feb 10. Document no.: CAC220101 RR Table. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. (CEST Table).
Related Documents
Documents

CAC220101 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
CAC220101 RR
Question Submitted
January 11, 2022
Date Completed
February 10, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Clinical/Acute Care
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
CAC220101 RR
Question Submitted
January 11, 2022
Date Completed
February 10, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Clinical/Acute Care
Key Findings
January 26, 2022
There exists some ambiguity across jurisdictions and thus there is no clear universal case definition of COVID-19 hospitalization.
Public Health Ontario measures hospitalization as “the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases that reported ever being hospitalized during their infection”- i.e., all cases reported as ever being hospitalized during their infection.
The category “incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations” has been proposed. This refers to patients who are primarily admitted for other ailments and test positive as part of routine screening.
Some jurisdictions and health agencies have started differentiating between those who were admitted for COVID-19-related illness and incidental admissions. Ontario and Saskatchewan have begun using this category in their regular reporting of COVID-19 statistics.
New data from Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Canada indicate that 30 to 50 percent of COVID-19 hospitalizations are “incidental COVID-19 hospitalization” – 46% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in Ontario (as of January 11th, 2022) and 40% in Saskatchewan (as of January 26th, 2022)
Some expert opinions caution that such binary categorization may oversimplify clinical reality, and suggests also employing an ‘indeterminate’ category
Category
Administration
Healthcare Services
Subject
Decision Making
Health Planning
Hospitalization
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
Emergency
EMS
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Other
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Asamoah, G; Badea, A; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Muhajarine, N; Howell-Spooner, B; Young, C. What is the (case) definition of hospitalization for COVID-19 in similar jurisdictions? 2022 Feb 10. Document no.: CAC220101 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. 9 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC211220 RR Table
Question Submitted
December 20, 2021
Date Completed
December 22, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC211220 RR Table
Question Submitted
December 20, 2021
Date Completed
December 22, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Epidemiology
Healthcare Services
Subject
Variants
Health Planning
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Miller, L. What is the epidemiology of the Omicron variant and its impact on health care? 2021 Dec 22, Document no.: EOC211220 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST table).
Related Documents
Documents

EOC211220 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC211220 RR
Question Submitted
December 20, 2021
Date Completed
December 22, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC211220 RR
Question Submitted
December 20, 2021
Date Completed
December 22, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
December 22, 2021
Omicron first detected in Botswana and South Africa at the end of November 2021, classified as a variant of concern by the WHO and CDC by December 1st, 2021 after rapid spread to multiple areas of the world, and evidence of community transmission
Preliminary data indicates increased transmissibility of Omicron compared to the currently dominant Delta
In-vitro data indicates a significant reduction in neutralization titers of vaccinee sera – however, sera from individuals recently boosted with an mRNA vaccine had a minimal reduction in neutralization capacity compared to Delta
Increasing rates of breakthrough infections in South Africa and the UK confirming suspicions of decreased vaccine effectiveness of primary vaccine series, early data shows that mRNA boosters increase levels of protection, though still lower than protection against other variants
Vaccination protection against severe disease appears to still be quite good, however severe disease/death are lagging indicators and a definitive conclusion cannot be made at this time
Most therapeutic monoclonal antibodies currently approved by FDA and in use do not neutralize Omicron, however therapies targeting the host immune response are anticipated to retain effectiveness
Category
Epidemiology
Healthcare Services
Subject
Variants
Health Planning
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Miller, L. What is the epidemiology of the Omicron variant and its impact on health care? 2021 Dec 22, Document no.: EOC211220 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 10 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210902 RR Table
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210902 RR Table
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Clinical Management
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Decision Making
Health Planning
Infection Prevention and Control
Vaccination
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Related Documents
Documents

