Abstract
Introduction Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are a crucial suite of measures to prevent and control infectious disease outbreaks. They are particularly important for crisis-affected populations that typically reside in settings characterised by overcrowding, inadequate access to healthcare and resource limitations. To describe the landscape of research and identify evidence gaps concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs among crisis-affected populations and informal settings, we conducted a systematic scoping review of the published evidence.
Methods We systematically reviewed peer-reviewed articles published between 1970 and 2020 to collate available evidence on the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of NPIs in crisis-affected populations and informal settlements. We performed quality assessments of each study using a standardised questionnaire.
Results Our review included 158 studies published in 85 peer-reviewed articles. Most research used low quality study designs. The acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs was highly context dependent. In general, simple and cost-effective interventions such as community-level environmental cleaning and provision of water, sanitation and hygiene services, and distribution of items for personal protection such as insecticide-treated nets, were both highly feasible and acceptable. Logistical, financial, and human resource constraints affected both the implementation and sustainability of measures. Community engagement emerged as a strong factor contributing to the effectiveness of NPIs. Conversely, measures that involve potential restriction on personal liberty such as case isolation were found to be less acceptable to the community.
Conclusion Overall, the evidence base was patchy, with substantial knowledge gaps between differing between settings and pathogens. Although implementation of NPIs presents unique practical challenges, it is critical that the lessons learned are shared with the wider community to build a robust evidence base.
What is already known?
- NPIs are a crucial suite of tools for the prevention and control of infectious diseases, either as a complement to, or in the absence of, effective pharmaceutical interventions (i.e., therapeutics and vaccination).
- Despite being disproportionately vulnerable, crisis-affected populations and those living in informal settlements are often neglected by research and guidance. NPIs are, however, vital and adaptation is necessary within these settings due to poor living conditions and resource limitations that intensify disease transmission risk.
What are the new findings?
- We conducted a scoping review to produce a landscape analysis of the existing evidence concerning NPIs within crisis-affected settings and informal settlements.
- The existing evidence is patchy, uneven, occasionally contradictory, and of generally low quality, but building over time.
- Although limited, some findings are generalisable across settings, populations and NPIs.
What do the new findings imply?
- There is a need for greater investments in research to strengthen the guidance and policies on NPIs in these settings.
- In particular, upstream pilot feasibility and acceptability studies should be conducted prior to the widespread roll-out of interventions to ensure they are feasible, acceptable, and ultimately effective for the target populations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
SB, KF, AH, JS and IJS acknowledge funding from the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease 514 Analysis (reference MR/R015600/1), jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council 515 (MRC) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), under the 516 MRC/FCDO Concordat agreement and is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported 517 by the European Union. SB acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust (219415). JS acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust (grant reference: 215163/Z/18/Z). IJS was supported by the QMEE CDT, funded by NERC grant number NE/P012345/1.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This systematic scoping review of existing published literature requires no specific ethical approval.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).
