Skip header and navigation

8 records – page 1 of 1.

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
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
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
EOC210503 RR
Question Submitted
May 28, 2021
Date Completed
June 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210503 RR
Question Submitted
May 28, 2021
Date Completed
June 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Requiring proof of vaccination for entry into another country is not a new idea. There are regulations that need to be followed to set up a “vaccine passport” in relation to international travel (International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005))
At present the World Health Organization does not recommend vaccine passports for international travel, but they are working on a standard Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specification and standards to allow for harmonised processes to include COVID-19 vaccines into an updated version of the IHR (2005)
Countries around the world are beginning to put vaccine passports into place for international travel, as well as in some countries within country travel and access to services or businesses including Israel, France, Italy, Denmark, and the EU
The Canadian Federal government is supportive of a vaccine passport for international travel but recognize the issuing of vaccine passports will need to be province led
As of May 13, 2021, the province of Quebec has begun issuing a downloadable QR code that individual can keep on their smart phone.
As of June 9, 2021, the Federal government of Canada discussed easing restrictions for fully vaccinated Canadian citizens returning to the country
Ethical considerations in the use of vaccine passports include equitable access to vaccination (domestically and internationally), access to technology (eg. Smartphone passports), marginalization, or stigmatization especially among historically racialized groups, and socially isolated populations
Legal considerations include o Clarifying who has the legal authority to require proof of vaccination, o Ensuring that if new legislation is created and implemented it is in line with all pre-existing legislation (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Human Rights Codes, privacy legislation, employment legislation), o Ensuring that, if created by the government, there is coordination of the Provincial and Federal governments for international travel with respect to jurisdictional overlap, security of information, fraud
Health care facilities should be able to legally enact vaccination policies for patient-facing employees so long as they allow for exemptions due to medical inability or bona fide religious, or conscientious beliefs
Six in ten Canadians (61%) expect vaccine passports to be widely used in Canada by the end of 2021, the same proportion (61%) of Canadians also agreed that only vaccinated people should be allowed to engage in events involving larger crowds such as public transit, air travel, or attending cultural and sports events
Category
Administration
Subject
Ethics
Decision Making
Vaccination
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Lashta E, von Tigerstrom B, Reeder B, Groot G; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the ethical/legal aspects of vaccine requirements? 2021 Jun 21, Document no.: EOC210503 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 25 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
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
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
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
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC070901 RR
Question Submitted
July 9, 2020
Date Completed
August 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC070901 RR
Question Submitted
July 9, 2020
Date Completed
August 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
A number of jurisdictions have re-opened schools successfully without a spike in COVID-19 cases, eg. Japan, Germany, France, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Norway
Most school plans indicate that staff/students/visitors who are sick or have had exposure to COVID-19 in the past 14 days should not attend school, and those that become symptomatic at school should be isolated and removed from the premises as soon as possible, with thorough cleaning thereafter
In Alberta, if two or more members of a cohort are found to be COVID-19 positive, schools should follow the outbreak procedures which are under review until September
In Nova Scotia, one confirmed case of COVID-19 in a school would be considered an outbreak
In Germany, classmates and teachers of an infected student are sent home for two weeks but other classes continue
Taiwan (based on the H1N1 response) suspends the class which had a confirmed case identified, for 14 days. With two or more cases the whole school must close. When 1/3 of the schools in a district are closed, all schools in the district must close.
In Israel, schools closed after a single case was identified , and following mass outbreaks in schools at least 355 schools had closed with over 2,026 students and staff testing positive and over 28,000 students in quarantine due to possible exposure
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Reopening
Closures
Schools
Public Health
Decision Making
Clinical Setting
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 5 completed within 2 weeks
Cite As
Badea, A; Muhajarine, N; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What is the evidence and rationale describing the key public health principles to consider for school re-openings and precautions regarding school closures during COVID-19? 2020 Aug 17; Document no.: EOC070901 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 22 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

8 records – page 1 of 1.