EOC210902 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210902 RR
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210902 RR
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Emerging evidence suggesting waning levels of immune markers with time, particularly against more virulent variants. How this will correlate to functional immunity is yet to be documented.
Immunocompromised populations with lower levels of responses to standard 2-dose regimens may benefit from a 3rd dose of mRNA vaccine as a part of the primary series, though their response may still be lower than what is expected in the general population
Current recommendation for populations to receive a 3rd dose include adults over a certain age (depending on jurisdiction), those living in long-term care settings, frontline health and social workers and/or people working in high risk settings, those with immune compromising conditions leading to increased risk of severe disease/poor outcomes if infected
Safety trials have indicated that side effects to 3rd/booster doses are similar to those following the 2nd dose in initial vaccination series
Category
Clinical Management
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Decision Making
Health Planning
Infection Prevention and Control
Vaccination
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Muhajarine, N; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Hernandez-Ronquillo, L; Tian, K. What is the current evidence and recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccine booster shots (exceeding 2 doses) for the general population? 2021 Oct 07, Document no.: EOC210902 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 8 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
The group designated in Saskatchewan as Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) is a heterogenous clinical population with factors that impair their immune response to differing degrees.
Very Limited evidence is currently available to assess the immune response following vaccination is selected clinical populations; no evidence is available to assess vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in these populations. The clinical relevance of measured immune response with respect to protection from disease is still uncertain.
In considering the immune response of the CEV population, it is recommended that the absolute difference in immune response between 1 and 2 doses be considered, as it is possible some patient groups will have lowered protection regardless of vaccine strategy.
In terms of clinical subgroups: oOrgan transplantation recipients on immunosuppressive medication: solid organ transplant recipients receiving anti-metabolite maintenance immunosuppression therapy were less likely to develop an antibody response to an mRNA vaccine, compared to those receiving other types of therapies (37% vs 63%). In a study of 242 kidney transplant recipients on immunosuppressive therapy only 10.8% became seropositive at 28 days after a single dose of mRNA vaccine. oCancer: A study of 151 elderly patients with solid and hematological malignancies and 54 healthy controls who received one or two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine shows approximately 39% of solid cancer patients, 13% of hematological cancer patients, and 97% of healthy controls (p<0.0001) developed anti-S IgG 21 days following a single dose vaccine. However, response in solid cancer patients increased to 95% within 2 weeks of the second dose at 21 days. oOther immunocompromising conditions (e.g., auto-immune disorders and therapy): some level of immunity is generated with vaccination; however, what this means clinically is unknown. It seems that ensuring the dosing is properly timed around biologic therapy is important.
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Risk
Comorbidities
Population
All
Other
vulnerable populations (clinically)
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the risks or benefits of extended intervals between doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to recommended dosing in extremely vulnerable populations? 2021 Apr 20, Document no.: EOC210302 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 15 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Similar Reviews
INF031801 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210302 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210302 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Risk
Comorbidities
Population
All
Other
vulnerable populations (clinically)
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the risks or benefits of extended intervals between doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to recommended dosing in extremely vulnerable populations? 2021 Apr 20, Document no.: EOC210302 RR Table. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST table).
Similar Reviews
INF031801 RR
Related Documents
Documents

EOC210302 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031001 RR
Question Submitted
March 10, 2021
Date Completed
March 18, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031001 RR
Question Submitted
March 10, 2021
Date Completed
March 18, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Current recommendations suggest phased distribution of authorized vaccines and prioritization of the recipients (e.g., health care workers, frontline essential workers, and elderly population).
A concern that could exist with using AstraZeneca on critical populations is that it may have little coverage for mild-moderate B.1.351, which may have implications in transmission. This could be a concern in critical workforces if the variant becomes predominant, especially given the potentially higher transmissibility of variant. The literature is mixed but it is possible that AstraZeneca has lower efficacy than the mRNA vaccines.
Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends that in the context of limited vaccine supply, initial doses of mRNA vaccines should be prioritized for those at highest risk of severe illness and death and highest risk of exposure to COVID-19. On the other hand, US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends no product preference for the vaccines.
Just recently, NACI has expanded its recommendation for the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to all people over the age of 18, now including those 65 years of age and over.
While Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines and need special logistical and transportation considerations, AstraZeneca and Johnson&Johnson (J&J) vaccines are viral vector vaccines that are easier to transport.
J&J is a single dose vaccine thus may be more appropriate in certain settings (such as homeless shelters and correctional facilities). Of note, there is no empirical evidence yet available to support this use; this suggestion is based simply on the nature of the vaccine.
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Decision Making
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Shumilak, G; Lee, S; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the differences between COVID-19 vaccines and how they should be distributed based on population group(s)? 2021 Mar 18; Document no.: EOC031001 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 19 p. (CEST rapid review 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
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF121501 RR
Question Submitted
December 15, 2020
Date Completed
December 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF121501 RR
Question Submitted
December 15, 2020
Date Completed
December 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Key Findings
· A recent evidence synthesis was completed by Public Health Ontario to answer a similar question. That synthesis has been deemed of sufficiently high quality and contains a recent enough evidence review to provide the necessary information to answer the question. Please refer to the attached document for the Key Points · We have reviewed the literature identified by our search that has been published since the time of the literature review in the Public Health Ontario evidence synthesis (i.e., between Oct 14, 2020 and Dec 15, 2020). No significant changes to the Key Points are noted. · Our team agrees with the conclusion of Public Health Ontario that the dominant mechanism of transmission is primarily through direct contact with respiratory droplets but that COVID-19 is an opportunistic airborne Rapid Review Report: INF121501 RR (Version 1: December 17, 2020 17:30) 2 pathogen, where aerosol transmission occurs under the right combination of conditions (for instance a poorly ventilated space where a high volume of virus can be produced and concentrated).
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Transmission
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Miller, L; Fox, L. How is COVID-19 transmitted from person-to-person and what is the most common source of transmission? 2020 Dec 15; Document no.: INF121501 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 11 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
INF121501 RR Table
Question Submitted
December 15, 2020
Date Completed
December 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Document Type
Table
Review Code
INF121501 RR Table
Question Submitted
December 15, 2020
Date Completed
December 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Transmission
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Miller, L; Fox, L. How is COVID-19 transmitted from person-to-person and what is the most common source of transmission? 2020 Dec 17; Document no.: INF121501 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. (CEST table)
Related Documents
Documents

INF121501 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC091101 RR
Question Submitted
September 11, 2020
Date Completed
September 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC091101 RR
Question Submitted
September 11, 2020
Date Completed
September 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
The evidence to support medical exemptions for mask wearing is limited. The predominant discourse revolves around a risk-based approach that considers the potential benefits and harms for individuals; few absolute exceptions to masking have been advocated. Masks are one part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the spread of SARS CoV-2 infection and should be viewed in the context of other public health measures including physical distancing, hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette.
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Face Masks
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Williams-Roberts, H; McLean, M; Groot, G; Young, C; Mueller, M; Miller, L. What evidence is there to support medical exemptions for mask wearing? 2020 Sep 17; Document no.: EOC091101 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 20 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040601 RR
Question Submitted
April 6, 2020
Date Completed
April 6, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040601 RR
Question Submitted
April 6, 2020
Date Completed
April 6, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Surgical masks are superior to cloth masks in their ability to block particles
Small scale studies to support reduced transmission in practice
Several mechanical studies indicating meager protection
Evidence supports current national recommendations to combine mask use with proper hand hygiene and above all, proper distancing measures
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Healthcare Services
Subject
Personal Protective Equipment
Face Masks
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Priority Level
Level 1 completed within 4 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Young, C. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of face masks for preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the community? 2020 Apr 6; Document no.: EOC040601 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 8 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC220304v002 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 29, 2022
Date Completed
June 7, 0222
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC220304v002 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 29, 2022
Date Completed
June 7, 0222
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Clinical Presentation
Immunity
Infection Prevention and Control
Vaccines
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Dalidowicz, M; Howell-Spooner, B. What is the efficacy of a 4th booster dose for COVID-19? 2022 Jun 7. Document no.: EOC220304v002 RR Table. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. (CEST table).
Similar Reviews
INF031801v020 ESR
INF031801v019 RR
Related Documents
Documents

EOC220304v002 RR Table

Download File
Less detail

20 records – page 1 of 1.